12 is the new 10

t's been quite a while since I had one of my Industry Round Table stories - where I throw out a question and see what some people in the industry think. And maybe, just maybe, if I can ask such a dumb question that no one responds.

For no particular reason I was thinking about the progression in age statements - that is, how 10 year old expressions seem to be less common and in some cases how 12 year old expressions are becoming a distillery's "entry point" - the flag-ship and youngest expression in the distillery fleet.

We all know that older isn't better.

We also know that older IS generally more expensive.

So I want to know - is there a reason why the 10 year olds are getting pushed out by their older brethren?

To look at this from another angle - are those companies that ARE replacing their 10 year old with a 12 year old expression doing so to open up a slot for a new price point with a younger (5 - 8) or even no-age statement whisky with a more attractive price and more mass market appeal?

INTERLUDE Boy, that sounds like exactly the kind of strategy some smart liquor producer might want to consider. Why? Because of this conversation I have all too often: Young Guy/Girl: So you write about Scotch? Kevin: Something like that . . . This is where I either hear "I tried it and hate it" - in which case the convo goes down a different path . . . or I hear this: YG/G: I tried it and liked it, but it is too expensive for me. K: Well you you know, the reason it's so expensive is because  <maturation time; quality; importation costs; blah, blah, blah> .  . . YG/G: Yeah that's great. It's still too expensive. And most of you (they/we?) have already vilified blends as "inferior" <JUST PART of the reason so many in the industry are up in arms over the term "Blended Malt">  to the point where blends can not successfully fulfill this role as the  entry level drug for Single malts. So we need some quality vatted malts  to fulfill this role.

THE ROUND TABLE

Ian Millar, Chief Ambassador, Glenfiddich

If you go back to the first real commercially bottled export out of Scotland in 1963 you will see that Glenfiddich kicked it off with an 8 year old . . . and for many years this was the norm.

We then saw various companies producing 10 year old bottlings and this had the effect of pulling every other producer into line. At the moment 12 would be the norm as an entry level whisky but I see huge growth in our 15, one of the fastest growing whiskies in the world right now.

Partly due to a slightly 'one-up-manship attitude' amongst our consumers and partly down to value for money quality. I think that perhaps in five or six years we will see some 15 year olds selling similar volumes as 12.

With growth in individual wealth and any appreciation for the better things in life the older whiskies will come under increasing demand, our consumers are becoming more demanding, more informed trading up in their choice of Single Malt.

---

Anthony Burnett, Former Chief Ambassador, Glenmorangie

First of all I have to say that, given the plethora of ten and twelve year old single malts which have long been around, I am not sure that the premise is supportable to begin with.

The point, I would submit, is that there is no logic in anyone arguing that 12 is the new 10, as they are both perfectly valid ages and each age suits different malts in it's own distinctive way.

Glenmorangie's core expression, for example, has long been a ten year old, and if ever there were a move to take it to 12, I would take the view that it would be nothing more than a marketing ploy of some sort.

I very much doubt that longstanding ten year olds would necessarily be any better if they were aged for two more years (and they could be inferior).

Allowing for the fact that I have retired and thus am not working for Glenmorangie, I still have a firm opinion on this question. Glenmorangie's core ten year old is superb at that age, and there is a view among more than a few folk within the company that this product is in peak condition at ten, i.e. ageing to 12 would not improve it and to some would even lose some of it's character with an extra two years in the wood.

I suspect that there are no major differences between anyone's 10 and 12 year olds IF we restrict this opinion to 10 and 12 year olds which have both been aged in the same wood throughout their lives.

Obviously the Glenmorangie extra matured range (previously known as the Wood Finish range) which is over 10, is very different from the core 10y.o., but then that is the result of the use of the different finishing woods' influences.

I very much doubt that the tendency on the part of some producers to go for older whiskies will reach the point at which entry point will become prohibitive in terms of price; I don't believe that any serious distiller would paint himself or herself into a corner in this manner.

---

John Glaser, Compass Box

I can’t speak for every company’s decision making, because I won’t know the details of the stock situations.  But it is clear in this industry that these decisions are often said to be driven by “the consumer”, but actually they are made because companies are too afraid to challenge the status quo.

Anytime you are competing by an age statement rather than a statement of quality and/or whisky style, you’re on the back foot.  And you’re reinforcing in consumers’ minds the false premise that older = better.

I wish more companies simply used higher quality oak casks, then we’d all have whiskies at 8 or 10 years that are the quality equivalent of other companies’ 12 year-olds…or older!

---

Dominic Roskrow, Whisky Writer

I have a theory that the whisky makers have got themselves trapped in a price discounting spiral - certainly in the UK. With barley in short supply (and going up in price) and the cost of barrels escalating, the price of malt really needs to go up. But how do you tell a consumer that has got used to paying £15 for malt that they should be paying £25?

A slightly older expression can be sold in to them at a higher price and . . .  I don't know . . . but I would imagine the marginal cost of producing a 12 year old bottle isn't much higher than making a 10.

Incidentally the worrisome part of this discounting is that it could well lead to the removal of some key malts from British shelves. Whisky is in demand across the world - driven by the BRIC (ed. Brazil, Russia, India & China) nations - if you have a limited amount of product to sell and are faced with either selling in the UK, where you have to discount (or risk losing sales by raising prices) or going to another country where they will pay a premium - which would you choose?

---

Mark Reynier, Bruichladdich

Because we have no f’ing 10 year old whisky.

---

Jason Craig, Highland Park

I think it is happening because a straight out price increases is notoriously hard to get away. if you change the product it is easier.

Also many brands are striving to introduce unaged products, if the entry price of 12yo is higher then the unaged product will appear a better option and more affordable.

Highland Park has a 12yo as its youngest expression already. We have been a 12yo for over 20 years and it is down to balance and flavour being achieved later than 10yo.

Standard for minimum age is set by spirit quality firstly, then market landscape of competition in specific markets.

Yes there is a noticeable difference between our 10 and 12yo, most distillers would say the same but for us the balance really arrives at 12yo.

---

Peter Currie, Springbank

We feel that the age we bottle our whiskies at depends on a large number of variables. Peating levels, distillation method, size and type of the casks and price to name a few.

We produce 4 different single malts, from 2 different distilleries. Springbank 10 year old (60% bourbon cask/40% sherry cask) is bottled at this age as we felt this struck the right balance between maturation and price. The smaller bourbon casks provide the balance, whilst the larger sherry casks provide the body. If we were to bottle any older than 10 years old, by the time the bottle reached the shelf in America, it would be well over $60 per bottle.

With Longrow, we want to maximise the smokey character, and again 10 years old(60% bourbon cask/40% sherry cask) is the optimum age. The extra 4 years maturation for the Longrow 14 year old(80% sherry/20% bourbon) subdues the smokey character, whilst increasing complexity. If anything we could bottle Longrow at an even younger age, however many countries refuse to buy whiskies younger than 10 years old, as we have found with Hazelburn.

After his time at Bushmills, Frank felt that the lighter spirit produced by triple distilling allowed us to bottle Hazelburn as an 8 year old, and whilst we have had an excellent response to this product, there are some countries that have not imported any as they feel that the anything under 10 years old is inferior. Their loss!

Kilkerran, from the Mitchell's Glengyle Distillery will be initially released as a limited edition 8 year old, however the standard Kilkerran will be bottled as a 12 year old. Frank felt that the larger stills  in the Mitchell's Glengyle Distillery, coupled with the double distilled spirit meant that 12 year old would give the complexity and balance that we are looking for from Kilkerran Single Malt.

---

Ronnie Cox, The Glenrothes

The move to 12 yo is something that may be more of an American trend. In other countries such as Germany many non-age expressions seem to be appearing. Attributes other than age become more important such as natural colour, non-chill-filtered, heavily peated, heavy Sherry, super dark, etc.

Your observation may be a Marketing-led issue. 12 yo is a benchmark but an increasingly odd one.

Let me explain:

In years gone by, 12 yo became a benchmark for Single Malts most of which, with a good wood policy, would be considered, mature.

Today the understanding of the interaction between spirit and wood is very considerably advanced from 30 years ago.

The result is that we can advance maturation through careful wood and cask selection, if we want.

It seems to me odd in view of this understanding, that the industry would increase rather than reduce the age.

We would expect this with a glut of Malt Whisky but we all know that this is not the case.

As you know at The Glenrothes we've always promoted maturity over age.

The Vintage concept was born from the understanding that maturity is not always expressed by age.

Age still plays a strong part in the marketing of brands today but it becomes less of a factor for those in the ken.

I would be surprised of if this apparent trend to 12 yo Single Malt continues.

Comments

[James Campbel Andrew]

I'd quite like to see Laphroaig release an 8yo. The 10yo is lovely but it still slightly feels like it's had some teeth pulled.

Mind you, Quarter Cask is still a fabulous dram.

[ryan]

Kevin, great article, quite interesting to hear so many views on a trend that has been so obvious.

Personally I shared Ian Millar's opinion: A consumer new to whisky goes to a store to buy a bottle of whisky, and has a choice between widely known brand like glenlivet 12yr, and any other less known similarly priced single malt.

With the less than stellar help in the whisky section that seems the norm at most retail establishments I have been to, the consumer is left with a few recommended names, their pre-existing knowlege (assumed minimal), and the packaging. A new consumer must have a reason to buy a bottle of a brand they have never heard of, and if a clerk can't give a solid description of the whisky, why would a consumer buy something they are unfamiliar with at a similar price and less age than a whisky everyone knows like glenlivet 12yr.

Or more briefly put, 11 is louder than 10.

[Alan Greenland]

A most excellent thread! I love this kind of "inside baseball" discussion.

For my part (&FWIW), the more I know about whisky, the less I care about the age statements. Nevertheless, it's clear that there is an "older must be better" attitude among the average consumers here in the states.

I believe that over time more consumers here will become better educated, and that the demand will be for quality, not age.

For my money, I've found some excellent "no age statement" bottles. Bowmore Legend and Glenrothes Select Reserve come to mind (maybe because they're sitting on my shelf right now). (BTW, I'm surprised the Glenrothes rep. didn't mention their Select Reserve product.)

I'd like to hear a more, um, detailed response from the Bruichladdich representative. (You certainly had some f'ing 10 year old a few years ago -- there's a picture of a bottle in Wishart's "Whiskey Classified". But now the 12 is the youngest. Why's that? Do the "3D" varieties carry an age statement? Seems to me that a peatier malt doesn't really need to age so long. But what do I know; I just drink the stuff.)

Thanks, Kevin, for the blog and for this very interesting post.

-- Alan

[Kevin Erskine]

Hi Alan!
I can speak for Mark re: Bruichladdich.
Bruichladdich was closed for a number of years (1995-2000) - so there was no production dtring that time period. It wasn't until 2001 when the distillery was purchased by the new owners and refurbished that new spirit was produced.

So since no stock was produced from 1995- 2000, there will be a gap until the spirit produced in 2001 matures.

3d does NOT have an age statement as the strongly peated components are of various ages including the Port Charlotte which was produced starting in 2001 and the Octomore.

[Japanese whisky]

Great post. Once you said it, it seemed a obvious question but it had never occurred to me.

[Alan Greenland]

Thanks for the reply, Kevin. Obviously I did not know about Bruichladdich's recent history. So, once again, I learned something new -- which is why I enjoy reading this blog.

I wonder whether they intend to bottle a 10 year old when the time comes, or whether they'll hold out for a 12? But I suppose all distilleries hold their product/marketing plans pretty close to the vest.

Haven't had my first Laddie yet, but it's definitely on my list. So many whiskies, so little time. (Or is it money?)

-- Alan

[Gordon Homer]

Happy New Year Kevin ! Nice Article .
Two things made me laugh though....
1) Mark cutting thru the Cr*p and getting straight to the point as usual !
2) That crazy little thing called BRIC appearing in an article about sales again .

I know more than anyone through my friends in the industry that sooner rather than later the prices are going to rise , they have to , to cover the rising costs , fuel oil nearly doubling , Malted Barley not that far behind , casks shooting up , not to mention wages.......
But this BRIC argument is starting to wear a bit thin imho , fair enough the supplies will be stretched but what will happen when the likes of the UK has been deprived of it's malt and the BRIC countries have moved onto the next little fad they can spend their money on ? Will the Brits except the one's back who have done a runner to chase the wealth ? Or will we return to the early 80's / 90's and Distillery closures ?
I won't be holding my breathe to see.....
Sorry about the waffle Kev , just gets me so annoyed when that four letters appear in an article