Beginner Question - Age of Scotch

There are plenty people far more expert than me in the group, but here are some amateur stabbings at an answer:

The longer a whisky sits in a cask for aging, the more it loses coarser elements, and takes on a kind of mellowness. Plus, depending on the cask it is matured it, it can also take on some pleasant--and even very vivid--overtones of flavor from the cask (be it a former sherry cask, a former bourbon cask, or plain oak).

A whisky that sits for less than 10 years tends to be more raw, then one aged longer. One that sits for more than 17 years or so, may be really interesting, but it may also be strangely affected by the cask itself.

But a big factor, is the flavor and character of the whisky that went into the cask in the FIRST place. The single malt distillers Glenmorangie feel that 10 years is optimal for their whisky in most cases. Other producers feel that 12 years is optimal. Other whiskies will gain wonderfully interesting nuances if they spend longer time in a good cask. Some producers even keep their whiskies in one type of cask for a few years, and then move it to a different cask for another spell of final finishing. It's all a great experiment.

I've had Famous Grouse, and it is drinkable and enjoyable. It is a 'blend' though, so a significant proportion of the whisky is neutral grain spirit in addition to the proportion of the whisky that is constituted by more flavorful and distinctive "malt" whiskies. How this blend benefits from further time in cask is anybody's guess. Many people who are really into whiskies would not care to bother comparing a regular Grouse with a 12-year Grouse, because the differences and advantages of the extra maturation of this blend might be paltry in comparison to simply buying a more full-flavored single-malt in the FIRST place.

My guess is that the Aberlour10 will be more full and satisfying than the Grouse 12. My wild guess is that the Grouse 12 would be 'smoother' than the regular Grouse, but still not a sumptious feast by any means--and my guess is that I would still drink the Grouse 12 on ice as opposed to sipping the Aberlour10 neat--but then again, everyone's tastes are different.

GET THEM ALL!

Welcome to the conversation, Jerry.

Douglas has already answered most of your questions and I agree with what he says, but I would like to add only a couple of points he forgot to mention. When a whisky's label says it's 12 years old, the age refers to the youngest whisky in the bottle. It is perfectly legal to label a 15yo whisky as a twelve year old, although producers aren't likely to do that because they can sell a 15yo whisky for more money. But when a big producer bottles a 12yo whisky they may include a little bit of older whiskies along with the majority of 12 year old whisky to give the resultant bottle more depth and character. A producer can not label a 12yo whisky as a 15yo, however - so the statement of age on the label is at least a guarantee that all the whiskies used in making that bottle were at least that old.

A scotch whisky must be at least 3 years old to be called a "whisky". If it's younger than 36 months it would be label a "spirit".

I disagree with Douglas on one point only, although maybe it's less a disagreement that a difference in terminology. Blended whiskies are made from malt whisky mixed with grain whisky - not "neutral grain spirits" like Everclear or a high proof vodka. Grain whisky is usually produced from a little malted barley and a lot of whatever grain is available cheaply, unmalted, typically corn (maize) but also wheat, etc. The two types of whiskies are typically produced in different types of stills, and grain whisky is thought to have less character and stand up to aging less well, although there are fans of grain whisky and some very old grain whiskies have been bottled. When a blended whisky says it's 12 years old, both the malt whiskies used and the grain whiskies used to make the blend must be 12 years old or older. Good old grain whiskies are rare, so blended whiskies that state an age, especially an old age, may be more expensive than malt whiskies of the same age, which typically age age very well.

So is an older whisky always better? No; sometimes it is, sometimes not. But it is always more expensive.

It was once thought that malt whiskies had flavors that were too intense for anyone but the Scots. And grain whiskies had little flavor or character on their own but were much cheaper to produce. So why not flavor some of the cheap flavorless grain whisky with some intensely flavored malt whisky? The result was "blended whisky" which conquered the world and built the Scotch Whisky industry. Often beginners still find blended whiskies smoother and easier to enjoy, but enthusiasts tend to prefer the malts. No one is right or wrong here, it's just a matter of what you prefer. I first prefered Irish whiskies which are (were) mostly blended whiskies.

As far as the Famous Grouse, Aberlour, and the rest, if you have a bar nearby that has a good stock of scotch whiskies it's a good idea to try a shot of them first - it can save you buying a bottle that you don't really care for.

Bart

---------------------------------------------------------

"May I, as a humble Scotsman (living within sight of the Auchantoshan distillery) offer the bit of advice that my father gave me...

'The best way to drink whisky is the way that suits you best.'

Never been known to fail."

----------John Daly Erskine, Scotland in alt.drinks.scotch-whisky

bar nearby that has a good stock of scotch whiskies it's a good idea to try a shot of them first - it can save you buying a bottle that you don't really care for.

Very nice reply Bart. Three cheers (no, let's make it three drams) for the best behaved newsgroup on Usenet.

I don't think that will be enough to go around.

As to the original poster, I'd counsel him to keep reading the group for ideas, to try a few malts (and blends, I suppose, but definitely a few malts) that are available and affordable for him, and to come back here to post his impressions, and to solicit advice along the lines of, "If I liked this one, but not that one, what else would you recommend?"

cheers.

bill

Greats answers all, very informative. I do have one follow-up question. Why would one choose to drink one scotch on ice and another neat? My understanding is that drinking a scotch near room temperature will release more aromas and flavors.

question. Why would one choose to drink one scotch on ice and another neat? My understanding is that drinking a scotch near room temperature will release more aromas and flavors.

To me they are two different products--a rough comparison would be between sipping a really good agave tequila neat (usually reposados) and using blancos for Margaritas--I like both.

I like savoring some whiskys neat in order to be tantalized and enchanted by their many dimensions, and complexity; and I like scotch on the rocks because it is refreshing, relaxing and tastes good.

When I lived in Scotland and went to the pub I drank blends like Famous Grouse, Bells, and Grants neat. It did indeed bring out more flavor drinking them neat than if they were on ice. Then I started drinking single malts, and the payoff in massive complex flavor, by comparison, made these the dram of choice. If I go to a pub nowadays, I'm not going to order a Bells if they have a Balvenie on the shelf. So now I like most single malts, but find some of the lesser ones really uninteresting--I would not buy another Isle of Jura or Cardhu, for instance. Though I may have enjoyed them some the first time I tried them, they proved for me, over time, not to have the complexity, the subtlety, the progression of flavors and overtones and long finish that makes the better malts so incredibly satisfying as 'sipping' whiskies. They grew uninteresting.

But some of these more one-dimensional single malts, (and most blends), can still make really tasty 'scotch on the rocks' because they have some really enjoyable basic flavor--even if they come up short in their general interestingness and palate-explosiveness. I think my McClellands Islay (which retails for $17) is GREAT on the rocks--loads of enjoyable Islay flavor. When I drink it neat, it is still not bad--if it's all I had, I would drink it neat from time to time. But it pales considerably next to my lineup of 10 malts on the shelf, which, by comparison, offer a much broader spectrum and experience with every tiny sip. It's a little bit raw, a little bit thin, and the finish is a little bit raspy and short. But it's fab for that completely different product, that completely different animal, and completely different experience--something I also enjoy: scotch on the rocks.

you say you "are ready to learn about scotch." how do you know you are ready? have you passed through the right of the cask?

I think you're right about flavors and aromas.

Drinking whisky on ice suggests a more casual way of drinking to me, suitable for basic blends and bargain malts if you like to drink them that way. One doesn't have to be "fussy" about whisky all the time. The high end stuff will definitely reveal more at room temperature than it will over ice. But that's a "reasonable" room temperature. In the summer heat of central Texas, where room temperature may be over 100 degrees, I would put a sliver of ice in my malts, just enough to cool my drink a little. (Of course, I wouldn't be likely to drink a fine malt under such circumstances - but on occasion I have.)

Scotch whisky is now usually bottled at a standard alcohol by volume, typically 43% for the whiskies sold in USA, but sometimes 40% and sometimes 46%. Scotch used to be sold more frequently at the strength at which it came from the cask, which could be as high as 70% or more. The reasons it is sold at the currently popular strengths go back as far as grain supplies during WW1, and are as recent as current U.K. tax issues and the regulations of the EEC. When whisky was routinely bought at cask strength, the whisky consumed was frequently quite young. Young high proof whisky can be harsh tasting, with lots of alcoholic "burn". A drinker could add the amount of water he thought necessary to diminish the "burn" and make the drink palatable, an amount which might vary from person to person. But frequently would result in whisky in the glass at about the strength at which most whisky is bottled today.

46% ABV is said to be (on average) the highest proof at which unchillfiltered whiskies wont turn cloudy when cooled. That is the reason given why Springbank (and Murray McDavid, and now Bruichladdich) bottles are made at 46%.

Some people never add water (or ice) to their whiskies, and I used to be one of them, drinking even cask strength whiskies just as they were bottled. Some are quite enjoyable as is. But I now usually add a drop of water to cask strength offerings. The idea being to consume them at as high a strength as does not burn my palate - usually higher than the 43% standard strength but less than the common 55% to 62% strength out of the bottle. While some folk will add water even to whiskies bottled at 40%.

Some people add water to release the aromas. When water is added to alcohol a physical process occurs which results in alcohol vaporizing. Sometimes the tightly bound aromas of a whisky will be released, spread out, and become more identifiable with the addition of a drop or two of water. But the intensity of the flavors will usually be diminished. Some people have argued that there is a physical difference between the effects of adding water or an equivalent amount of ice, but I'm unconvinced; and I haven't been able to discern the difference on my palate.

Over the years "Should you add water?", "How much water?", and "What about ice?" are questions that have been frequently discussed in this newsgroup. You can find many more opinions searching this newsgroup on Google Groups.

Bart

I'm back. My first contemplative glass of scotch is of The Dalmore 12 year. The smokiness from the peat is most noticeable for me, so that is something I will have to get used to. If I try I can taste some sherry, but I think I'm going to have to adjust to the peat to get more. The good news is that it doesn't seem to burn much and I think I'll need to add little or no water, unlike some of the bourbon I have which I prefer with a good splash. But my favorite so far remains the Bushmill's Black Bush as that is so smooth and the flavor is clear, although lighter than the others. I'm swapping bottles with a friend, and in a few weeks I'll have some Cragganmore to try, which I'm looking forward to as it sounds like it is on the delicate side for scotch. Other candidates are Aberlour 10 yr, Balvenie

10 yr, Macallan 12 yr and Highland Park 12 year - depending on how much money I feel like spending I guess.

The Macallan 12 is a good bet. To my taste, the epitome of scotch (not the acme :-) as I like a good bit of peat).

I was not impressed with the Balvenie 15yr I found in a tasting set (3 bottles - each larger than an airline bottle - the 15yr, a 12yr double cask, and a 10 year reserve) but my Dad likes it.

Highland Park is interesting - salty and earthy.

Is the Black Bush a single malt?

Ethelred

According to Bushmill's website, Black Bush is "comprised almost entirely of single malt whiskey...with a small portion of a special single grain whiskey." But no peat is used in malting for this Irish whiskey.

For my next scotch I will likely look for one that is light on peat.

JK

Sorry, but I may have missed this, or it has expired from my news server -- where are you located?

Regards, Larry

I'm in southeast Wisconsin, USA. (Douglas Hoyt, I think Discount Liquor is great!) I'll probably choose one of the following: Aberlour 10, Balvenie 10 or Macallan 12.

All three are very nice light bodied, low peated scotches. The Aberlour and Macallan are sherry flavoried. The Balvenie 10 yr is a great non-flavored low peat single malt. Enjoy.

Regards, Jim

Any of the three are very good whiskies. The Aberlour has a little sherry, less now, I think, than it did a few years ago. It was one of the first Scotch whiskies I really liked. Its a modest whisky, but from a distillery whose reputation has steadily increased over the years. And its usually attractively priced.

The Balvenie 10 is a soft whisky - soft in the way that "soft" water is soft. It is probably the least peated of the three you mentioned, but none of them are very peaty.

The Macallan 12 is from one of the acknowledged greats among the distilleries of Scotland and well loved by many, sometimes called "the Rolls-Royce of Scotch malts" but I have always thought Macallan doesn't really become interesting till it aquires a good deal more age. Older Macallans have never been cheap though, and currently seem to be quite expensive. It probably has more peat than the other two, but I would not call it a peaty whisky by any means. All versions of The Macallan will display their sherry aging.

Lowland whiskies are sometimes said to be the softest and least peated, but several Speyside whiskies are made at similar low levels of peatiness today. Very few lowland whiskies are still in production and available: Auchentoshan - which I've never cared for, and Glenkinchie - which is nice but not terribly interesting - are about all that will be widely found.

I can think of two Scotch whiskies that are widely available and unpeated: Glengoyne, which is a highland whisky but just barely above the highland line, and Scapa which has been made from unpeated malt (but very peaty water). Both are very interesting whiskies in the gentle style. Scapa sometimes has some bracing "Island" flavors. Neither taste like an Irish whiskey, though.

Black Bush is a lovely whiskey. It gets some of its flavor from aging in sherry casks. Some bottles seem to be more strongly sherried than others, but its always a treat and shows how nice a blended whisky can be. I don't know why, but the Irish just seem to make especially nice blended whiskies.

Bart

one of the following: Aberlour 10, Balvenie 10, or Macallan 12.

Discount Liquor has the best price I've seen (mid $40's) on the Aberlour A'Bunadh. This is an absolute boffo malt--though it is VERY strong at close to 120 proof, and it has loads of sherry (but the sherry never gets syrupy because the whisky is so bright and punchy at that proof--knockout stuff). It's a lot to pay when just starting a collection, but it's a real corker.

If you're going for the Macallan, I usually shoot for $29.99 with a free glass in the package--though prices and 'specials' change constantly. The Aberlour 10 is pleasant, and I've bought it for as little as $22, but over time I've stopped buying it. A great initial malt for the price though. Balvenie isn't bad--a decent dram--and I've seen it in the mid-to-upper $20's at times locally. I once tasted the Balvenie 10, 12, and 15 together--and liked the 10 best at the time. Though mileage may vary.

I was at Elm Grove liquor out off of the Moorland Road exit about a week ago (another nice supplier, along with Rays on North Avenue), and they had Old Pulteney for $19.99. If you want to avoid peat (or oloroso sherry, for that matter), and still enjoy a nice whisky this is great value. Elm Grove also just got in a 46% Ben Nevis 10 for $19.99. When I first tried it I gagged, because there is so much flavor of bourbon cask aging (why not just buy a bourbon?!?) but at a later tasting I kept reaching for it (46% is a really nice proof level), and consistently 'reaching for it' is my ultimate test of a whisky.

I STILL think that Highland Park is a great all-rounder. But the Macallan

12, with it's sherry overtures, is a real nice dram.

sherry, less now, I think, than it did a few years ago. It was one of the first Scotch whiskies I really liked. Its a modest whisky, but from a distillery whose reputation has steadily increased over the years. And its usually attractively priced.

I think you're right. When I was first buying it, it was a steal, and it had that sherry warmth that made it special. The last time I bought it, it became the most average whisky on my shelf--the one I would take along on trips for the occasional 'nip' in a pinch, as opposed to something I really savored, and it was starting to seem too bourbony.