The Age Matters Debate - Great Things Take Time

[William]

Quick fix culture is losing its lustre and even fast turnaround commodities can depend on time and experience to succeed. This was the conclusion reached at a prestigious 'The Age Matters Debate', led by award winning historian Bettany Hughes and cultural commentator Peter Aspden, at London's Victoria and Albert Museum

'The Age Matters Debate' took place to coincide with the unveiling of a new global education campaign from Chivas Brothers, 'Great Things Take Time' aimed at informing consumers about the true value of high aged Scotch whiskies.

Chivas Brothers aims to bridge this knowledge gap in a campaign entitled "Great Things Take Time' to help us understand the value of what we're buying.

More here:
www.scotchmaltwhisky.co.uk/agematters-greatthingstaketime.htm
_________________
There's no bad whisky. Just good whisky and better whisky.

[Brummie]

There are a few whisky companies taking advantage of the "Quick fix culture" by moving to no age statement whiskies to make a quick profit.

[chrisg]

Brummie, would you be referring to The Macallan by any chance.

[Big Mac]

[Fergie]

I have to say i am all for the Chivas Age Matters campaign, i wasnt at first as i thought it doesnt matter to taste as young whisky can be just as interesting and enjoyable as the more aged stuff but given the way whisky prices are going i would say it does matter very much to the price.

[Alexppp]

There seems to be a paradox here - the campaign shows that most buyers would be willing to pay a premium for older whiskies, and even associate age statements with quality.

Yet on the other hand Macallan are getting rid of age statements altogether and hiking the prices up, and experience an increase in profits at the same time.

[Quaich1]

[Archer]

[Alexppp]

Some good points there. Of course Chivas/Glenlivet also have profits as their top priority, it's just that Macallan seem disingenuous by comparison. As you said it will be interesting to see how their range will fare once they switch to no age statements in the domestic market. I'm sure the quality of the whisky is still excellent but I wouldn't pay unfair prices to find out.

[bifter]

My opinion of course but, although I agree in principle, age doesn't necessarily make a great whisky - a poor cask or spirit (or cut of spirit) or too much time in a cask can result in an expensive yet substandard product. Of the older whiskies I have tried (up to 40yo) some may even have suffered from the length of their time in the cask, particularly in relation to their price which of course increasingly (exponentially?) reflects the exclusivity more than the quality. Conversely amazing things can be achieved with very young spirit though I find this particularly to be the case with peated whisky (Ardbeg, Octomore, Longrow, etc), which might lead to some interesting, even controversial, conclusions. It is a skill indeed to identify whiskies when, all things considered, they are as good as they are going to get and perhaps this is truly what 'matters' rather than age itself?

As much as it pains me I might also concede that I don't have a particularly refined nose or palate though I have managed to improve both over the years and I intend to continue doing so. However, although certain elements, e.g. rancio, only emerge after many years I find that improvements in balance or integration beyond, say, 20 years become increasingly hard to discern. For me these whiskies are usually simply different rather than being 'better' though perhaps true connoisseurs would beg to differ. Or perhaps I haven't tried the right whiskies and I haven't had my epiphany just yet.
_________________
"Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw]

[Alexppp]