Not a member? - Register and login now.
All registered users can read our entire magazine archive.

Slow aging Auchentoshan!!!!!

General chat and talk about whisky.

Slow aging Auchentoshan!!!!!

Postby malthead » Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:54 pm

Can someone please explain to me why Auchentoshan are launching a new 1965 - 40 year old bottling? Surely if it is a new bottling from 1965 it should be at least 41 year old if not 42?

Are there other bottlings like this? Is this because they feel 40yo can command more money than a 41 or a 42 year old?

Pete
malthead
New member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:10 pm

Postby lambda » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:12 pm

It reminds me of the ardbeg 1965. This one was in fact taken out of the casks in 2005, while appearing late 2006 on the market. A reason could be that they `marry' the casks for a while in a steel container, resulting in a whisky which carries a 40yo label rather than 41yo label. If that is the case for this particular bottle, I do not know.
lambda
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby vitara7 » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:12 pm

maybe they feel 40 is a more round number.

glenmorangie done the same thing with one of the 30yos they released a year or two back, it was actually 32yo, but sold it as a 30yo

if i remember rightly, balblair done a simaler thing with the 33yos they done, the first edition it was 33yo, the second, much more limited release was the reminents of the cask/casks, although more aged, sold again as a 33yo.

its prob all marketing.
vitara7
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:54 am
Location: central scotland

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:15 pm

I think at that age, they tend to round the numbers. Since a statement of 40 means at least 40, you can take it as "40 or so".

The only 42yo I've ever heard of was the legendary MacAskill that Gordon offered Mac in Local Hero.

(Of course, there's the 62yo Dalmore, but I think that's the exception that proves the rule.)
Deactivated Member
 

Postby lambda » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:23 pm

Though auchentoshan has had a 1962 41yo before.. maybe they hired 'better' marketing people.
lambda
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:59 pm

Or maybe the new ones can't count past forty!
Deactivated Member
 

Re: Slow aging Auchentoshan!!!!!

Postby Aidan » Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:42 pm

malthead wrote:Can someone please explain to me why Auchentoshan are launching a new 1965 - 40 year old bottling? Surely if it is a new bottling from 1965 it should be at least 41 year old if not 42?

Are there other bottlings like this? Is this because they feel 40yo can command more money than a 41 or a 42 year old?

Pete


Maybe they took it out of the cask at 40 yrs and have been wondering what to do with it.

They still release Knappogue Castle 1951 every year, at 36 yrs old.
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin

Postby shoganai » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:04 am

I'm with Mr. T on this one. Once you get up to 30 or 40 years, what's another year mean? When you're talking about 10 vs 12, there's a significant difference; about 20% more time in a cask! But does a whole lot happen in that 41st year?
shoganai
Silver Member
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:25 am
Location: Philadelphia, USA

Postby Deactivated Member » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:13 am

There is the possibility that it was taken out of the cask at 40yo, and held in a more secure vessel for a while; I've heard of such. It might have been getting very close to 40% (what is it bottled at?), and may be a vatting of several barrels (or do we know it's a single cask?). Sometimes these are left to "marry" for some time. Is it actually vintage dated 1965? If not, there might be, say, a 1967 cask involved, too, with enough alcohol content to bring up that 1965 cask that was accidentally allowed to drop to 39.8% before being secured; they may have been waiting for that one to hit 40yo. All pure speculation--I think rounding is the most likely answer, with someone deciding that a nice fat 40 looked better on the label than 41 or 42.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby vitara7 » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:31 am

maybe there trying to cut into the G+M birthday malt market. as it 40 is a milestone that someones wife etc would want to go out an buy a 40yo whisky to celebrate, so maybe there trying to catch this market with the product, somthing that G+M have been doing for years.

theres less chance of having a 41yo bottles of whisky for your 41st birthday than the 40 one now isnt there.
vitara7
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:54 am
Location: central scotland

Postby Deactivated Member » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:45 am

Ah, but then they'd have the entire 41st birthday market to themselves!
Deactivated Member
 

Postby vitara7 » Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:15 am

MrTattieHeid wrote:Ah, but then they'd have the entire 41st birthday market to themselves!


but whos lucky enough to get a 41yo bottle of whisky on their 41st? 30 40 50 maybe, but the rest are "big" enough events to warrent it i dont think.
vitara7
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:54 am
Location: central scotland

Return to Whisky Chat

Whisky gift and present finder