...where distraction is the main attraction.

Monday, January 12, 2015

What Was the Scotch Whisky Boom? Part 3: Plateau and Decline

The seed for this series was planted in October 2013, back in the days when I read Shanken News Daily's site every day.  On October 9, 2013, they posted an article entitled, "Single Malt Scotch Volumes Continue To Soar Even As Retail Prices Surge".  It was twice as long as their usual articles and threw around lots of numbers about single malt prices (though they never cited their source).  But it was the chart at the bottom of the article that blew my whisky mind.  I encourage you to check it out, as long as Shanken doesn't put it behind a paywall.

It's a very small chart, "USA – Top Four Single-Malt Scotch Whisky Brands", but is dense with important information.  It shows actual nine-liter case unit sales numbers for the industry as well as the top four brands.  You'll note the bottom line, which shows a total volume increase of 7%.  That sounds like a good amount, right?  75,000 more cases of single malt were sold in the US in 2012 than was sold in 2011.  But here's the thing, 73,000 of the 75,000 cases worth of growth came from only four brands.  That's right, 97% of the growth was due to Glenlivet, Macallan, Glenfiddich, and Glenmorangie.  All other brands put together accounted for less than 3% of the growth, or only 2 thousand more cases nationwide in an entire year.  That's......not a boom.  Hell, that's stagnation for all but four companies.  In fact, Glenlivet and Glenmorangie accounted for more than 2/3s of all the US single malt growth that year.  And 2012 was right in the center of the boom times we were being told about.

Whatever growth that was happening was not balanced throughout the industry and probably never had been.  I had looked at an SWA report once upon a time but after seeing this chart I went back and downloaded all of them.  The following week, I met up with Tim Read (Mr. Scotch and Ice Cream) for lunch.  We both agreed that the boom was either exaggerated or a total fib.  The data was there for the public to see and whisky "journalists" to detail.  But the myth was printed and the readers consumed it.



First, I'll recap the actual growth that happened to the Scotch whisky industry, the sort of data that support a Pro-Boom Narrative.  (All of the data referenced below came from the Scotch Whisky Association's annual reports.  There's more info and visuals about all of these items in Part 1 of this series.)

1.) Export value.  Starting in 2007 and ending in 2012, Scotch whisky exports grew at a healthy rate:

2007 - +14.0%
2008 - +8.2%
2009 - +2.5%
2010 - +10.0%
2011 - +22.6%
2012 - +1.1%

By 2012, whisky exports' value was 72.4% higher than it was in 2006.

2.) Export volume.  Between 2004 and 2011 export volume grew 32.1%.  In 2011 alone, the increase was 19.0%.  You'll note that I didn't reference the 2007-2012 timeframe mentioned above.  I'll come back to that period's volume soon enough.

3.) Export price per liter. By 2012, the price per liter of export Scotch whisky had grown 44.3% from its 2007 amount.  Though inflation drove much of the increase in price of whisky in previous years, between 2007 and 2012 the UK's inflation was only 17%.

4.) Malt whisky. Between 2008 and 2011, malt whisky exports had climbed 72.3%  In 2010 alone, it had jumped over 50%.  And by 2013, the value of malt whisky exports had risen 78.4% since 2008.  As a portion of the entirety of Scotch whisky exports' value, malt whisky rose from 17% to 22% in that time period.  Meanwhile, existing malt whisky stocks older than 10 years were being emptied at an ever increasing rate.  In 2008, 12.9% of those stocks were emptied.  In 2009 it jumped to 19.8%.  In 2013 it was 22.65%.  Meanwhile malt production increased to meet future demand, going from 168M liters in 2006 to 275M liters in 2013.

5.) Whisky exports to the United States. By 2013, the value of whisky exports to the US were 120.4% greater than they were in 2008.  In 2011, the volume of whisky exports to the US were 21.4% greater than they were in 2008.  You'll see again that I changed the years referenced when comparing volume and value.  There must be a reason for this...



Now I'm going to dig deeper into items 1 through 5 in order to deconstruct the Pro-Boom Narrative and to demonstrate that if this Boom Time ever existed, it certainly has since passed by.

1.) Export value.  I'm going to add a number to the list of value gains from above:

2007 - +14.0%
2008 - +8.2%
2009 - +2.5%
2010 - +10.0%
2011 - +22.6%
2012 - +1.1%
2013 - -0.3%

It can't be denied that there was serious value growth occurring up until 2011.  But in 2012 that ascent was slowed drastically creating a potential plateau and in 2013 it was further confirmed.  Here's a graph from Part 1:


Here are the comparative data, using 2007 as a start date:


That red plateau equals about 0.8% growth spread out over two years, including an actual loss in 2013.

And it has gotten worse.  This past September, the SWA announced that export value in the first half of 2014 had dropped 11% compared to the first half of 2013.  They blame the loss entirely on “economic headwinds and uncertainty” and Chinese government austerity measures.  While the former is a term vague enough to mean anything, the latter is responsible for only a small fraction of the total decline.  China wasn't even amongst the top 20 export markets in 2013.  What was more important and what should have been noted was the fact that there were value drops in 8 out of the top 10 largest 2013 markets.  So not only is the value boom over, but when the final 2014 numbers are released that red line is going to drop to a point closer to 2010's level than 2011's.

2.) Export volume.  When I was referencing the export volume gains in my little pro-boom section above, I did not reference the 2007-2012 timeframe.  Here's why:

(Same chart as before. But note the blue line this time.)
During the big boost in value (arguably the Boom years), volume only had one year of significant growth.  It declined in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012.  In 2013 it nudged up all of 2.5 percent.  Using the "Scotch Whisky Export tables first half of 2014" report from the SWA, I did some manual math and found the top 20 export markets cumulatively dropped another 0.8% in volume during the first six months of 2014.  So though 2014's year-end volume slide won't be as drastic as the value's, any decline will mean that there were drops in five out of the last seven years.

3.) Export price per liter. I didn't mention 2013 when demonstrating the price/liter growth above and by looking at the "Growth in Scotch Whisky Exports since 2007" graph, you'll see why.  The price per liter actually dropped almost 3% in 2013.  And judging by the difference in value and volume drops, 2014's price per liter will decline again.

4.) Malt whisky.  While the value of malt whisky exports continued to climb in 2013, volume did not.  In 2012, volume dropped 2.4%.  In 2013, volume dropped a further 4.2%.  Likewise, as malt whisky's portion of whisky export's value rose in 2013, its portion of overall volume dropped.  Here are two little graphs to demonstrate these points:


5.) Whisky exports to the United States.  Here's another graph from Part 1:


While the value of US exports rose like a rocket from 2008 to 2013, the exported volume did not.  It dropped in 2009, 2012, and 2013.  There was growth only in 2010 and 2011.  Admittedly, the 2012 and 2013 decreases were smallish (1.9% and 0.2%).  But according to SWA's "Scotch Whisky Export tables first half of 2014" document, the first half of 2014's volume was 12% lower than the first half of 2013's.  That's not smallish.  IF that percentage holds up, then that would send US volume levels below their 2010 total.

And it gets worse, again.  With the SWA and its major members blaming the Chinese goverment's austerity measures as often as possible, they have until recently avoided alluding to the elephant in the room: us, the US, the largest market, the golden boy of Scotch whisky value growth (120% in five years) is no longer growing.  We're shrinking.  Our 16% value downturn in the first half of 2014 (compared to the first half of 2013), £64m, makes up nearly a third of Scotch whisky's entire export drop.



Taking these financial elements into consideration, I think it's fair to say that Scotch whisky sales are on the decline and some of its major elements have been weakening for more than two years.  Since it's patently untrue that Scotch sales are still strengthening, I would be curious to see how the industry adjusts in order to rebound, if it can.

Diageo is taking a full step back from their well-publicized £l,000,000,000 distillery expansion plans.  They were going to expand Glen Ord, Clynelish, Mortlach, Teaninich, and build a new distillery.  Adding together the figures from all of their press releases, my calculator never found more than a quarter of that announced billion pounds, so I assumed the big number was there to excite investors.  But the important part was that the largest Scotch whisky company saw a bright future for whisky and was willing to invest in it.  Yet those sunny skies clouded over once their quarterly reports started to sag.  But it takes more than a 1.5% quarterly decline to stop a billion pound facelift.  So either Diageo's bean counters know something the rest of us don't or they're more worried about the industry's numbers than I am.  Whatever they know, they're not sharing it with Pernod Ricard who is planning to triple Glenlivet distillery's size just as the biggest market (US) has had an industry-wide volume decline for the past three years.  I suppose they get points for optimism.

Meanwhile, though the Scotch Whisky Association's CEO more or less admits to the real decline in sales, he's either trying to force an optimistic message or is tone deaf when it comes to the "why".  In the linked Spirits Business interview he says “To be honest we’re not totally sure why,” and “To be equally honest we’re not really worried because the fundamental drivers seem so strong. The attractiveness of the category in recent years, the strong interest in malts, the premiumisation in the US – none of that seems to have changed."  Okay.  That's one way to look at things.

Here's another way to observe the situation.  In previous years, with the big increases in value and the moderate gains (or losses) in volume, customers were increasingly spending more on individual bottles.  But in the first half 2014, with the steep declines in value and smaller declines in volume, customers appear to be spending less on the fewer whiskies they are buying.  Have single malts (pricier than blends) lost ground?  Export volume results say so.  Have drinkers been buying blends instead, keeping their expenditures down?  We'll find out sooner than later.  Either way, "premiumisation" in the US (and elsewhere) took a hit during the first half of 2014.  And "attractiveness of the category in recent years" isn't a strong enough fundamental to lean on, especially since volume sales (again) not only never really exploded, and may have even declined for the last three years.

When the price per liter jumps 44% (and higher in their biggest market) in six years shouldn't the Scotch Whisky Association and its members have anticipated real market factors eventually countering their annual gains?  Or with drops in export volume potentially registering in five out of the last seven years, was further "premiumisation" the only tool in their toolbox?  Boost the marketing, product-place with television shows and celebrities, sell the glamour in the brand......and raise the price, countering the drop in unit sales.  How long will that work?  The Value Plateau of 2012-2013 and the first half of 2014's rocky report wouldn't give me the confidence that everything is "strong".

The Boom is over.  Prices are high, but demand has muted.  The Scotch whisky industry could be at a major turning point.  Though I have been cynical about their approaches thus far, I am looking forward to what happens next.  Will the NAS masquerade expand, cheap artificially-flavored whiskies grow in number, and aged single malts get pricier?  Or will consumers' palates and pocketbooks be better valued?  Or will the response be mixed among individual producers?

Where do we whisky consumers go from here?  We'll each have our own personal response: running after each new shiny bottle or being happier with less or ending the chase altogether.  We all have different financial and social circumstances motivating our relationship with our purchases.  The only approach I recommend is to be informed about one's buying decisions and seek out opinions independent from the industry.  Happy 2015 everyone!  It's going to be one hell of a year.

Thursday, January 8, 2015

What Was the Scotch Whisky Boom? Part 2: Single Malt Prices in the US between 2007 and 2015

On Tuesday, I took a look at where the aggressive growth was happening during the Scotch Boom.  While volume was indeed up, it had really only grown 20% over 30 years.  But during the same period, export value grew 470%.  Exports were the engine behind the growth since UK consumption had fallen drastically.  Aged malt stocks were declining at a decent clip, but malt production increased once those older stocks started getting bottled at a faster pace.  As a percentage of exports, single malts were growing rapidly and exports to the United States were also burgeoning, especially when considering sale value.

I was probably a little nuts to go as far back as 1980, and should have focused more on the boom time.  2007 was a major lift off year as the annual volume shot past 300 million liters and value jumped 14%.  Between 2007 and 2013, export volume was up 8%, while value was up 51%.  Again, note where the real growth is happening: £££.  Between 2008 and 2013, Scotch's largest export market, the United States, had a 19% growth in volume and a 120% growth in value.

With growing single malt sales driving growth and the US market zooming along, I'm going to take a look at single malt prices in the US between the years of 2007 and 2015.



Background on the data:
I am using Wine Searcher's Average Wine Price system, selecting only US retailers.  Their site has an explanation behind how they arrive at averages.  To summarize, they do not include auctions; all prices are adjusted to 750mL bottles; they remove the highest and lowest 20% prices in order to correct for pricing errors or egregious retailer choices.  Aside from the ability to scroll through pricing history, Wine Searcher's big draw for data purposes is their retailer count.  For instance, if you search for Johnnie Walker Black Label they'll actually stop their listings at 500 retailers.  Their system has over 350 retailers selling Talisker 10.  So they are pulling from a very large data set.  And, anecdotally, their site has proven very reliable and accurate in my searches for beers, wines, whiskies, brandies, etc.  But please note, this is not an advertisement for Wine Searcher.  Their Average Wine Price history requires a paid subscription and I've been known to mooch off of other people's accounts from time to time.

I have also only included single malts for which Wine Searcher has a full history starting in January 2007.  So you will not find a number of well known whiskies in my chart.  Some of our faves didn't hit the market or the system's history doesn't have enough data until 2008 or later.  Distilleries like Bruichladdich are not represented at all because they haven't had a single expression that stayed on the market for these eight years.  Also, I've noted when questionable data pops up in the "Notes" column to the right of the "Total Increase" column.

I encourage you to check out my shared Google Doc at this link.  I'm not sure what you see on a "shared" doc, but I hope it'll let you sort or filter.  There's a lot of info to be seen and it's probably more useful than the rest of this post, so enjoy!



Because I'm looking at these prices from the point of view of the whisky drinker, I considered his or her financial reality when color coding the price increases.  The National Average Wage Index went up 11% between 2007 and 2013.  Between 2007 and 2014, the US's Consumer Price Index rose 14%.  Using those numbers, I got to 15% as a midpoint between the rise in wages and inflation over the expanded eight years.

No whisky producer is going to 15% on the nose so I gave them some wiggle room and assigned the green color a range of 10-20%.  Light blue notates a 0-10% rise. Any whisky that went down in price since 2007 gets a cool dark blue.  On the other side of things, a whisky that went up between 20.1% and 50% gets pinked.  50.1% to 100% gets a darker pink/red.  And a whisky that had an increase of over 100% (yes, there are some) gets a fire truck red.

Now, I was going to just share the list with you and say, "Have fun!", and leave it at that.  I quite seriously have commentary on every single one of the listed whiskies.  But since we have only so many hours on this planet, I'll limit my observations.



Charts!

Please note, these charts are not as solid as Tuesday's, since every whisky is weighted the same here.  If the sales counts were available for each one, I'd be happy to weigh them thusly.  So I wouldn't recommend leaning too heavily on these visuals.

BY AGE GROUP

Note: the stacked graph totals in the first chart do not match the final totals in the second chart exactly since each year's increase gets compounded.


These two are my favorite graphs from this post, as they're less unbalanced than the others below.

The charts reveal both the most obvious shift in pricing and the seizing of the luxury market.  Almost without exception, old malts' prices skyrocketed.  Perhaps it was due to scarcity or it was the realization by marketing units that Old Whisky could be the next Old Cognac or Old Bordeaux.  There was an ultra-luxury market to be tapped.  And tapped it was.

Meanwhile, starter (younger and cheaper) malts increased somewhere around the CPI inflation range.  As whiskies increased in age, so does the rate at which their prices grew.  This all fits a narrative creepily well.  I was relieved to see the non-age statement whiskies remain conservative, but then again the real NAS crop has only been on the market a couple of years.  It's also cute how Glenlivet 12 and Glenfiddich 12 dance instep perfectly like an old couple, at 25.71%.

BY OWNERSHIP

Note: As noted above these charts are occasionally comparing apples to oranges. Glenfiddich 12 should not carry the same weight at Glenfiddich 40 due to the massive difference in units sold.  These charts are only meant as a brief summary.  The spreadsheet has the good stuff.  Also, for these two graphs I've removed the owners who had only one whisky in the spreadsheet.



Well, this sadly proves what we all knew well.  The Edrington Group is at the forefront of price hikes, from Macallan to Highland Park.  They take it sort of easy with their 12 year olds, but then it gets gory.  The pricing on the Mac 18 and HP 18 have led even the uninquistive to wonder what the heck is going on.

Meanwhile, for all of my griping about Diageo's price increases, they're not as terrible as other better loved companies'.  Their Classic Malts' pricing increases average in the high-20s while the Distillers Editions are in the low teens.  Frankly, it's only Talisker whom they decided was vastly underpriced and did so after 2011.  In the stacked graph above, that big red bar over Diageo's name is entirely fueled by Talisker's price hikes.

The Springbank folks have barely moved their prices.  And, surprisingly, the same goes for the LVMH whiskies.  No one should be shocked if one of those two companies start raising their prices soon.  The other surprise is William Grant standing at number 2.  Their 12s had light red boosts, but all of the older bottlings had huge price bumps.

BY DISTILLERY



Hmm, at least this chart is slightly better than the ownership ones.  But it does have one-offs like Tamdhu and Longmorn standing with multi-whiskied names like Glenmorangie and Glenfarclas.

But, look who sits amongst the tallest bars, Macallan and Glenfiddich, the two best-selling single malts in the world.  Glenlivet and Balvenie, two other major sellers, sit not too far behind.  It makes one appreciate Glenmorangie (4th best-selling malt) and its negligible increases.  Laphroaig and Ardbeg haven't moved much, yet.  Meanwhile, all of Bowmore's whiskies went up in price significantly.  GlenDronach is too high up on the list due to what might be a data error, but BenRiach sits in a very good position as they haven't really moved their prices in eight years.



There are some interesting stories with the individual malts.  Laphroaig 10 hasn't gone up in price as much as I'd thought it had, neither has the Cask Strength and Quarter Cask.  Who knows what Suntory will do with that reality, especially since they've raised the prices on all of their other products quite a bit.  I was very happy to see so many cells in blue from companies I like (Arran, BenRiach, Benromach, and Springbank).  And while most of the big distilleries plumped many of their prices, quieter distilleries like Glen Moray and Tomintoul kept some whiskies in the blue.  And half of this country is paying more than $44 for Glenlivet 12?  Yeesh.

What we don't really see in the spreadsheet is where the truly massive US export price/liter growth, as noted in yesterday's post, comes from.  The SWA says the price per liter of US scotch exports grew more than 80% between 2007 and 2013 alone.  Comparatively, the sheet underestimates single malt prices increases.  In the spreadsheet, I would say that even if we weighted the larger distilleries more, we're not seeing an increase of more than 45%, though probably closer to 40%.

(Taking Big Brother Blend into consideration, Dewar's White and Johnnie Walker Red's prices rose about 23% in 8 years.  Black Label's went up 28%.  Chivas 12's rose 20% and 18's 24%.  Grant's went up 21%, J&B only 8%.  Ballantine's went up 43%, but that doesn't take us any closer.)

At this point I can only theorize about the difference.  Since Wine Searcher lists the retail prices, could it be that the retailers themselves were absorbing a lot of the brunt as they bought their supply from distributors?  Thus they hoped to turn a profit from quantity rather than blowing up their prices any further?  Or, by "topping and tailing" the top and bottom 20% in their data set, does Wine Searcher miss out on the larger retailers who charge prices high above the average?  Wine Searcher does not include BevMo, a large national retail chain whose non-sale prices on single malts tend to be higher than most other stores in California.  My list cannot include newer malts, including (as already mentioned) all of the new NAS whiskies; perhaps those whiskies already went up in price?  While there are no independently bottled whiskies here -- and those have gotten much more expensive over the last two years -- they do not make up a significant part of national sales.  Or maybe it's all Macallan 18's fault.

Considering these elements, we could be accounting for a price rise of 45-50%.  That is still punishing to whisky drinkers.  If the wage index went up around 14% over those eight years and inflation went up 16%, we're certainly not sitting on any extra discretionary cash here.  From the drinker's standpoint, how are we going to keep paying for this?

For the whisky producers who have profited off the value boom, how is this a sustainable business model?  Do you expect the structure to hold as you raise prices two-and-a-half to three times the rate of inflation indefinitely?  And how many shaky quarterly reports does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?

Or has the vaunted growth already started to give way to a plateau or loss?  In Part 3, I'll consider if The Boom was, not is.

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

What Was the Scotch Whisky Boom? Part 1: Value vs. Volume

...the value of the goods at the U.S. port of export. The value shall be the selling price (or the cost if the goods are not sold), including inland or domestic freight, insurance, and other charges to the U.S. seaport, airport, or land border port of export.
--Department of Commerce definition of "Export Value"


Scotch sales were up Up UP!  That was the message communicated by brand ambassadors, master distillers, marketing departments, and retailers over the past few years.  Bloggers and other whisky fans quickly picked up on the tune.  I mean, it seemed like there was a boom, right?  The quantity and size of whisky clubs increased.  The amount of whisky blogs increased.  The variety of bottlings in some areas increased.  The bottom lines of whisky companies' quarterly reports increased.  The prices increased.

But even though prices went up and whisky producers' profits swelled, how do we whisky drinkers know if more bottles were actually selling?  How do we know if there were actual supply and demand issues?  And why do I keep writing about this using the past tense?

One way to gauge the Scotch Boom was via quarterly financial reports by companies like Diageo and Pernod Ricard.  Along with the official numbers for each quarter or year, the reporting company includes a narrative about their ups and down, but mostly just the ups.  My problem with those reports are that they almost always cite only the increased revenues because that's all that most incurious investors and reporters care about.

But honestly, I don't give a flying French fig if revenues are up.  Okay, maybe a tiny fig (and if any of the proceeds actually went to Scotland, that fig would be a little bigger).  I don't want the Scotch industry to fail.  It has busted before and the results were punishing to drinkers; brands vanished and distilleries closed, permanently.  So it's good to see that Big Scotch isn't sinking, currently.

But if you don't own stock in or work for a whisky producer, bottler, distributor, or retailer, the quantity/volume of actual whisky being sold is of much more interest.  Is there a supply issue?  Is there or will there be scarcity?  Is the price of my favorite whisky going up due to real market factors?  Or do individuals and companies who stand to profit see me as nothing but a desperate addict, as they gradually increase the prices they'll know I'll pay anyway?

The fact is, disclosure of individual companies' volume sales are much more difficult to come by than their reported profits.  But!  But there's one source that comes to the rescue each year, a source that's much hipper to scorn than to compliment: The Scotch Whisky Association.  The SWA releases an annual Statistical Report (that's accessible to the public) which provides information about pound sterling as well as liters.  It does not provide information about individual producers, but it does detail some of the big picture.

All of the data in my Excel charts here can be found in the SWA's Publication section, where the reports for 2009 through 2013 are available.

EXPORTS

Firstly, here's a graph of Scotch exports from 1980-2013.


It's an okay graph, but not the best.  One can see the growth in exports since the early '90s, including a decent spurt starting in 2006.  But what you don't see is the value in £.  Plus you don't see how the growth in £££ compares to liters.  Now see this next graph below.  Using the 1980 totals as a starting point, witness the growth in Volume, Value, and GBP/liter:


See that blue line?  That's the growth in exports measured by volume (liters per year) over the last 30 years.  Less than 40% over that time period.  Not nearly as sexy as the other two lines.  The growth in Value has been comparatively astounding, over 470%.  And it's the value assigned to each liter that's driving the growth.

"But wait," someone might say.  "That's just the exports.  Consumption in the UK has to amount to quite a bit.  What about the UK's consumption growth?"  To that person I don't have good news.  I do have a graph.  Hold your breath.


Scotch whisky consumption has been cut in half since 1980.  But, as that hypothetical someone suggests, the UK makes up a significant chunk of where Scotch goes.  So, here's a graph that combines the growth of volume in exports with the decline of UK consumption for another look at volume over the years:


So the total volume growth hasn't been much more than 20% over 30 years.  Even if we just focus on the last decade, do we really want to call a 2.3%/year volume growth a boom?  But a 20%/year boost in the £ value of that volume?  That's sounds boomier.

AGED MALT WHISKY STOCKS

Let's take a look at scarcity worries.  Is there an increasing scarcity on aged whisky stock?  We're getting more new NAS (non-age statement) whiskies every week and price blooms on older stuff continue.  The SWA reports include data on aged stocks, but has a catch-all line for all stock older than 10 years.  Unfortunately they only provide the data since 2008, but that's prime boom time, right?

Here are two graphs showing what's going on:


What you're seeing here is a genuine decline in warehouses' aged malt whisky casks.  The drop in the first chart isn't as pronounced as you'd think it would be from looking at the second chart, because last year's 10 year old cask is 11 years old this year thus the count moves up and down through the year.  But it ends up down.  They're essentially netting a 20M liter loss per year which would become an emergency in a decade.  But (again with the but):


There has been a significant ramp up since 2007 (by 2013 malt production was 107M higher than 2006), so by 2018 the numbers will start to straighten out and then increase.

Hopefully everyone will then adjust their prices.

*crickets snoring*

Oh come on, that was my best joke of the night.

MALT WHISKY GROWTH

This section may be short but it both demonstrates an actual boom AND it supports Part 2 of this series.

Reading books and magazines and interviews, a whisky fan will come upon quotes that single malt whiskies make only up 5 or 7 or 8 or 10 percent of whisky sales.  Well, not anymore, according to the official totals reported to the Scotch Whisky Association by the distilleries.  Here's a chart showing the growth of malt whisky as a percentage of total £££ and liters in exports between 2008 and 2013:


As you can see the value part is higher than the volume as single malts sell for a premium over blends.  While a percentage of this "malt" includes blended malts, the majority of malt is still being exported as single malt.  For instance, in 2013, single malts' value made up almost 90% of exported malt whisky's value.  So single malts now take up almost 20% of the value of exported scotch.  It's still blends' little brother, but it ain't 5% anymore.

EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES

Since I am an American and everything is about us, I'm happy to end with this section.  And it transitions into Part 2 nicely (I hope).  In 2009, the US was the #1 export market by value, just edging out the French, with a total of £418M.  In four years, that US export value DOUBLED.  Meanwhile the actual volume sales have increased only 20%, most of which happened over two years.  You probably know where I'm going with this...


The United States is not only the #1 export market for scotch whisky by value, its total is greater than the #2 and #3 markets combined.  While there was growth in 2010 and 2011, actual volume sales declined in 2012 and 2013.  Those declines have not stopped an explosion, a BOOM if you will, in the sale value.



The price per unit not only fuels the US boom, but fuels the entirety of the value increase from exports.  And exports are the key, as I've shown above, because whisky consumption in the UK itself has plummeted.  There is a gradual decline happening in aged stocks; that cannot be denied, but it is not drastic and it has been addressed by increases in production for the last seven years.

To the whisky drinkers out there, as you've seen for yourself, the prices on your favorite whiskies have risen.  Why?  Well, because you are being tested on how much you are willing to spend.  There's an increase in volume sales, but that jump nowhere near matches the jump in the price.  And how much have they risen?  In Part 2, I'll show you.  Yes, the actual whiskies themselves.  And I won't be using the term "Value", I will you show you the price tag...

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Hello, Loch Dhu and Cu Dhub. Goodbye, 2014.

With the appearance of Mathilda, the sweet little elfin Kravitz queen, in my life, 2014 has been a year unlike any other.  When people ask me what it's like being a father, I tell them that I am learning so much about myself.  And I leave it at that.  You newer parents out there know that the things you learn about yourself aren't always wonderful, shiny, and glorious.  We hold within us the potential of great loving kindness, but we are also capable of a bunch of other shit.

I will publicly opine further on fatherhood in 2015, but no further at the moment.  It's time to move forward to the review I've anticipated the most this year.*  Yes, I've reviewed Laphroaigs 25, 30, and 40.  I've reviewed two different Talisker 25s.  One official Brora.  A 35 year old Calvados.  Two Karuizawas.  A 1975 Glendronach.  Four Kilkerrans, a trio of Littlemills, a pair of dusty Old Taylors, and one George T. Stagg (twice).  But this.  This is bigger.


Loch Dhu and Cu Dhub are the two black whiskies, loaded to gills with the industrial colloid e150a (caramel colorant), though Diageo claimed Dhu's blackness was from double-charred casks (tee hee, Diageo funny).  Loch Dhu is well despised yet well collected, meanwhile the vitriol and excitement for Cu Dubh seems to be more restrained.  The Dhu seems to be the Plan 9 From Outer Space of whiskies**, while The Dhub is Dino de Laurentiis's King Kong.  Or is it The Terror of Tiny Town?  I'm hoping for at least a Myra Breckenridge, featuring Rex Reed as an aspiring transexual.

LOCH DHU
Distillery: Mannochmore
Ownership: Diageo
Age: minimum 10 years
Maturation: mystery oak
Region: Speyside (Lossie)
Alcohol by Volume: 40%
Chillfiltered? Yes
Caramel Colored? holy moley
(Thank you to the great Andy Smith for the sample of The Black Lake)

CU DUBH
Distillery: The Speyside Distillery, proud producers of Drumguish
Ownership: Speyside Distillers Limited
Age: NAS
Maturation: mystery oak
Region: Speyside (indeed)
Alcohol by Volume: 40%
Chillfiltered? Probably
Caramel Colored? Quite
(This sample was purchased from Master of Malt)


THE COLORS!!!
-- Loch Dhu -- Soy sauce

-- Cu Dhub -- A reddish black tea

THE NOSES!!!
-- Loch Dhu -- Burnt prunes. Burnt raisins. But mostly, burnt caramel (that's the first thing Kristen noticed too).  Then Worcestershire sauce intermingling with Kikkoman's regular soy sauce.  Fresh celery, carpet, shredded wheat nuggets, and old library books.  It's somewhat fungal, like foot fungus.

-- Cu Dhub -- Ooh, very cabbagey.  Farty fart farty.  Pencil graphite meets imitation vanilla extract meets brown sugar meets styrofoam.  Lots of sour milk and warm Coca Cola.

THE PALATES!!!
-- Loch Dhu -- Burnt coffee, and lots of it.  Cardboard, or like licking a whisky label.  Horseradish and dirt.  It's so chemically, like someone tried to make a diet salty coffee soda syrup then gave up, added new make, and called it whisky.  Bitterness.  Sadness.

-- Cu Dhub -- So much caramel.  Weird sweetness, maybe aspartame?  A cardboard box holding burnt prunes, ground black pepper, and overripe bananas.  And the sour milk.

THE FINISHES!!!
-- Loch Dhu -- It's still coffee-ish, but with ammonia.  Acrid boiled collard greens.

-- Cu Dhub -- Rotting veg, burnt grass, Jersey City.  Longer than a goddamn car alarm.

THE VERDICTS!!!
These are sincerely broken things.  I mean, you smell 'em and you drink 'em and you wonder if steeping your kitchen garbage bag in hot water would produce a better result.

Color - I guess Dhu-Dhu wins because it's blacker.
Nose - Cu Dhub's nose is awful awful awful.  Loch Dhu's is actually fascinating, like it's some sort of failed herbal liqueur.
Palate - Meanwhile Cu Dhub is sort of drinkable.  I might even pick it over Cutty, if I was blindfolded.  But crap it all, Loch Dhu earns its reputation in the mouth.  I can't believe someone bottled and sold this.
Finish - Here things only get worse for both of them.  Loch Dhu is slightly worse due to the aggressiveness of the chemicals.

Neither of these whiskies made me concerned about my wellbeing, so they don't make my bottom 5.  But they're damn close.  These sorts of levels of e150a would be an interesting free experiment, especially if they don't turn out to be carcinogenic.

If you're looking to obtain a bottle of either of these, why?  I'm not even going to assist you in your search.  Either you're looking to "invest" in whiskies or you have masochistic tendencies that would be better served by indulging in the BDSM scene.

And with that, HAPPY NEW YEAR!

LOCH DHU
Availability - Unhappy hunting!
Pricing - One million dollars. Or $200-$400.
Rating - 45

CU DHUB
Availability - It's around, sorta
Pricing - $30-$60
Rating - 47

* - Since writing this review, I have discovered that Serge did this same taste off exactly 10 years ago.  Ha, so much for originality...
** - And I have also just discovered that Tim Read already made the Plan 9 reference years ago.  That's neat.

Monday, December 29, 2014

Single Malt Report: Benromach 10 year old (maroon label)

I bought a bottle of Benromach 10 year old (for $41!) three weeks ago and opened it promptly.  It's been a chameleon malt, taking on different characteristics with every pour.  It can't be accused of being boring, so I'd say it has been a successful purchase no matter how I finally rate it.

I've been a bit slow to explore Benromach.  The distillery's ownership (indie grandpa Gordon & MacPhail) seems to have been inspired by the Mark Reynier-era of Bruchladdich, cranking out nearly 100 "expressions" over the last decade, an approach that didn't excite me much.  But within the past year or so they seem to be focusing their range.  There's a 10 year old (and a higher proof companion), an organic, a heavy peater, a couple wine finishes, the Golden Promise barley "Origins" malt, the Traditional youngin, and some old stuff.  There seems to be a minimum of marketing push behind their products, which is refreshing (to me), but also results in them being forgotten or ignored when perhaps they shouldn't be.

But now that the new release of their 10 year old has received raves from some of the top European whisky bloggers, I doubt that whisky geeks will be passing over Benromach now.  In July, Ruben from whiskynotes said it is "One of the best widely available, standard whiskies around".  In October, the whisky earned a good review from Serge Valentin, inspiring him to call the distillery "the Springbank of the East".  And then (SPOILER ALERT), just last week, Ralfy declared the 10 year old to be his pick for the malt of the year.




Please note, my bottle has the old packaging......though in Serge's review he did say "the juices aren't meant to have changed" with the new packaging.  So, will I like this as much as Ralfy does?  I'll say this much, unlike the energetic Scot in the Manx bothy, I will not be offering investment advice in this review or any other.

DistilleryBenromach
OwnershipGordon & MacPhail
Age: minimum 10 years
Region: Speyside (Findhorn)
Alcohol by Volume: 43%
Chillfiltered? Probably
Caramel Colored? Probably

Above, I mentioned that this was a chameleon malt.  Here were my thoughts from my first three glasses (spread out over two weeks):
First pour: Mild, lightly peated, easy on the oak
Second pour: Lots of sherry powering above the peat
Third pour: All barnyard! Cows, horses, sheep, and damp dirty hay.

Let's see how it goes with my review pour(s)...

The color is medium gold.  The nose has a substantial level of peat for a whisky that doesn't publicize its peatiness.  It's a farmy peat which merges well, rather than competing with, a rich sherry note.  There's also a strong note of vanilla, mesquite honey, and burlap.  That's followed by Good & Plenty, then Hot Tamales candies.  Gradually a band-aid note comes through, followed by a cocoa butter & orange oil combo.  The palate begins with a chocolate and cigar tobacco sherry note.  Small notes of seawater, limes, and wasabi linger beneath a layer of manure-y peat.  It still has a bit of an ethyl bite to it as well.  The finish grows sweeter and saltier.  Lots of sherry and dried cherries.  The peated element recedes into cigar smoke.



This is almost great stuff.  I'll start with the negatives and end with the positives, then probably go negative again, knowing me.

The palate is thin and much milder than the zippy nose.  It just dissolves when water is added.  This could be due to the 43%abv and filtration or the whisky itself is fragile at this point in its life.  The peat and sherry begin to take on a nice Uigeadail-like note but then it quickly fades away.  Similarly, the finish is briefer than I expected, which is a shame because there's the start of something good in there.  Because the whisky doesn't seem to be engineered to fit an easy drinking style, I want to love it.  But instead, I just like it.

That being said, I like it.  It's comparable in quality to much more famous and wider-selling 10 year old single malts, if not better.  For instance: it takes Macallan 10 year old Fine Oak, then improves it with great farmy peat (think Ledaig) and a better sherry balance.  I like its sherry notes better than those of Springbank 10 and it has a peep of Laphroaig 10's band-aids.

It's a good sub-$50 whisky......if you can find it for that price, which you probably won't in a year.  Above $50, it isn't something I'd rush out to buy again.  But as Laphroaig 10 crosses the $50 marker and Springbank 10 crosses the $60 pricepoint, it's good to know that there are still some entertaining and challenging single malts, like Ledaig and Benromach, at similar or lower prices.

Availability - Most specialty retailers
Pricing - $48-$60
Rating - 86

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

"DougDogz" Old Scout 8 year old Bourbon vs. George T. Stagg 2013 release

Happy Holidays!  This was an unexpected treat:


The very generous Sku (of Sku's Recent Eats) provided me with a sample of his sample of "DougDogz" Old Scout 8 year old Bourbon a few months ago.  I had first tried it during a very bourbony evening, enjoying it more than some of my favorite dusties, and then waxing romantic over its quality.  When planning this post, I was left with the happy quandary of what I was going to taste with it in order to gain perspective.  I chose last year's Stagg Sr., upon which I've already lavished praise.  But in the process of the nosing and the tasting, I actually gained a considerable amount of perspective on the Stagg instead.

The "DougDogz" moniker refers to Doug Phillips, a bonzai buff and professional glazier who became a whiskey aficionado icon due to his personal selection of historic (and now almost mythical) casks of rye and bourbon from Drew Kulsveen's (Willett) warehouse, six to eight years ago.  For more information, I recommend Sku's two posts (part 1 and part 2) about Doug and his whiskies.  Don't worry, they're not TL;DR pieces (unlike mine) thanks to Sku's succinct style.

Recently, Willett ended its private barrel selection program, likely due to decreasing supply and/or the desire to hold onto the gems for their own official releases.  So Doug went elsewhere to find a honey barrel.  And he found it at Smooth Ambler's warehouse.  Smooth Ambler has done a few Old Scout (MGP-distilled) barrels for retailers like Kenwood Liquors and K&L Wines, and in 2014 they sold bourbon barrel #900 to Doug.  Let's see how it stands up next to Stagg.

SMOOTH AMBLER OLD SCOUT 8 YEAR OLD "DOUGDOGZ" STRAIGHT BOURBON
Brand: Old Scout
BottlerSmooth Ambler
RegionMaxwelton, West Virginia (Distilled in Lawrenceburg, Indiana)
Type: Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Age: 8 years
Distillation date: 4/21/06
Barrel: 900
Bottles: 122
Alcohol by volume: 61.9%
(thank you to Sku for the sample!)

NEAT
Its color is a rosy mahogany. The nose is loaded with spicy oak: fruity cardamom, clove, and cilantro. (This is why I goofily thought this was a rye at first.) Then some more C's: creamed corn, Corn Pops, and clover honey.  The sugar cereal note expands with time.  After 40+ minutes in the glass, the whiskey starts to release big notes of vanilla bean and shisha.  The palate delivers a steady sweet→dry tone poem that's unique to my experience.  It's very bright, with tangerines and orange peel; then rich caramel, mint syrup, and toffee. This gives way to a dry, lightly spiced, almost mineral note.  This continues into the finish.  There's a floral, fruity note from the esters (there, I finally used the word!) which then switches to a tingly peppercorn-filled, almost savory note.  It's endless.

WITH WATER (below 50% abv)
Lots of baked goods in the nose.  More corn, more caramel.  Some honey mustard and dry cheese.  The sweetness becomes simpler in the palate as a bold bitterness moves in.  Grape jam, orange peel, granulated sugar, and black cherry soda are the leading notes.  The bitterness lingers into the finish, merging well with the maple-black-cherry ice cream character.  There's also a little bit of citrus and pepper in the mix.



GEORGE T. STAGG STRAIGHT BOURBON, 2013 edition
Distillery: Buffalo Trace
Brand: George T. Stagg
Region: Kentucky, USA
Type: Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Distilled: 1997
Release: Fall 2013
Age: approx. 15 years old
Mashbill: Buffalo Trace #1 (lower-rye; about 8%)
Alcohol by volume: 64.1%
(from my bottle)

NEAT
Its color is an Earl Grey tea (steeped for 3.5 minutes, I dunno, WTF) brown. The nose is full of butters and nuts: roasted hazelnuts, almond paste, almond butter, butter.  There's leather, fruit breads, and toffee.  Caramel syrup is always present, but it takes almost 30 minutes for the vanilla to roll in.  The palate is just as aggressively medicinal as it was when I first tasted it.  Cherry Sudafed (from the '80s) and Robotussin (the good kind, from the '80s).  A bitter black sherry soda.   A Campari and Amaretto cocktail topped with caramel syrup.  A little salt in there too.  The finish goes from black cherry to maraschino cherry. Tobacco, barrel char, vanilla, caramel.  The bitterness remains, as does the medicine.

WITH WATER (below 50% abv)
The nose picks up some orange gumdrops and salted caramel gelato.  Lots of caramel, in fact.  The nuts and leather remain, but are much subtler.  There are also some smaller notes of burnt paper and manure.  There's the Robotussin in the palate, as well as an almost Laphroaigy antiseptic note.  Then cayenne pepper, corn syrup, and wood smoke.  The mouth drying finish is slightly bitter and medicinal.  Some fresh thyme in there too.



As I mentioned above, I gained some new perspective on the Stagg 2013.  I always knew it was the most Islay-esque of bourbons, with its medicinal, earthy, occasionally smoky style.  But the brutality of its delivery became very apparent next to DougDogz.  And while Stagg's boldness is to be commended, getting punched in the face is not always the preferable way to receive one's bourbon.  If the mood is right, Stagg can be excellent.  But it can also be exhausting.  And I'm beginning to think that I like some of the Elijah Craig Barrel Proofs better at similar/higher ABVs and younger ages.

The DougDogz Old Scout is more graceful than the Stagg, while being just about as complex.  DougDogz's sweet-dry-spice progressions (also noted in Sku's review) are excellent and give it a step up on the Stagg.  Its spice is very vibrant for a bourbon, which is why I first made the mistake of thinking that it was a rye when nosing it.  But the spice is coming from the excellent barrel, as opposed to the spirit.  It's incredible that this was only baking for eight years.  A hell of a barrel pick by Mr. Phillips.

SMOOTH OLD SCOUT 8yo "DOUGDOGZ"
Availability - You'd have to ask Doug
Pricing - ???
Rating - 91

GEORGE T. STAGG SR., 2013 RELEASE
Availability - Happy hunting?
Pricing - MSRP was $79.99 or $89.99, it has been sold for up to $450
Rating - 88 (downgraded from 92)

Monday, December 22, 2014

Old Scout 7 year old Rye, batch 11 (and also Rittenhouse Rye BIB)


Smooth Ambler is a West Virginia-based company that bottles bourbons and ryes produced by other companies (usually MGP) while their own spirit matures in barrels.  Unlike a number of smaller bottling companies, Smooth Ambler openly states that their rye is from Indiana.  I really wish companies (like Templeton) would disclose when they're bottling MGP rye, not only for legal and ethical purposes, but also because I freaking love that rye.  Seriously, flaunt that sh*t.  Thus, Smooth Ambler does right on that account.

I've been eyeing Smooth Ambler's Old Scout rye ever since it started appearing on the shelves at relatively reasonable prices.  And then I had this sample (thank you, JLR!) sitting around for about a year.  I don't know what took me so long, but here it goes...

...but wait.  Old Scout needed a sparring partner so that I could get some perspective, so I went with Rittenhouse Rye BIB.  Rittenhouse tends to be about $10-$15 cheaper than Smooth Ambler, but it has a similar ABV and I adore the stuff.  It received a rave review from me last year and has since been my House Whisky.  This is our second bottle since the label change.  Anyway, I was bringing in an experienced champ to spar with the newbie.

OLD SCOUT RYE
Brand: Old Scout
Bottler: Smooth Ambler
Type: Straight Rye Whiskey
Age7 years
MaturationNew American Oak
RegionMaxwelton, West Virginia (Distilled in Lawrenceburg, Indiana)
Mashbill: 95% Rye
Batch: 11
Bottled: 3/14/13
Alcohol by Volume49.5%
(sample from swap with buddy JLR, top 1/3 of bottle)

RITTENHOUSE RYE BOTTLED-IN-BOND
Brand: Rittenhouse
Owner: Heaven Hill
Type: Straight Rye Whisky (no 'e'!)
Age: minimum 4 years
Region: Distillery - Louisville, Kentucky; Warehouse - Bardstown, Kentucky
Maturation: New American oak
Mashbill: 51% Rye (per Cowdery here and here)
Bottle Code: B1494
Bottle Year: 2014
Alcohol by Volume: 50%
(from my bottle, top 1/3 of bottle)

OLD SCOUT
Neat:
The rye is Rittenhouse Rye-colored.  The nose starts with a very balanced mix of orange oil, vanilla extract, dried coriander, fresh dill, menthol, and made-in-China-toy plastic.  It gradually releases notes of melting brown sugar, milk chocolate, pine needles, and VOC-full paint.  The palate starts out a bit sharp with more heat than expected from its age and ABV.  But it softens up in under ten minutes.  There's lots of mint, some cayenne, ground cumin, and lemon pepper.  So it's nice and spicy.  After a while there's an expanding note of sweet meyer lemons, but it's not too sweet overall.  Some stone fruits start to show up in the finish, along with caramel, black pepper, and bread crusts.

With water:
The nose gets fruitier (vague!) and sugarier (not exactly English!).  It becomes very pretty and floral.  Some black licorice, sarsaparilla, green peppercorns, and curry powder too.  The rye grain's intensity increases in the palate.  It gets spicier, with some chili powder slipping in.  Though the spice is met well with candied sweetness.  More vanilla as well.  More mint, vanilla, and lemons in the finish.  Spicy and sweet.

RITTENHOUSE
Neat:
The rye is Old Scout-colored.  The nose is very nutty (hazelnuts and almonds).  There are smaller notes of wood smoke, rose blossoms, baklava, and nutmeg.  It opens up slowly, the nuts receding slightly.  Then limeade, Cow Tales, and menthol arrive.  The palate is even nuttier: almonds, pecans, peanuts, and walnuts.  Lemon curd on salt rocks.  Sourdough bread.  It's almost totally lacking sweetness.  Ah but a sweet creamy (almost malty) note arrives in the finish.  Then smoked almonds skins, caramel, cayenne, and limes.

With water:
Smoked hazelnuts and peanuts lead the nose.  A hint of orange peel, but a lot of corny bourbon showing through.  The palate becomes almost unbearably nutty and sweet.  Perfumed, too.  At least in the finish some bitterness and fresh parsley jump in.

So....that didn't turn out the way I'd expected.  The champ got knocked down.  Old Scout showed very well, its nose and palate were surprising.  Or maybe it shouldn't have been so surprising since I'm a fan of MGP rye.  It also swam well, while the Ritt couldn't even float.

I am not saying that Rittenhouse's quality has declined since they changed labels.  We went through a previous bottle with the new label with great speed and joy earlier this year.  But the particular batch (B1494) of Rittenhouse from this review was good (though a bit aggressive on the nutty side of things), not awesome.  It's still worth its price, but I know there are better batches out there.

Meanwhile, I don't know if other batches of Smooth Ambler Old Scout Rye are as solid as batch 10.  But I'm willing to take a chance on a bottle if find one for less than $40.  Costco had it for $30, but that zoo's record with whiskies is 0-2 for me, so I skipped it.  Anyway, pleasant surprise this Old Scout.  It'll probably be the next rye I buy.

OLD SCOUT 7yo RYE, batch 10
Availability - Many US specialty retailers
Pricing - $35-$50
Rating - 87

RITTENHOUSE RYE BIB, code B1494
Availability - Most US specialty retailers have Ritt BIB in general
Pricing - $22-$28
Rating - 82 (adding water not recommended)