Older whiskies disappointing

De gustibus non est disputandum.

+1 I disagree with the OP, but I can't really say anything that will change his taste.

I do intend to enjoy a glass or two of Jameson 18 Year after work, however, just to be 100% certain that I do in fact disagree.

Can you be more specific as to what you tried and also what flavors you like?

I have generally found that whiskys older than 25yrs offer diminishing returns. I do not have a sufficient set of data to say that conclusively for my palate, however. ~ Huntsman

Not quite on topic, but you should try to get your hands on this 100 year old whisky.

Man up, please.


- B

Agreed, and my sample size is similarly limited.. I actually find the sweet spot to be about 20 years.

Being a medium timer, I cannot even attempt to compete with this. The best I can offer is this:



Forgetting the 28 y/o SMS, the Louis was a 1965 bottling. As the very youngest grapes they use are 50 years, this means the youngest harvest took place at the start of WWI.

Whisky gets mellower as it ages in oak, so my guess would be the older whiskies you've drunk would be even harsher were they drunk young. I've heard before that to retain flavour with age, you need to start with something that would be too harsh if drunk young. Moreover, since most distilleries have their normal, mass market bottling at around the 10-12 year mark, these are made to match the palates of most people. Older, more expensive bottlings are bought by far fewer people, so distilleries have less of a need to make them match the desires of the mass market, so can allow them to deviate more. This tends to give more interesting whisky, but also whisky that can be muc harsher (or indeed mellower) with stranger/more interesting flavours than the normal 10-12yos. Personally I find older whisky to be much more palateable, but I'm very careful to choose smoother distilleries. My brother bought a Port Ellen 28yo, which is thought of as a stunning whisky but wasn't my type, as Port Ellen is known for being a whisky that somehow keeps its peat and edge when aged. Great for people who love Islay, but not for me. However I find the 18+yo ones I buy (most recently Dalwhinnie, Balmenach, Glenlivet, Rosebank and Tomintoul) to be much smoother and tastier than their 10-12yo counterparts. Even the 17yo Caol Ila I have is surprisingly smooth. People look for different things in whisky and have different experiences. Some want that harsh edge. However both from my experience, reading and discussions with others, I wouldn't say older whiskies are harsher. They're almost always smoother than that whisky was when younger, though some distilleries serve their 18+yos stronger or use less smooth and more characterful whisky to make it.

I rather thought most agreed with you. My absolute favorite whisky is a 22, the oldest I have is the 28yo Port Ellen (unopened) and a '78 Dufftown (unopened, 26yo). It does depend on the whisky where they 'peak' if you will (rare is the whisky I enjoy at 10yo -- the only one is Talisker, so I wouldn't really think it a long aging one), but I would expect most peak < 30yo. I would have thought that, say, 18-20 was perfect for most, but I don't know. ~ H

I disagree with you on the Yamazaki, Talisker, CI and to some extent Balvenie and agree with you on the Deanston.

Yamazaki 18 elevates the citrus and wood of the 12 and adds a nice sweet complexity. Talisker 18 rounds out the bitterness of the 10 and adds some additional pepper complexity. The 25 and 30 are totally different animals and some of the best OBs on the market. Balvenie is a mixed bag. Some of their exotic cask work is forgettable (rum, port, both way too sweet) but their Islay and Sherry 17s were great. The 25 year CI is a great cask strength whisky. Salty, fruity and peaty, I'm going to buy another bottle this week!

Deanston is bad the 12 is bad and 30 is worse. It tastes like cardboard.


It depends on the whisky, Dalmore releases 50 yo whiskys and Bowmore puts out 40+ yos. That PE will be delicious I'm sure. The only Dufftown I've had was the Flora and Fauna and that didn't do much for me. I'll be you're well aged example will be better though.

I'm very surprised by the Talisker, as the 18yo is stunning (if you like that sort of thing) and widely regarded as an exceptional whisky, especially at the price. Though that may be because it has so much oompf left and a lot of experience whisky drinkers seem to love the strength of Talisker. Was the Balvenie the doublewood? While it's the most common 12yo of theirs I see, being a doublewood seems to make it smoother and softer. A beautiful drop, one of the best value for money whiskies I've tried.