Are older whiskies necessarily better?

Is the age of the whisky the best determinant of quality? Short answer: No.

Often, when we find an awesome 12 YO and have a great time appreciating the whisky, the 18 YO becomes a sort of an aspirational drink for the special occasion. The Bunnahabhain and the Yamazaki is a great example of this. Once you go for the older age expression, there is no turning back to the cheaper stuff.

However, once in a while, this doesn’t hold true and you feel absolutely cheated. Half of this is in the anticipation — if this particular drink is supposed to be so good that it changes your life, anything less will be disappointing. The second half is in the chemical process of ageing the whisky for a totally different taste profile.

The longer a whisky matures in a cask, the more likely it is to develop a complexity of flavour, as well as to lose some of the perceived “harsh”, spirit characteristics associated with very young whisky.

A cask of maturing whisky loses around 1.5% of its volume year on year, as well as developing a lower abv, as the water evaporates. Rather like a well-reduced sauce, the longer a whisky rests, the more concentrated the flavours become and the more the whisky will begin to take on characteristics of maturing in wood: slightly bitter, woody notes, thin, dry flavours and in the worst of cases, being completely overwhelmed by the oak, losing all its character and therefore its quality. There is a very fine balancing act between knowing when a cask is just right and whether it’s about to fall off the cliff into an oaky abyss.

So, there you go! The age of the whisky isn’t everything, it all depends on your personal taste.

Cheers, Bootleg Brew