Ack I wanted to sip during Autumn leaf fall

Personal favourite from the Jura range!

This is a harsh tasting whiskey. The clues are in the description 'firm, positive, forcibly, strong'. Cold

"Deep intense mahogany with glittering sun rays "
I'd never be able to respect myself again if I bought a product with that description. surely this can only appeal to a total merchant-banker

NAS scotch...I'm not falling for it.

This is pretty good, but not really a deal. Think I got a bottle of this for around the same money 8 weeks ago. Laphroaig is my fave, it is more peaty.

Expired . If you missed out there are plenty of far superior whiskies out there still on offer. Jura brand is not great IMO

Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?

This is completely different and better quality than other NAS whiskies such as Founders Reserve.

A blended single malt that could claim to be 13 but doesn't? Well that's a novel idea.

Maybe you misread something. Somewhere.

FYI - it has to be 3 years old to be called Scotch Whisky. If there's no age statement on the bottle assume it just turned 3.

Or, rather than just 'assume it's 3', you could actually read up about it.

I don't think you understand how NAS whisky works.

Superstition is a mix of whiskies, one of them being 13 years old and one of them being 21 years old.

There will probably be a younger whisky in there as well which is why this is a NAS as the whisky age has to be the 'youngest'

I think you'll find that I know exactly what I'm talking about and you are backtracking rapidly.

Got any evidence to support your claims? Claims that even the manufacturer doesn't make?

Whisky drinkers the world over put great stock on age. Although not a universal constant, the older the whisky the rarer it is and the more expensive.

Why would any distillery reduce the value on a genuinely aged whisky by using it to dilute a barely aged one when they make no claim to have done so? Just as you describe.

Drink away, if it's what you like, but this is just a method of filling market gaps when there isn't enough genuinely aged whisky to pull in revenue. Particularly prevalent tactic with some of the newly popular distilleries who just don't have the stock of aged whisky laid down. How many manufacturers have to predict market demand 10 or more years in advance?

Anyone involved in the industry will tell you - if the age isn't printed on the bottle you assume it's a 3 year old. Fancy bottle and poetic name does not a fine single malt make.

Clearly you don't know as much as you think you do... You might want to look it up before making a claim in the future. Plenty of info on Google to back this up but the below is from Amazon. Oh and this won the whisky of the year 2012 for the whiskyshop.

Hints of honey and pine as the balance of peated and unpeated spirits is matured to perfection in ex-bourbon casks. The finest young and aged up to 21 years whiskies go into this mysterious bottle so there's a different flavour to explore with every drop. In Superstition, we wanted to produce a wild whisky that's as rich as our story and a testament to all the intriguing histories around the world, so we've added the ancient Ankh cross, a symbol of good luck in the western isles, to the front of the bottle.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jura-Superstition-Lightly-Peated-Single/dp/B01B8F3EOY

Superstitious! Meanwhile the older whiskys are between 13 and 21 years old. Superstitious! And Blackjack!

http://www.divingforpearlsblog.com/2013/06/single-malt-report-isle-of-jura.html?m=1

isle of jura superstition single malt, blend of 13 and 21 year old. Nose: spice, salted butter, sea grasses.

I'm not interested in your third party websites - the distiller makes no such claim.

And mis-quoting to strengthen your argument is weak and juvenile - you say "of" the website you link to states "with".

Whisky is a matter of individual taste, what I am questioning is not wether or not someone might like this whisky - with or without the poetic BS - but the whisky industry's constant release of immature whiskies dressed as aged malts. It's a marketing ploy - no more and no less and appears to be most often used when a highly regarded, low volume, independent distillery is taken over by one of large distillers. It's ploy that works obviously.

It's still whisky.

Now, if you must continue insisting that this immature malt is a blend of 13 and 21 year olds - or even includes them - just provide evidence of such a claim from the distiller. When they first released this whisky it may well have been true, but the fact that they make no such claim on bottle, box or website means that IMO it's not the case for the whisky being sold now. Which is probably why it no longer says it on the current amazon selling page and you have linked to an old one.

And, even if a small % of actual aged whisky had been blended with this item - lipstick on a pig gets you a pig with lipstick on and no more. But another ploy that works obviously.

I provided the evidence as you requested but unsurprisingly you don't accept it, just accept the fact that you were wrong and stop sulking. Obviously the 13-21 year age referenced on 10-15 websites are all wrong and you're right!

I think the old adage of never argue with an idiot as they will bring you down to their level applies here.

You've clearly been proven wrong so have now backpeddalled and moved the goalposts, over and out!

The goalposts.

This is how it works with NAS whiskies, the distillers tend not to add this detail to the description even though they often use old/rare whiskies. It's also because they use a selection of young whiskies 3-6 years old as well as whiskies 12 years + and the overall outcome is a blend of various ages malts. To presume these are all 3 years is extremely narrow minded, also just because the distiller doesn't add the exact age of each malt it doesn't make the distiller 'wrong'.

This is one of the better NAS whiskies out there, but as with anything the ages of whiskies used is irrelevant, it's all down to the overall taste, an aged whisky isn't necessarily a superior whisky.

My Jura Superstition has next to no text on , which is inkeeping with other NAS malts, although it does reference the inclusion of aged malts which fits with a 13 year and a 21 year old inclusion. These will be balanced with younger malts around 5-6 years old.

At no point did I say the distiller was wrong - you seem to have lost context. What I said is that it is foolish to assume there is anything in the bottle other than that which the distiller expressly states.

In this case the distiller makes no mention of age at all - "aged" is a catch all that that means nothing other than more than 3 years. There is no suggestion of 13 or 21 year old whiskies at all - you are hoping it's the case.

If you like the stuff drink it, just be aware of what you are buying and in this case it's brand, not age.

No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.

It says on the box that the whisky in the bottle includes 13 and 21 year old malts?

I think you need to read the post again from mattygr that you were replying to as you seem to be confused, he says they referenced aged malts....

Anyway I think this thread has well and truly worn it's course.

I think I read his posts just fine

"Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?"

"Superstition is a mix of whiskies, one of them being 13 years old and one of them being 21 years old. "

You on the other hand...

The fact that you've just quoted a different post to the actual post in question just emphasises the fact that you're extremely confused! Anyway aged malts' is good enough for me whatever age they are, they're clearly more than 3 years.

Maybe you could offer something of substance to the debate rather than just nitpicking? What whiskies are better for the price?

They are obviously more the 3 years...you can't call it Scotch Whisky until it ages in barrels for 3 years. It can then be described as "aged" - a nothing word.

There's not confusion from me at all - this is a thread. It is linear and has context.

If it's good enough for you that's fine..that's what the distiller wants. But if you are telling yourself that there is anything in that bottle that the distiller does not expressly state you are in error.

And "better" is a matter of opinion. The brand has a placebo effect for many people.

So not a single suggestion then, just as I thought.

You are "Whisky12345", surely you can find a decent truly aged whisky for £25?

Here's one from the Jura stable. Genuinely aged for a minimum of 10 years.

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=291150837

Whether it's "better" of not is decision for the drinker.

And, IMHO, better for an extra £1

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=256706597

Lol. Clearly you are a connoisseur...of methylated spirit