I learned on a distillery tour in Scotland that the high-end whisky brands don’t sell anything for domestic consumption that’s been aged for fewer than 15 years – they only sell the 12-year-old and “younger” stuff overseas. 15 years jibes with my own preference for a smooth dram of Scotch, but the price does go up dramatically in the U.S. for 15+ so I can see people here getting used to 12 as an acceptable alternative for a reasonable price.
It’s true. Just a drop from a pipette or straw releases some flavour. Also, if you want it cold it’s best to use whisky stones rather than ice to avoid watering down your drink.
I made this nitpicky comment, and noted that making it made me a pedantic jerk-off, and three people liked it. So I’m wondering whether they agree with the nitpicking or agree that I’m a pedantic jerk-off. But it’s probably the latter.
The flavour does change even later, quite a lot in fact. But generally in my experience past 20 years those changes are largely undesirable. In my opinion most whiskys are at their optimum between 10-18 years maturation. For example with Laphroaig, the younger 10 year old bottling brings out nicely the fierce, almost vegetal spectrum that you get in that distillery’s products. But Lagavulin, with its mellower tones, the 16 year old and older bottlings are imo preferable.
Port Chalotte (Bruichladdich sub-brand) did an interesting yearly edition, basically you could try how the flavours had matured each year.
Interesting… as a frugal happy mutant who’s not opposed to paying for quality, but doesn’t pay for vanity, this is really interesting… looks like there’s diminishing returns after 10-12 years.
Does anyone have any suggestions on good whiskeys to look for in that age range?
Previously I have sampled a lot of stuff, generally don’t like cask strength or super woody stuff (which IIRC was more of a scotch thing?). When I was in school my goto cheap but good bottle to keep in the apartment was Buffalo Trace.
Edit: A frugal happy mutuant - frugal is not a noun. Yet.
Those are probably scotch bottles in the photo (the Scots sometimes re-use sherry and bourbon casks to borrow some of the flavor, whereas bourbon only uses virgin oak, by law.) I know some bourbon drinkers think 10 years is actually too long for that particular spirit.
There’s also the condition of the wood used in the barrels to consider. Bourbon uses newly charred oak, while scotch whisky reuses those barrels after the bourbon makers are done with them, so there’s a fair amount of transfer out of the wood by the time the whisky gets in there.
I’ve tried 12-year Van Winkle side-by-side with the 23, and sure, the 23-year old Pappy is pretty freaking fantastic, but not so significantly better than the 12 to warrant the increase in price. 12-year Lot B is plenty good for me, thank you very much. I’m still rationing the case I managed to put together from an afternoon of hopping from liquor store to liquor store in Virginia a few years ago. Best drinking investment I ever made.
And in my experience, bourbon never gets really good. But bourbon matured in European oak sherry casks might prove me wrong there…
ETA @sone_guy beat me to it. And @SheiffFatman provided the distillery, so defiantly and definitely a True Scotsman is finally found on BB BBS.
FTR, @jhharvest: you should try the Ballechin edition from Edradour distillery. I never had more interesting tastings than with their yearlies. The #7 was like finest smoked ham soaked in spirits of a bright and sunny summer. The #4 was sweet and gentle, like a midsummernights floral kiss. I couldn’t believe that was the same still which distilled it.
Right, but I was talking about bourbon, which seems to have a similar return on investment as this scotch when it comes to time in barrel coloring the liquid. Try Belle Meade’s Sherry Cask. It’s aged for nine years in new charred-oak barrels (as that’s part of the definition of bourbon), and finished in used sherry casks. Good stuff.
Nope, it’s the angel’s share. Specifically, the Archangel Dave, patron saint of pissheads. He doesn’t get mentioned much in the standard works, because frankly he’s an embarrassment.
I’m a rum lover myself and I agree the best rums fall around 12 years old. I had a 12 and a 15 Matusalem and they were both very good, slight differences, sometimes I prefer the 12. I think these are not aged alone though, these rums are barreled down somehow where they stack the aging new to old, top to bottom? The rum passes from one cask mix to the next so it’s a bit of a blended aging. I don’t remember the name for this process right now though, and refuse to google it because I’m trying to fight off rum-induced dementia…
Sure. But knowing this, and the usual differences between stills, it still stunned me. I am - was - quite familiar with the effect of aging stuff from the same still over different periods, I tasted various bottles from the same still aged in Sherry vs. Port vs. American oak, and a lovely Sauternes barrel once. But the Ballechin was the most unlike stiff from the same still I ever could afford.
