Quote Originally Posted by squire View Post
Obvious perhaps but bears repeating. I have long maintained that we sometimes make a bit too much of age because I don't believe a premium spirit (think Bushmills Black Bush) has to have one and age statements, especially extra long ones, are more of a marketing crutch.

Yet there is only one reason to remove an established age statement which is to introduce younger whisky into the mix.
I have been lamenting the loss of age-stated VOB and the demise of AAA 10YO. And even WT12 that has been gone for quite a while. At the same time, I have been enjoying some BT that never was age stated and, even more, some ETL. I may have become a victim of the tyranny of age statements. This and other threads on this site reminded me of all the factors that go into making a great bourbon from mash bill to entry proof to location in the rick house to things so esoteric as where the barrels staves were cut from the tree. I am well on my way to concluding that I should not get all bent out of shape by an age statement. If ETL were the only bourbon I had to drink for the rest of my life, I would be OK with that. Coke and Pepsi drinkers do not demand that there be 40 or 60 or 80 other iterations of cola for them to choose from. The cola drinkers I know tend to insist on one or the other so they self limit their options. Where are the bourbon drinkers out there who insist that they drink absolutely nothing but 4R SB and if they can't get it ice water will do?
The bottom line with bourbon: If it tastes good, it is good. Even if it has no age statement.