Is age a Factor?

Take part in our whisky polls and votes. You can also post your own polls in this forum.

If a company makes a 10,12,15,18 etc etc yo bottlings, does it mean that without a doubt a 15yo will be better than a 12yo? Or a 12 will be better than their 10yo? Is this the case 100% of the time?

Poll ended at Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:17 am

No votes
Total votes: 37

User avatar
Gold Member
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:48 pm

Is age a Factor?

Postby Elagabalus » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:17 am

I'm curious as to the group consensus on the following question.

User avatar
Gold Member
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:57 pm

Postby peergynt323 » Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:02 am

I don't know if anyone thinks that is the case on this board. Perhaps "most of the time" would be a better question.

Gold Member
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:34 pm

Postby Drrich1965 » Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:14 am


Caol Ila 12 beat 18
Highland Park 12 beats 15
Glenfiddich 15 beats 18
Glenmorangie 12yo Sherry or Port beat 18 (perhaps not a fair comparision)

There are others...This often rings even more true with the comparisions between middle age malts (15-21) and much older malts, which depending on the heartiness of the whisky, can lose balance at older ages.

Deactivated Member

Postby Deactivated Member » Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:49 am

As you ask "without a doubt" then the answer must be "No, not always, but often".

I am constantly being informed by the experts who actually make whisky that 80% to 90% of the end flavour of any whisky comes from the cask.
But, with some whiskies, prolonged maturation in oak can be just too much, creating an end flavour which can be perceived to be not as "good" as younger expressions.

I was in a presentation with someone from Laphroaig who explained the effect of longer maturation very well with respect to Laphroaig whisky.

Laphroaig is renowned most of all for the 10y/o expression. This is a unique taste, very medicinal with a mixture of peat, iodine, seaweed ..etc. A flavour we all know.

If you look at the older 15y/o expression, it is much more rounded with less "in yer face" character and flavours. All in all, a much smoother dram.

Take this concept further and look at the 30y/o:
A very rounded dram which is very different to the younger expressions.
This is illustrated by what some forum members say of Laphroaig 30:
"Extreme good balance between sherry, oak and peat" (from Tom).
"It has a good deal of fruit and sherry in it, a nice dose of oak, and just a small note of traditional Laphroaig character in the background. It has a very rounded flavor & is quite richly flavored as well." (Choochoo).

The longer the maturation period, the more interaction with the oak, therefore the oak characteristics tend to prevail much more.

With some whiskies, this will create a different and probably lesser liked flavour than a younger expression, but once again, this can also be a matter of personal taste and what 'you' expect from a certain dram.
(Conversely, some whiskies require longer in a cask and can be bottled at too young an age!)

Finally, to stay on the topic of Laphroaig, I will look at the very well-liked QC.
This is a younger Laphroaig, aged for around 7-8 years in normal (500 litre) casks and then switched in quarter casks (of 125 litres) for less than a year - around 8 months.
The use of a QC means that a larger percentage of the content is in contact with the wood which in turn, means that the effect is to produce a whisky older in character than its years.
Most people, upon drinking QC for the first time, place this as being a more mature or older dram than it really is.
This shows the effect of the wood on the whisky's maturation and ageing process.

(Sorry for the long post)

Bronze Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:47 am

Postby ScotchPalate » Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:45 pm

Ditto on the previous posts.

It is a common point of ignorance that older = better. The older Scotches have cost the manufacturer a lot more in time and space, and therefore cost more. Another common misconception is that more expensive means better tasting. Don't judge a Scotch by its age or price. A good piece of advice is to ask here before you buy. These folks won't steer you wrong, and I have found their tasting notes to be more accurate than any of the critics! :D

Double Gold Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:54 am

Postby vitara7 » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:33 pm

age makes little differance, many of my fav whiskies are young ones.

User avatar
Gold Member
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:57 pm

Postby peergynt323 » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:34 pm

Malt Teaser makes some excellent points and with the amount of support you see on these boards for younger expressions (PC5, Ardbeg Still Young) it should be apparent that younger is not necessarily better.

There is an inherent advantage that older whiskies have though. Since it is rare for a cask to have the potential to age for 30+ years, the batches for the very old whiskies will be smaller (sometimes single casks) and small batches almost always have more character than the large batches. This combined with the cost of storing and caring for the casks for 30+ years makes them quite expensive.

Gold Member
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:15 pm

Postby Jan » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:24 pm

Actually you can't always assume that the next step up agewise, is always just the same expression aged x years more.

Often the vatting are different in the aim to produce a different expression, not just an older one.

Balvenie is the obvious example of this, counting it as a virtue to have different cask/maturation schemes for each expression.

But also the expressions of Glenfiddich, Glenfarclas and others varies a lot from expression to expression.

Take Highland Park. I do not believe that the only difference between the 15yo and the 18yo is 3 years. The profile (and quality) leap is simply to great....

New member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:01 am

Postby Leonidych » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Every malt has its own age of excellency. For most of the Islays, I would say 9-13 years... hm, which is wrong, actually. To be precise, Lagavulin: 16. Laphroaig: 12, Caol Isla: 10, Bunnahabhain: 12, Bruichladdich: 14, Bowmore: 16, Ardbeg: 25 (yes, the Lord). IMHO, of course. :roll:

Double Gold Member
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm

Postby Reggaeblues » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:27 am

Hmmm. I thought bowmore 17 was the best OB 16's very ok as a cask|(ish) strength Islay, but somehow not as "typically bowmore" as the 17(...or even, at their best, the apparently variable 12 and Darkest.)

On the other hand, many praise the extra years of the Talisker 18 over the ten. A turkish friend and I agree that, tho' the 18 YO is undoubtedly a smoother and more rounded whisky than the 10, the 10 is wilder,and therefore more... enjoyable! (and perhaps more characterful.)

Deactivated Member

Postby Deactivated Member » Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:15 am

"Without a doubt"? Of course not. Of course everyone will have a different opinion on various bottlings of various distilleries, but virtually everyone will have an example of a younger bottle he thinks is better than an older one.

Congrats--you've fostered a 28-0 vote, at last count. Not even a smart-*ss dissenter! Never seen that before.

User avatar
Muskrat Portage
Triple Gold Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:47 am

Is age a factor?

Postby Muskrat Portage » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:49 am

Age is only a factor when dealing with the drinker and, yes, then it matters. We older fellows are much better equipped to appreciate the nuances and subtleties of whisky. So any of you young fellers that have collections exceding your legal limit of 5 bottles are to contact one of us and proceed to arrange transfer of the excess to our gentle care.

Now to be a serious poster, IMHO the Balvenie 12 is superior to the 15 and as has been stated in other forums some of the very old whiskies (30+yrs) are sadly lacking in comparison to their younger siblings. Personally, I've enjoyed those whiskies that I've collected and appreciate something I find in all of them, which includes some 20+ yo's and a 30 yo.

I don't feel you can dismiss any whisky out of hand simply due to age. You can, with experience, decide which you prefer, which you don't and build from that point.

And until you get to that stage, send us anything over the 5 bottle limit, young-uns! :D

Return to “Whisky Poll”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests