How fast does the quality deteriorate?

YMMV. There is, I think, more to time than mere science. What I mean is that the perceived experience may change, but this does not necessarily indicate a change in the chemistry of the bottle. Consider coffee--does any coffee taste anything to you like it once did? IMHO spirits differ from wines in terms of complexity. By this I do not suggest that wines are not complex, but I offer that the dimensions of complex spirits, particularly scotch, are perceived differently once one becomes accustomed to a spirit. In other words, if you drank the same scotch daily, you would probably notice less change in a bottle that was put on hold for 30 days than you would if the bottle represented a first taste on day one, and several subsequent experiences on day 30. I can think of ways in which one could "scientifically" create an experiment to test this hypothesis ... but, then again, I tend toward qualitative research and critical praxis over Western scientific inquiry that claims certainty of knowledge as something to be grasped outside of the human experience (a debate beyond the scope of this group). For your sake, the proof would be to get another bottle of the same beloved spirit (choosing a consistent product, like the Laphroaig you mentioned) and double-blind test them side-by-side. Could you tell the difference, and (for your tastes) "prove" your hypothesis.

But to really answer your question, the *general* (majority) understanding is that a bottle begins to deteriorate at some point, many claiming 6 months to a year or half empty (pessimists!). I think in your case it is the evaporation (pun intended) of the novelty.

Store in dark location at consistent room temp, and all should be well. Wine is *much* more fragile, as anyone who has left a bottle for a few days should know.

Finally, if you Google the group, you should find a plethora of information.

Best of Luck, John

Eliminating almost all air is possible, in my experience, only by using the old glass marbles trick, which works very, very well. We use this on fine wine all the time.

Exactly!

-- Larry

Yes, there have been a number of threads over the years on this topic. Some people put glass marbles in the bottle to keep the whisky level up to the neck and minimize air exposure. Some people acquire smaller bottles -- a quarter the size of a full bottle, say -- and decant the malt into those, so only a quarter of the whisky is exposed at a time. I think a few have had success with using paraphernalia used by wine drinkers to pump inert gas into partly empty bottles.

Me, I rarely have a bottle open for more than six months or so.

Say, Rob Crowe called you Dr. H a while ago. Are you the Dr. H who used to post in afca?

bill

Well, THAT'S your problem....30 days per bottle? ;-)

I'm glad I've got some of those airline-wine-sized jobbies socked away from as long as a decade ago--including what would be a really interesting chronological tasting of Bowmore 12. But lately I'm really enjoying comparing the tastes of whiskies in open bottles--particularly more than 3/4 empty that have been lingering for a few months. Delicate (or feeble) highlands sometimes die long, slow boring deaths, but whiskies that were assertive to start, and particularly those with a lot of complex influences (nice peat, strange casks) tend to get lush in a really relaxed, mellow way. Recently, I went away for a week and discovered when I got back that I had left a bottle of Glencoe 58% open--completely unstopped--for the week, with only a small pool of spirit in the bottom. That one wasn't bad either. Science isn't for the weak-willed.

No, I'm not even Dr. D (yet). But if there's another John Derby who posts on usenet (besides trolls who've used my name at times) it would be quite interesting.

No other John Derby that I know of. (tedious explanation follows)

There was a "Dr. H" who posted on alt.folklore.urban and alt.fan.cecil-adams, both groups I've read at one time or another, who knew something about malts and sometimes posted here as well.

When Rob -- who is also known in those groups -- called you Dr. H, or at least that's how I remember it, I thought I'd check whether you were he, as it were, and say hello.

Never mind. Hello anyway. I'm off for a bit of the Compass Box Peat Monster. I'll feel better soon.

cheers.

bill

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:02:35 GMT, the alleged bill van, may have posted the following, to alt.drinks.scotch-whisky:

That's the same Dr. H, but read on...

I'm coming into this thread a bit late.

By the way of explanation, when I invoked Dr. H's name in response to a previous post by Mr. Derby, I was just trying to elicit (or provoke) a post from Dr. H, as he and I have a bit of a running feud (across many newsfroups) about the merits of Laphroaigh. I apologize if my wording was less than clear. I'll only offer the possibility that I had had more than a few drams of (Buffalo Trace|Talisker) that (night|morning).

I'm sure you will, but give a Springbank CV or one of the many Glenmorangie $Wood offerings a chance, as all that peat and the associated phenols may be going to your head. ;)

Regards, Rob

Understood.

If I ever encounter the Springbank CV, which sounds delicious,

I surely will. But I've only ever tried one Glenmorangie, and thought it was over-sherried. I kept thinking there might be an interesting whisky under there, but the sherry kept getting in the way. I've been busy with peat and stuff ever since.

Well that's the point, innit?

cheers.

bill