How does rating work?

In general the expectations for longer aged whiskies are rising. Mostly (not always) the spirit gets more complexity. And ofc the stuff gets more expensive which in reverse increase the expectations to the quality. But you can get whisk(e)y where the wood gets too much due to the long aging process. Most pple won't like this very much and prefer more well balanced drams. So in my opinion you can't say "older = better".

@Maltmark Hi Maltmark and welcome. Whiskybase is a great resource for information about bottlings and releases, and a sense of what some people think about them. On the other hand, the value with ratings often is in the notes.

There is no perfect scoring mechanism. Rating a spirit, as with anything, is entirely subjective and is simply supposed to be a reflection of the holistic experience that one has, and one's enjoyment of the spirit. So, if you really, really enjoy something, it doesn't matter what somebody else thought of it, or the age of the spirit. Havign said all that, @wills is right about age usually having an impact on complexity and the expectation of quality, though age in itself is no guarantee of quality.

Different spirits age differently. Some take on wood more quickly than others. For instance, a rye bourbon with 25 years in the barrel is probably going to be too woody, or at least many people would think that it's taken on too much wood. A Cognac, though, may not start to develop completely until year 30 or 40. With whiskies, a lot depends on the type of cask, peating levels, storage conditions, wood quality, and a host of factors. The issue of tasting notes is important because some people just don't enjoy certain flavor profiles. For instance, some types of heavily sherried whiskies (whiskies aged in old sherry casks) gradually take on more coffee-like qualities. At a certain point, it gets to be too much for me, though other people find it enjoyable.

An interesting resource is the spreadsheet that the Malt Maniacs put out with their scoring for the awards: maltmaniacs.net/MMA/… It's useful to see because some people have very divergent scores; they appreciate different qualities. Tasting notes are useful because, if somebody were to say that they really liked something because of X, Y, or Z, and you don't like X, Y, or Z in your whisky, you probably won't like it as much as that person does (or may like it for some other reason).

With time, experience, and many, many more tasting sessions (tasty, tasty tasting sessions), you'll have greater context for what you appreciate, but, at all points, trust your own experiences!

@Maltmark Glad you found whiskybase despite my misspelling. You perhaps keyed on one of the best distilleries when you referenced Glenfarclas. They seem not to produce stinkers at any age.

Here's another site to spend some time with: www.ralfy.com

Ralfy does reviews and offers his ratings, but the real value of his vlogs (video blogs) are his insightful thoughts about everything whisky: age, aging, wood types, marketing, packaging, caramel coloring, filtering processes, abv levels, and on, and on, and on. Very entertaining and educational at the same time. Enjoy.

@Maltmark Thanks for an awesome disscussion thread. The info shared with you from @wills, @numen, @two-bit cowboy is a fine example of the closeness of the whisky world. I have two rating systems that I use one for my notes only and is based on five star rating. The second is the more familiar 100 point rating, as with a lot of folks I review ratings from all over but use them to guide my exeperience, not dictate it. To inform but not drive it. If others say great whisky and give it 89, and I taste same brand and give it 75 I'm not overly concerned about the mismatch, as @numen said you may like factors X Y Z or may not the important part is the journey and shared exeperiences. Hope this was helpful. :)

Gentlemen, thank you for all the input.