Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Older whiskies disappointing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Older whiskies disappointing - Page 2

post #16 of 18
11/5/09 at 11:52pm
Yamazaki 12 is much more palatable than Yamazaki 18, IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 18
11/6/09 at 4:23pm
Around 12 years is a major turning point for many whiskeys, when they shake off many of the more assertive qualities of their youth. That's why they are so common and popular.

This observation is rather whiskey dependent, of course. Springbank 10 is a more subdued whisky than others nearly twice its age.

I tend to favor slightly more mature whiskeys, in the 15-18 year range (for common off the shelf whiskeys examples include Highland Park 18, Lagavulen 16, etc.)

However, more important than age, in my opinion, is barrel selection. This can make a *world* of difference that can far outshine a whiskey's age statement.

Not all "barrel selections" / independent bottlings are "better" than their counterparts -- because "better" is a matter of subjective taste.

For example, at WhiskyFest last year one of my favorite whiskys was the Glenfarclas 21 -- and this was up against many private bottlings and whiskys of many different ages.

Additionally, other variables that impact the "age taste" of a whisky must be considered (such as the type of wood used -- new or sherry, or even the type of cask -- such as quartercasks).

In short, IMO it is not possible to make a blanket statement about whisky of a particular age being "better" than whiskey of a different age across the board.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 18
11/6/09 at 4:41pm
There has been a growing trend to bottle whiskys earlier and earlier Kilchoman 3yo, the Port Charlotte series at 5,6,7 and 8yo, Ardbeg Very Young (6yo I think) etc. They are all (at least the ones I've named, there are some really bad young whiskys, but no reason to go there) very good whiskys, but upon drinking them I can't help but think what might have been had they been left to age longer.

Technology especially in regards to barrel manufacturing and selection, warehouse management and computerized vatting has allowed distilleries to do some pretty funky things that would have never happened years ago. Technology, however, cannot replace the craftsmanship of an old whisky. A 30 or 40 yo Highland Park is so much more layered and complex than a 12. It tastes of sherry, wood, resin, sea air, must, and everything else that occurred around it for the last 30 - 40 years. It might not be to everyone's taste, but to make a blanket statement that whisky peaks at some arbitrary range is ridiculous.

This argument has nothing to do with price by the way. Older whiskys are ridiculously expensive and I can certainly understand the argument that they are not worth the cost, especially if one lacks the palate to appreciate all the flavors and taste the complexity.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Older whiskies disappointing