Whisky Connosr
Menu
Buy Whisky Online

Discussions

Bloody Old Whiskies

0 4

@OCeallaigh
OCeallaigh started a discussion

I am not one of these people who is under the spell of age. I don't relate an age statement to quality. However, I haven't ever tried a whisky over about 16 years old. Some friends and I are saving up to all pitch in on a 25 year or up malt just so we can experience it.

Some whiskies I know don't actually do as well in the older years, do any of you have an opinion about which whiskies are really good at that age?

Thanks.

14 years ago

4 replies

@Wodha
Wodha replied

I split a Brora 30 with a friend then purchased a whole bottle for myself that I'm saving for my 50th birthday coming up in May. I also split a Laphroaig 30 with another friend. Truth be told: I'm a believer that age does not guarantee quality. I did end up thinking the Brora 30 is astounding while a Laphroaig Quarter Cask kicks the Laphroaig 30's ass for a quarter the cost. Really, unless you're drunk with excess cash there's little reason to spend the extra cash for older hooch. The best whiskies I've ever had fall between 12-18 years of age. Bowmore 17 comes to mind. "Sex in a glass"

14 years ago 1Who liked this?

@Victor
Victor replied

@OCeallaigh, that taste I had of 1967 Duncan Taylor Springbank 40 yo was the only malt I have ever been more nirvana-induced with than the Uigeadail...but, when I looked it up online I found that it cost $ 2,200. Information, but not very practical information for you.

14 years ago 0

@WhiskyNotes
WhiskyNotes replied

This comes close to a discussion I had with @jwise the other day about the Mannochmore 18yo. Once you go beyond a certain price point, things do not progress in a linear way. Just like the top speed of a Ferrari will not be 10x higher than a common BMW that costs 10x less. You pay a high premium for a relatively small gain in quality, simply because you're also paying for exclusivity, rarity and things like that. But there usually IS a gain in quality in my opinion.

It's certainly true that you can't get a certain level of complexity in whisky unless you're looking at older expressions. Young whisky is usually bold and expressive, but it can also be interpreted as brutal and rough. Older whisky is complex and subtle, but it can also be interpreted as dull and boring. If you like Laphroaig for its strong peat, then an old Laphroaig will probably disappoint because it focuses on totally different elements. It all depends what you expect.

Just remember there are good value bottles to be found in every market segment.

14 years ago 1Who liked this?

@jwise
jwise replied

Well said, Whiskynnotes. I would recommend finding a distillery that you all like, and finding an older expression to taste. This way, you get to compare and contrast what age does, and not just experience a new taste. For instance, if you like Highland Park 12yr, I would highly recommend the 18yr and 25yr. I haven't tasted the 30yr yet, so I have no comments there.

When I chose to get into 30yr+ whiskies, I went with what I knew: Glenrothes. I have the 1972 Vintage (32yrs) and the G&M 30yr bottling. Both are unopened as of this writing.

14 years ago 0