Is older better?

[matt222]

Hi again all,

My oldest and most expensive malt was a 21 year old Glennfidich.

I wouldn't buy again for the price paid £83.

Does old age in a malt always necessarily mean a better, tastier and smoother drink or does it just intensify the flavour?

I think my most impressive malts so far are Highland Park 18, Glenmorangie 18 and quinta ruban.

I would be fascinated by your experienced thoughts on this, Thanks again, Matt.

[Innes]

Different malts will peak at different ages which i would say is often around 18 to 21 years. Having said that some malts can benefit from a bit of youth such as the peaty Islay malts.

[opelfruit]

No, older is not better - just rarer and more expensive. Over aging whisky is a crime and some stuff you get it way too oaked or tired.

As mentioned, whisky peaks differently and they type of whisky will change with age more. A big sherried Speysider from a robust distilate can take good aging with stuff from the likes of Glenfarclas happily sitting at 30 years plus and still be striding forwards to bigger and better things.

Stuff from Islay aint so good old. The more you age peated whisky the less influence the peat has and it loosed something.


Lowland whisky is tripple distilled (usually) and the quite a agressive distilate so it interacts with the wood more, it too does not stand a long aging.

It's all about getting the balance right for the chosen whisky and the taste/flavour profile you want vs your budget.

Ultimately though, if you want something older (or rarer/more desireable) then you'll pay for it, and £80 is starting to become pocket change now in the whisky world if you want something even remotely old......which is worrying
_________________
"Too much of anything is bad, but too much good whisky is barely enough."

[Quaich1]

Your question is one that I have been asked a number of times over the years. The answer is not a yes or no one. Age does not always mean "better, tastier or smoother". However, some of the very best drams I have had the pleasure of tasting have for me have been in the 25-37 year range and have included Glenfiddich, Highland park, Bowmore, Bunnahabhain, Mosstowie, Cragganmore and Port Ellen expressions, among others. There are of course much older drams than these and they sometimes lose something along the way. I have heard for example that some of the really old Lagavulin over 50 years has lost potency from someone who has tried it at the distillery. However, there are many 12 year old single malts like Lagavulin 12 and others that are pure heaven. I have also tried some no age statement single malts that are also superb and don't have an 18, 20 or 25 next to it. Then of course we all have such different palates and one persons stellar dram may be someone else's sow's ear. To be blunt however, most stock 18 year old single malts are generally better to me than the basic 12 year single malts. This is my best answer to an age old question.

_________________
"Always carry a large flagon of whisky in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake."
W.C. Fields (1880-1946)

[opelfruit]

You also need to bare in mind that age statements are not just progressive bottlings of the same juice from that distillery. As in, a 25 year old Glenfarclas is not just a 15 year old with an extra 10 years on it. It's a difference expression.

The 15yo is bottled at 46%, the 25 at 43%.
The 15yo uses a mix of more first fill casks than the 25yo so the "sherriedness" of it is higher even though its younger.

A 15yo Glenfiddich solera is not the same as the 18yo....it's matured in a solera style so its a very differeny aging process.

Each whisky is merely an expression from that distillery and not even the age of the whisky in the bottle. They may do a 12yo but it may be 80% whisky from over 15/16 years of age and a little of 12 years old, but they bottle it as a 12yo (Glendronach did this with their new 12yo....high content of much older whisky).



So do not just buy on age alone, there is much (MUCH!) more to it. The strength, the vatting mix, the barrel maturation used (sherry, bourbon, other - 1st or 2nd fill etc), the respective aging of the vatting, the finishing, chill-filtered or not........all my be different between a 12 year old and an 18 year old...not jus the "age"on the tin.
_________________
"Too much of anything is bad, but too much good whisky is barely enough."

[djmaxliving]

I've got a bottle of Glenfiddich 18 year old, can't say I like it. 15 year old is much better 12 nice as well.

[jcarrick]

matt as others have pointed out it isnt a simple yes or no answer and a whole lot to do with personal taste. Personally i love the Glenfiddich 21 you mention which isnt simply an older version the Glenfiddich 18, the 21 is finished in rum casks for 4 months adding a new dimension to the whisky.

[bifter]

Good points all. As a general rule I think the best whiskies I've had have been in the 18-25 year range, though with enough exceptions to caveat that heavily. I'd agree about the Islay whiskies too, some of the best I've had were 5-10 years old, but also with exceptions (a 20yo sherried Laphroaig from SMWS particularly stands out).

As for the original question "does old age in a malt always necessarily mean a better, tastier and smoother drink" I think my answer would be no. Over-aged whisky can be awful.
_________________
"Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw]

[GBrough]

Personally i enjoy the younger malts, and no not because i am cheap but usually it is smoother, more sherried and just a better drink in my humble opinion. I have had Macallan 12 and the other offerings to 21 year old of the standard non fine oak edition, my sweet spot for whisky is about 15-18 years after that it feels old and the fruit taste stewed.
_________________
The Laga 16.

It even tastes like an ashtray-WM

[albo]

The short answer is no, age is not a barometer of quality.

Other have said most of it, but some whisky is better younger and some is better older, there is no magic formular and at the end of the day its personal taste.

Ive tasted some excellent older whisky and ive tasted some excellent younger whisky. I buy more younger whisky because I can afford it, if money were no object, then I dare say I'd own much more older whisky, as generally you get more complexity and nuances with an older whisky, some obvious exceptions aside (as many have said generally Islay whisky does very well as a young whisky).

I'm going to make a wild assumtion that you're relativly new to whisky, I'd spend my time and money getting to know whisky at a reasonable price and if you come up with a couple fo distilleries you really like, then invest in older bottles from those distilleries, it's not a fool proof plan by any means but it seems a reasonable starting point.

[GBrough]

Albo has it right, my top 5 distilleries are Ardbeg, Laphroaig, Glenmorangie, Lagavulin, Talisker. I go for peaty drams myself and it shows, still a highland can be beutiful just look at HP12
_________________
The Laga 16.

It even tastes like an ashtray-WM

[Kava]

No older doesnt always mean better but i have to say many of the best whiskies i have experienced have been 18 years plus. For example someone mentions Highland Park above, the Highland Park 18, 25 and 30 year old are superb whiskies.

[matt222]

Thank you all again. I have to agree, I enjoyed the 15 Glenfiddich as much as the rum-finished 21 year old.

[opelfruit]

[Quaich1]