And yes, I know the Peated Cask is part of their NAS Vintage Reserve Range, (which Glenrothes describes as, ‘Exceptional Vintages from different years, married together in perfect harmony”), but even so, it is still comparatively cheap with the Elder’s Reserve (which is at least 18yo) and the Minister’s Reserve (at least 21yo) both coming in at £108 a bottle.
And that’s without comparing it to any other distillery bottlings in the same vein (Macallan Rare Cask Black anyone? I think I saw that with an RRP of about $450 USD)
Assuming that price is not a typo, since I have seen it from multiple sources, then firstly I would like to congratulate Berry Bros on their sensible NAS pricing, even though we know it is actually from 1992 (says something about today’s whisky market when £45 is a sensible price for a bottle of NAS) And secondly, I suggest getting to your nearest M&S sharpish and picking up a bottle, before someone decides they could probably get away with charging an extra £100 a bottle for it!
I’ve not tried it yet, but at that price it’s got to be worth a punt! If only my nearest Marks & Spenser wasn’t 140 miles away…
Why is it ok for Macallan and Glenrothes (and maybe others) but not Compass Box?
Facebook today has been awash with the news that Compass Box has been instructed by the SWA not to detail the individual components of two of their new bottlings, ‘This is Not a Luxury Whisky’ and ‘Flaming Heart’ as it contravenes the EU Spirit Drinks Regulation No 110/2008 (and the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009) which say that you are only allowed to state the age of the youngest whisky component in the ‘description, presentation or labelling of a spirit drink, including advertising, promotion and images’.
Now funnily enough, my husband (who works at independent bottler, William Cadenhead) had been having a rant about these very regulations not that long ago (when I was writing my post about This is Not a Luxury Whisky in fact) and was wondering how Compass Box had got round them (although it now turns out they just ignored them). As Mark says, ‘I would love to put more information on the labels of our Cadenhead’s Creations, or any of our other blends, but I can’t unless all the whisky comes from the same year, which doesn’t happen very often. So as things stand I’m limited to just telling people the names of the distilleries in the blend. I think the regulations are ridonkulous (sometimes he makes up words! - ed.) and I can’t imagine any other food or drinks rulings that would encourage such a lack of transparency. I’m not saying you should have to give detailed information, but if you want to, and it is truthful, then it should be encouraged rather than be illegal. This rule stinks of Fifa! (I don’t do football so this reference is completely over my head - ed.)’
I totally agree with Mark here (which doesn’t happen that often!) - the rules are ridiculous. But, rules are rules (as I said before in my NAS post). For me, the interesting thing about this whole hoo-ha is the questions it raises;
Why the lack of transparency?
Firstly, the SWA are an industry body to protect the interests of the Scotch Whisky industry. Why is a lack of transparency in the industry’s best interests? Like Mark, I don’t think giving detailed information should be compulsory. For big, commercial blends it would be completely impractical and totally go against what they are all about - producing large volumes of a consistent product where the ingredients available to them may change but the flavour profile stays the same. But, and this is a big but, if producers do want to tell us exactly what is in their blend (or blended malt or single malt) then they should be allowed to do so.
Which brings me to the second question, who benefits from this lack of transparency? I don’t know. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the big boys think that if listing all the components is allowed then that would be a step towards it being encouraged and that may lead to it being compulsory. And I can understand why blenders wouldn’t want to have to publish their recipes every time they do a new batch. Not just from the point of view of not wanting their competitors to have that information, but also because it would be a logistical nightmare!
Who grassed them up?
Next question, ‘Who dobbed Compass Box in, and why?’ Was it just a clever marketing stunt by John Glaser? If so, it hats off to him as it has certainly generated plenty of publicity! The SWA though, said they were acting following a complaint by a member. As far as I can see Compass Box are not members of the SWA, although I could be wrong on that one. Why would another whisky company complain about someone truthfully stating exactly what is in their blend, especially when that company is quite a small, niche producer, and unlikely to impact on any of the big boys global sales? Again, I can only think of the reason above.
Why do the rules not apply to everyone?
Finally, do the rules apply to everyone equally or are they only enforced if someone tells tales? To me, it certainly doesn’t look like a level playing field. I know that Compass Box have been told to stop advertising the truth (sorry, components in their blend) and that Arran stopped listing the different cask ages that went into the Devils Punchbowl (not sure whether the SWA forced that or not though). However, a quick google search reveals other companies that are also in breach of the 2009 Scotch Whisky Regulations;
I’m not singling these two companies out for any malicious reasons, these were just the first examples that I found. I’m sure there are others. Why has the SWA not told them to change their ways? Is it just because nobody has dobbed them in? If you are going to enforce a ridiculous rule, then it should be enforced across the board, not just when someone complains.
Whisky Impressions is run by Kate Watt. Previously at Springbank and then Glenfarclas, I now design some whisky related stuff and write about it, and anything else that takes my fancy, on this blog.