Age

Yes. If it didn't change anything, it wouldn't be done.

Perhaps you meant to ask if older whisky is always better than young whisky? In that case, the answer is 'of course not'. Age changes a whisky, but change is not always for the better.

Ummm, is there anyone -- anyone at all -- who thinks that it doesn't?

Now as to how much aging, and the circumstances, and whether any particular increment of aging leads to improvement or deterioration, those are matters of taste.

-- Larry

Hallo all,

Paul Arthur schrieb:

That's true. I have been to quite a few single distillery-tastings lately and we went through different ages. Mostly the whisky actually improved with age (at least according to the tastes of the people present). However, "improvement" or "deterioration" is also mostly just a matter of personal taste. I believe there is not really a good or a bad whisky, there are whiskies which I like or which I don't like.

But back to the original question: The answer to the question lies in the answer to the question of what happens to the spirit inside the cask. Basically, certain flavors and aromas are introduced with the grain and the water and the yeast. The wood of the cask is supposed to work out these flavors and aromas and also introduce more (that's why mostly casks are used, that have already had something else in them like bourbon, sherry, wine). The skill of the master distiller lies now in determining a point, when all aromas are in a good balance. And so, since aromas can become finer tuned with age, whisky can improve with age. However, I also believe that whisky can be overaged when all aromas are so blurred that they become indistinctable.

Now here I agree completely. I have tasted recently a very old Brora.

50 years old to be exact and it was just way too woody. I also had a few weeks ago a taste of Royal Brackla 40 years old and it was spoiled by the effect of the wood. Then again I have had an old Taisker ( I would need to lie if I said which age becaue I cant remember. I just know it was old, over 30) and the talisker did in my opinion improve. It also depends on which cask it has aged. In Kentucky the bourbon expands and contracts into the wood far more extreme due to the extremes in weather than in Scotland. The bourbon barrels make Scotch age better than sherry IMO. Therefore I like single Bourbon barrel filled Single Malt Scotch. I am not too keen on the new fangled sherry finishes.

Peace,

Jock

I love young Islays. The Smokehead in my cabinet -- a very young south Islay, not sure which one -- is my favourite malt at the moment, as well as the cheapest one I own.

But as others have suggested, there's no formula. It depends on the particular whisky, and the particular whisky drinker.

Hallo all,

Jacues Loofjes schrieb:

In my very first whisky-tasting we had a 35y Bruichladdich bottled by the Hart Brothers and the 125th anniversary Bruichladdich, also 35y. At the Lagavulin-tasting we also had a 30y as well as the Laphroaig-tasting and the masterclass tasting boasted a 32yo Bowmore (Signatory) and a

33yo Springbank (Murray McDavid). I cannot say that I did not like either one. I'd advise anyone to try the old ones.

I just love the sherry-agings and sherry-finishes and I am looking forward to my birthday-present: A sherry tasting with 9 sherries and 7 whiskies.

Hallo zusammen,

bill van schrieb:

South Islay? Laphroaig? Lagavulin? Though, I would not call them smokeheads, more like nicely peated. ;-) If you want a smokehead, then try the Port Charlotte (by Bruichladdich), start with the PC5, then the PC6 and then the PC7, but try them before you buy them, they are not everyones dram of whisky. They are of the same distillation batch but aged 5, 6 and 7 years respectively. These whiskies are a wonderful example of waht ageing does to the drink.

Hi All, I think want I meant was are we as whiskey drinkers, are we obsessed with the ides of age. Would we dismiss a young malt out of hand because of it's age, while buying an older malt because of it's age. Drew,

I think the inexperienced buyer may well do that, perceiving a 'younger' malt as being somehow incomplete.

However, as releases such as PC5 and Ardbeg's 'Very Young', 'Still Young' and 'Almost There' show, young can be a very good thing indeed, especially if you like your whisky to still have all its teeth, as it were.

Now I think about it, the only 'young' whiskies I've tried have all been Islays. I wonder how a young sherry-finished dram would be?

Jim

Sometimes. There are several influences at work here. Old whiskies are rarer than young whiskies, so they appeal to a sense of exclusivity, of being among a small group that have had the opportunity to sample something. Old whiskies are more expensive to produce than young whiskies, which is usually reflected in the retail price; this appeals to people as a status symbol, but also introduces a bias toward finding it special (we're inclined to directly associate quality with price). There's also a general cultural bias toward veneration of older things, encountered in everything from literature to musical instruments to beer.

On the other hand, of course, generalisations are always wrong. There is no 'we'; there's me, there's Jim Bob, there's Susan, and there's you. While some individuals may dismiss young whiskies, there are others dismissing old whiskies, and still others that love both.

And lest we forget, the sheen of exclusivity and high price is often applied to young whiskies as well. D&M has Octomore in stock, a five year old single malt; it's a limited release and listed at $220. Or there's things like Mackmyra's Preludium series, which never made it to the US; Royal Mile Whiskies recently offered a set of all six expressions (in 500ml bottles) for £600 ($833).

Well they generally are, but not always.....

It's more peat than smoke, I agree. But that's branding for you.

I find aspects in Smokehead that remind me of Laphroaig, Lagavulin, Caol Ila and Ardbeg. It has approximately the same taste profile as the Finlaggan, the Ileach and the Dun Bheagan, which were all reputed to be young Lagavulins. But I've never understood why Lagavulin would sell casks to private bottlers, when they could sell the stuff for twice the price under its real name.

I'm very interested in those, but only one of them has appeared here on the west coast of Canada (I can't recall which one it was I saw), and it's priced in the same range as the Lagavulin 16. I may succumb later this spring when I visit Alberta, which has a lower tax regime for strong drink. But for the moment, it's a little too expensive for me.

Hallo zusammen,

bill van schrieb:

For one thing probably because if they did not do it, they would not be selling their own whisky for the price they do, for the sheer quantity of it. In the same line, why do they sell their whisky to be used in blends? For us consumers it is so much the better because we get an even broader variety. The other reason for selling might also be warehouse capacity. The demand in single malts has risen sharply over the past few years, encouraging the distilleries to produce more. I imagine that at some point the warehouses must be full. So in the end there is just business involved plus also a little marketing. Some bottlers are quite renowned today, so it adds to the own reputation.

True, a quick check is giving prices of around EUR 70,00. I've had the PC5 and PC6 so far and a whiff of the PC7 but would never have tried them had I not had the chance at a tasting at our local store.

"Drew Martin" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:K9Qvl.109774$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe19.ams...

Yes, last year at german Whisky Fair in Limburg i buyed one bottle. After 7 drum was the Select Reserve for 34? the best where i try. Alex

Not "mostly", try *always*. To be classified as a SMSW it can only be aged in *used* oak, and for a minimum of three years. By law.

Traditionally, many years ago, it was mostly sherry casks that were used. However, with the global dis-interest of late in sherry and the use of stainless stell shipping containers, most distilleries use bourbon casks for their main-run malts, reserving what few sherry casks they can get their hands on for 'specials'. (The opposite apllies to bourbon, by law it has to be aged in *new* oak barrels. Therefore there are plenty of used bourbon barrels to be had. However, IMO, they don't impart as nice a flvour to the spirit as sherry, preferably oloroso, casks do.)

In fact the global shortage of sherry casks for use with aging SMSW has got so bad that some distilleries, notably Macallan, go to the expense of having new casks made of French oak and then leasing them (very cheaply) to sherry producers in Spain to use, then has them shipped to Scotland once they've become used sherry casks. An innovative, if expensive, answer to the problem.

I was out buying a new SMSW to try last night and I saw, in the Bowmore range, two bottles that stated that they'd been aged in claret and port casks respectively. Now that I just can't imagine would be a good marriage of flavours. Red wine and SMSW? Interesting, to put it kindly. The bottles were quite cheap compared with the rest of the Bowmore range with no age stated (so three years or more then..) leading me to believe that it was an unsuccessful experiment.

"New fangled sherry finishes"? Using sherry casks is going back to the roots of SMSW. It's only in the last 100 years or so with the increasing global market for 'new world' bourbon and decreasing market for sherry that SMSW is predominantly aged in boubon barrels. Back in the days when SMSW production was mandated there were literally thousands of sherry casks scattered around the UK docklands as it was too expensive to ship them back to Spain empty compared with having new ones made. This is part of the reason it is required by law for SMSW to be aged in 'used' barrels. In those days you would have been lucky to find a boubon barrel in the whole of the UK.

It was only in latter years, when boubon production was mandated and it became a requirement that bourbon be aged only in new charred oak barrels that the situation in the UK changed and there was a glut of (larger) bourbon barrels, made of strongly phenolic American oak, around the docks instead of sherry casks. Of course, those thrifty scots soon took advantage of the situation and now by far the majority of SMSW is aged in (coarse-flavour-imparting) charred American oak boubon barrels so that it has now become the standard.

Traditional SMSW is aged in sherry casks. Some distilleries are trying to go back to their roots (see my reply to Andy re: Macallans) and make more traditional-tasting whisky. They obviously think that it tastes better, and I agree. However, I can see how someone entrenched in years of boubon-barrel aged SMSW would think that 'sherry finishes' were 'new fangled' and not as desirable.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Bullshit. The Scotch Whisky Order 1990 states "has been matured in an excise warehouse in Scotland in oak casks of a capacity not exceeding

700 litres, the period of that maturation being not less than 3 years;"

There is no legal requirement that the oak be "used". While such is traditional, releases including the BenRiach 1980 26yo (with full maturation in new oak) and the Glenmorangie 15yo (finished in new oak) show that tradition is not always adhered to.

Is that for Single Malt Scotch Whisky (SMSW)? If so can you point me to the relevant laws please?

Or are you talking about factory-distilled grain whisky? You know, the crap that the blenders start with and then mix with good stuff to make it palettable.

Cites please. I'm not trolling, I'm seriously interested.

Cheers,