Fettercairn

[Troglodyte]

Whisky is a curious comodity.

Age is seldom a reliable guide to quality, and price usually reflects the distillery's decade or two of storing casks which sees a loss of spirit in the form of the angels' share.

Apart from the single cask offerings, most single malt whiskies are something of a blend (albeit an in-house mix of good stuff) and the age given is the youngest spirit used. The distilleries have their craft down to a fine art, but they readily acknowledge that few spirits improve to any great degree after 12 or 15 years.

Distilleries' house standard (often 10 or 12 years old) is by no means anything less of a good drinking spirit than their older ones, but ecomonics in the form of speed of return on their investment, and the quantity of spirit available, is reflected in the retail price.

Whisky becomes its legal self after only three years, and is drinkable enough for blenders to use, but the desired house style takes a few more years to develop. Whilst they have great appeal, the older whiskies are seldom three or four times better than the 'standard' that the price they command suggests. A huge chunk of the price is the novelty of the age.

Blends are by no means an inferior whisky (after all, they take the spirit for blending in the form of single malts) but the blend might include grain spirits that are improved by the single malt mix while softening some of the harsher single malt characteristics. Consequently, a blend can be maintained at a consistent standard and flavour.

Fashion and drinking trends play a large part in what ends up in the bottle sold over the counter, and there seems to have been a steady move away from the peaty-smokey character that Scotch was once known for, to be more oaky and woody like, say, bourbon.

No doubt the global success of Jack Daniels and the like has influenced new-to-whisky drinkers' expectations, so, if bourbon-style is wanted, that is what is provided. Myself, I have noticed a distinct but gradual change in that direction over the past 40 or so years.

Interestingly, although surrounded by single malts of all ages, styles and qualities, the distillery men themselves are reputed to favour Johnny Walker Black Label when it comes to their whisky of choice. What do they know that we don't..?

[RGM1]

That's a useful bit of knowledge. I don't drink enough scotch to know what is best, but I do enjoy it when I do. I know what I am seeking next time I am in market.

[jsrnephdoc]

Whisky is a curious comodity.

Age is seldom a reliable guide to quality, and price usually reflects the distillery's decade or two of storing casks which sees a loss of spirit in the form of the angels' share.

Apart from the single cask offerings, most single malt whiskies are something of a blend (albeit an in-house mix of good stuff) and the age given is the youngest spirit used. The distilleries have their craft down to a fine art, but they readily acknowledge that few spirits improve to any great degree after 12 or 15 years.

The "angels share?"

My guess is that refers to evaporation of ethanol through the walls of the cask or its closure.

But the thrust of your message is that really NOTHING separates well-made whisky aged 10-20 years from that held in casks for 20-50 years except the bravado that comes from opening the bottle in public and proclaiming (silently or contemptuously) "look at ME; I can afford this!"

Shades of Ozmandius, or the Emperor's New Clothes!

[Father Bill]

Whisky is a curious comodity.

Age is seldom a reliable guide to quality, and price usually reflects the distillery's decade or two of storing casks which sees a loss of spirit in the form of the angels' share.

Apart from the single cask offerings, most single malt whiskies are something of a blend (albeit an in-house mix of good stuff) and the age given is the youngest spirit used. The distilleries have their craft down to a fine art, but they readily acknowledge that few spirits improve to any great degree after 12 or 15 years.

Distilleries' house standard (often 10 or 12 years old) is by no means anything less of a good drinking spirit than their older ones, but ecomonics in the form of speed of return on their investment, and the quantity of spirit available, is reflected in the retail price.

Whisky becomes its legal self after only three years, and is drinkable enough for blenders to use, but the desired house style takes a few more years to develop. Whilst they have great appeal, the older whiskies are seldom three or four times better than the 'standard' that the price they command suggests. A huge chunk of the price is the novelty of the age.

Blends are by no means an inferior whisky (after all, they take the spirit for blending in the form of single malts) but the blend might include grain spirits that are improved by the single malt mix while softening some of the harsher single malt characteristics. Consequently, a blend can be maintained at a consistent standard and flavour.

Fashion and drinking trends play a large part in what ends up in the bottle sold over the counter, and there seems to have been a steady move away from the peaty-smokey character that Scotch was once known for, to be more oaky and woody like, say, bourbon.

No doubt the global success of Jack Daniels and the like has influenced new-to-whisky drinkers' expectations, so, if bourbon-style is wanted, that is what is provided. Myself, I have noticed a distinct but gradual change in that direction over the past 40 or so years.

Interestingly, although surrounded by single malts of all ages, styles and qualities, the distillery men themselves are reputed to favour Johnny Walker Black Label when it comes to their whisky of choice. What do they know that we don't..?

To be bluntly honest, and despite deep respect and appreciation for your excellent explanation, I merely like what tastes good to me and has the appropriate 'blast' on my tongue and throat. I don't care how it is blended or aged or in what it is aged.
Right now, I'm enjoying Arran very much.

[Hirsty]

18-30 is a general rule of thumb. Each distillery differs, for example, I interned at Edradour and they have some wonderful younger products.

The 15 year mark is when the majority of the residual sugars have been extracted from the wood but there are still some there. You are getting decreasing returns but it can add complexity.

Charring also effects the timescale as does moving to a finishing cask.

It is also worth considering the yeast or yeasts used for fermenting, the malt used (as in barley), water chemistry, and even the conditions in the bond.

Just as an aside, I am not a huge fan of single cask - one of the aspects of the artistry of being a distiller is the ability to blend different casks together to create the desired end product.

[Troglodyte]

To be bluntly honest, and despite deep respect and appreciation for your excellent explanation, I merely like what tastes good to me and has the appropriate 'blast' on my tongue and throat. I don't care how it is blended or aged or in what it is aged.
Right now, I'm enjoying Arran very much.

Arran is a jolly good dram, and has been mistakenly underrated.

The great thing about whisky is that there so much choice that it is easy to find something to suit all tastes - and taste is entirely subjective. Go for what you like and enjoy, I say! That's how I drink it.

One thing to remember is that some whiskies will 'go off' over time - a bit like wine getting 'corked' - and need to be blended in order to make them drinkable. A 20, or 25 or even 30yo whisky may have had all its sister casks culled long before they have reached that age, due to going off. So the well-aged dram is as much luck as good judgement.

You can make the 'blast' on your tongue more fun by playing around with what you eat with the whisky, how warm you drink it (I personally like whisky properly warm - about blood-temperature) and when. A whisky can often taste noticably different at different times of the day, or when out in the open as opposed to in a stuffy pub.