The Next Step

I have tasted and liked many single malts over 18 years and have tasted some really nice and some that were adversely affected by old age. Can be hit and miss and very much depends on what you like about old whisky. I don't mind a little wood but it gets old pretty quickly for me. It can make a whisky seem one sided. I have tasted whisky that plays out a dance between wood and grain and age and sometimes those can be interesting but it depends if that's what I am in the mood for. For me, if I was looking for an old expensive whisky I would not take a chance and go with a distiller that is known for consistency of quality in its older offerings like: Macallan, Highland Park, Glenlivet, Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Springbank, Bruichladdich, Brora etc. Some distilleries have a very specific flavor profile that you may not like so try some cheaper offerings first. So I guess I'm being conservative in saying go with what you know or what is known because, for me, it has hurt to spend $100+ on a bottle I was indifferent about. If I could afford to, however, I would buy 1 of Each of All of Them!

Highland Park 18 years old is a winning ticket to my opinion. To me, it is better than the 30 yo. The HP 18 is one of the most complex whisky I have tried in the 18-21 years range. It has a long finish and well balance taste of toffee, nuts, fruits with a slightly hint of smoke. It should be available in BC as it is available here in Quebec. The price is 140$, but I have seen it in the States for less than 100$.

But if I would have a 300$ budget, I would not hesitate a second and buy myself a Port Ellen. They are mostly between 23 and 30 years old now but the price can only go up as the distillery is closed since 1983.

Thanks Peatsmoker. I take your point and will not stray too far off the known path. I might just give the Bruichladich 21 a go. Also the Balvenie 21 Port wood and the Glenlivet 21 get good reviews and aren't bank breakers. I really don't want to spend more than $150-200.

Kutter. Thanks for the tip. I have the HP18 and it is one of my absolute faves. If the 30 is not substantially better for the extra 250 bucks I will just get myself 2 more of the 18 year old HPs.

I like both peated and unpeated styles so I am open to suggestions for either or both. I just refreshed my memory last night with a dram of Arbeg Airigh Nam Beist. That to me is right down the middle between both styles of whisky and just about pure perfection in a single malt whisky--at least for my particular taste, too bad no longer available. Thanks for your input guys.

@BlueNote I have a bottle of Airgh Nam Beist also. Mine is a 18 years old. There are three releases of this 1990 vintage, 2006, 2007 and 2008. If you don't know how to find out, which one is yours I can tell you how. It is very good indeed and I describe it as having peated ice cream... Different from the usual Ardbeg although you still have the camp fire smoke typical to Ardbeg. I had an awesome deal on this one at only 63$ in a liquor store in New Jersey back in August. I would have bought more if only I could pass more alcohol through the Canada/USA border. I would certainly buy two HP 18 before a HP 30 or even a HP 25. I heard good things on the Balvenie Port Wood 21 though I did not have the chance to try it myself. I have a Glenlivet 18 in my cabinet that I did not open yet, so I can't comment. I have the Auchentochan 21 also that I just opened. Very good. Very light and still complex. I like better my HP18 that is unfortunately coming to an end in a near future... sniff...

Kutter, Mine is also the 2008 version of ANB. I don't know what the other two bottlings are like, but this one's a beauty. I could definitely live with just ANB, HP18, maybe one big peat monster like Lag16 or Ardbeg 10, and one sherry bomb like Aberlour Abunath.

I have the Glenlivet 18. It's quite nice, a bit oaky but very pleasant and easy drinking. I'd score it in the low 80s.

Incidentally, I paid over twice what you did for HP18. Next one will be from a duty free or somewhere in the US next time I'm down there.

My suggestion would be to try samples of these older/pricier malts before investing up to $200 in a bottle. You might find that older is not necessarily better. There is the issue of a stronger wood flavor, as others have mentioned. But I would also add that, from my perspective, even some of the older malts that are not woody, are disappointing because they seem to loose their originality.

Some examples from my personal experience: Talisker 18, Caol Ila 18, Glenlivet 18, even the Arran 14. These are exceptionally smooth and complex delights, but in my opinion are not as distinctive as the Talisker 10, Caol Ila 12, Glenlivet 12, or Arran 10.

PS: Personally, I was very disappointed with the "Benriach 21 Authenticus". Felt like the peat was added as an afterthought, and did not mix with the other flavors.

Points taken Olivier. I am beginning to get an impression that old age is not always a determining factor in what constitutes an outstanding whisky, and that spending four times as much for a 25 yr. old as you would for a ten yr. old does not necessarily result in a proportional (4oo%) increase in quality.

Thanks to everyone for your responses. Once again I have acquired some valuable and useful information on this excellent forum.