Whisky Forum - Do You Think Older Whisky Is Always Better

Mark · Master Of Malts Joined: 27 Sep 2006 Posts: 1613

Just wondered what others thought about this as i dont think older and more expensive whiskies are always better.

IMO these whiskies are better than their older relatives:

What do others think

Mark

William

Hi Mark Nice idea for a topic.

Big Mac · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject:

The Highland Park 25 year old is an excellent whisky and the 18 year old is equally as enjoyable and a lot cheaper. The fact you can get 2 bottles of the 18 year old for the price of the one 25 year old means i would select the 18 year old every time. To be honest, even if they where both the same price i would probably still take the 18 year old before the 25 year old.

Big Mac

Davy

Double Scotch

Iain · New Member Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 4

I wonder if you get used to a certain type of whisky. So if you normally drink young whiskies you may have a taste for the bite which is usually smoothed out of the older bottlings. So when you taste the older bottlings you may feel something is missing and therefore think it wasnt worth the money.

Then of course i can contradict myself by saying i normally would drink the Highland Park 12 year old but certainly think the Highland Park 18 year old is excellent. Also i normally drink the Macallan 10 year old but the Macallan 18 year old is better.

Interesting that a few of you rate the Glenlivet 12 better than the 18, I have had the Glenlivet 12 and enjoyed it and was considering purchasing the Glenlivet 18 but having doubts now.

Iain

Danny · Member Joined: 06 May 2006 Posts: 11 Location: Scotland

Graham · New Member Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 1

I think I prefer the Talisker 10 over the Talisker 18.
I also think that the Glenmorangie 10 year old and the Ardbeg 10 year old are bots hard to beat.

Graham

Bill · Member Joined: 02 May 2006 Posts: 15 Location: USA

To me the Laphroaig 10 year and Laphroaig Quarter Cask are better than the Laphroaig 15 year old.

Bill

Whisky Pete · New Member Joined: 11 Nov 2006 Posts: 2

I would say older and more expensive whiskies are not necessarily better but most of the time they are. As you can see from the above examples there has been no more than 6 or 7 examples where people think the younger expression is better.

I have heard it said that most whiskies peak aroud 18 to 21 years, due to the cost of whiskies over this age i couldnt really say if this is true. But most 12 year plus whiskies are certainly smoother.

Pete

Frankie · Master Of Malts Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 314

Mark from the examples you have listed i would say the Ardbeg 10 year old is an excellent whisky and very good value for money. But the Ardbeg 17 Year Old is also an excellent dram. I wouldnt like to put anyone off at least trying the 17 year because they think the 10 year old is much better.

I think maybe the word better is a little strong, the bottlings are different and so they should be.

Frankie

London Joe · Member Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 6 Location: England

Sam · New Member Joined: 29 Nov 2006 Posts: 3 Location: UK

Keith · Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject:

I am reasonably new to the world of malt whisky. I have always enjoyed malt whisky but have tended to stick to a specific few malts which i knew i enjoyed.

I had always assumed older would be better and find it interesting how many of you say this is not always the case. For example you mostly agree that the Caol Ila 12 is better than then 18.

Keith

ColinL · New Member Joined: 02 Jan 2007 Posts: 2

I have very often preffered a younger cask strength bottle to an older 40ish percent expression of the same malt. Macallan, and Lagavulin are two good examples. Especially in the case of Lagavulin 12. While the most recent release doesn't pack the same puch as previous bottlings, it's still more fun than the 16.