To much trust being put in age statements?

[bourboNcigars]

I'd like your opinions on this, many times when I'm at binnys I see guys grab bottles and look for age numbers and many of my friends seem only concerned with age statements when buying bourbons and rye they never tryed, do you guys think we put to much value in age statements? Is it written in stone that a 10 year is better quality in the bottle over a 5 year? Isn't it more important to know who distilled it, bottled it, who the master distiller is? I would think regardless or years aged and barrels used if the mash and the master distiller was having a bad day it's going to be a bad product..I could be wrong but I'd like to know what you think..do we put too much Into age statements?

[flahute]

"We" don't, but most uninitiated bourbon drinkers do. Age matters in the scotch world and wine world, but not so much in the bourbon world. I made this mistake not so long ago when entering the hobby, but now that I've tried more and more I find myself settling into the 6-12yr age range preference and steering away from 20+.

[Flyfish]

Even the age of bourbon is more complicated than it appears. For example, where did the barrel spend its 10 hypothetical years? At the top outside of a tall rickhouse or nestled in the center of the ground floor? If the barrel is to be mingled with others as part of a small batch or regular bourbon, what is the age of the other barrels. It seems to me that the flavor profile is more important that a specific age. With that said, I was greatly disappointed when VOB 6YO became VOB 6. I take it as an indicator that, over time and like the frog in boiling water, VOB will evolve away from the taste I love the way WT 8YO did.

Age is important. (I don't want any 2YO bourbon even if the master distiller is a genius.) But age is only one criterion. I had some EC18 that was marvelous and some that was disappointingly over aged. On average, I've been much happier with EC12. JB 8YO is twice as good as 4YO JB white but there are NAS bourbons I prefer to "double aged" JB.

Bottom line, if it tasted good it is good--no matter what the age

[ebo]

"We" don't, but most uninitiated bourbon drinkers do. Age matters in the scotch world and wine world, but not so much in the bourbon world. I made this mistake not so long ago when entering the hobby, but now that I've tried more and more I find myself settling into the 6-12yr age range preference and steering away from 20+.

Not nearly as much as "they" would have you believe. There are some damn nice 10-12 year old Scotches out there.

[BourbonJoe]

Age matters in the scotch world and wine world, but not so much in the bourbon world.

I do not agree. I will not buy a bourbon which is not age stated. My lower age is about 10-12 and the upper about 20. I don't drink non-age stated bourbon, but, then again, with 800 bottles, I don't have to.

Joe :usflag:

Edited May 24, 2014 by BourbonJoe
spelling

[Thig]

I do not agree. I will not buy a bourbon which is not age stated. My lower age is about 10-12 and the upper about 20. I don't drink non-age stated bourbon, but, then again, with 800 bottles, I don't have to.

Joe :usflag:

Joe with 800 bottles why would you buy anything. At 1 bottle per week that is over 15 years worth, but then who's counting.

[dmarkle]

Joe with 800 bottles why would you buy anything. At 1 bottle per week that is over 15 years worth, but then who's counting.

Even Joe doesn't have to answer that. Because once you drink a bottle, then you have 799 bottles, and you no longer have 800!

I'll tell you what keeps me from buying a bourbon. If it's got a big number on it and it's meant to either deceive or brand the whiskey. Like Wathen's, with that big "Eight" written on the label. When I got that home and drank it, I and noticed my folly ("Eight Generations", not "Eight Years"), I felt duped. I also didn't like the booze in the bottle either.

I think for an unknown or craft whiskey, it's REALLY important to have an age statement. These little craft distillers need to make money NOW, so they're selling some pretty young, nasty stuff that's just barely turned brown. You taste it and they taste downright RAW - corny or otherwise grainy (Hudson, cough, ahem). That's not a flavor profile I like in the least, when I'm drinking bourbon neat. Maybe it works for some cocktails. It's also a taste I will not pay for. I'm literally waiting for a number of these small distillers to put on a reasonable age statement before I buy and taste. I've been burned too many times with whiskey that's just too damned young coming out of these operations. Maybe the special local organic handmade etc etc of these products will pay off after 7 years in the wood. At that point, I'll be willing to try them again.

[Paddy]

I don't feel that one should put any trust in an age statement alone. Stated age, house yeast, warehousing and mashbill awareness should provide the savvy consumer some sense of whether or not the profile they seek may be provided. But... simply put, taste is all that matters.

You like it... or you don't.

[flahute]

To clarify my point above, some amount of age certainly matters but the OP was asking if more age = better with a clear inference towards the higher ages. Most here (I think) don't think that way, especially when the higher ages start commanding serious price premiums as has been the case lately.

On the other end, we certainly do want to know that it meets some sort of minimum age standard (those minimums being different for all of us.)

then, as Paddy said above, you either like or not regardless of age.

[squire]

Is it written in stone that a 10 year is better quality in the bottle over a 5 year? Isn't it more important to know who distilled it, bottled it, who the master distiller is?

Yes, yes and yes. Those who have been making good whisky for a very long time are going to continue on that path so know thy maker is the first rule.

Of course age is a factor but it's just one of the factors. Two thousand years ago Roman poets extolled the virtues of Old Falernian wine as opposed to younger vintages (it did age well by all accounts) and throughout the centuries folks writing about wine and spirits have emphasized age as a quality factor. How often have we heard someone complement a whisky and mention it's age in the same sentence. Older is better is just ingrained in the public consciousness because it's a shortcut to actually acquiring an in depth knowledge of the subject.

Then we have the regrettable example of Scotch whisky. It is not widely known that whisky ages about three times faster in Kentucky than the cold climate of Scotland so we can achieve in 4 years what it takes them 10-12. The public doesn't understand that distinction and believes a 12 year old single malt is three times more mature than a 4 year old Bourbon when in fact they're close to even.

So, yes, I think too much is made of age and not enough discussion about maturity.

[Quantum]

So, yes, I think too much is made of age and not enough discussion about maturity.

There are many similarities between whiskey and women.

[squire]

Yes, they both can be expensive.

[393foureyedfox]

Yes, yes and yes. Those who have been making good whisky for a very long time are going to continue on that path so know thy maker is the first rule.

Of course age is a factor but it's just one of the factors. Two thousand years ago Roman poets extolled the virtues of Old Falernian wine as opposed to younger vintages (it did age well by all accounts) and throughout the centuries folks writing about wine and spirits have emphasized age as a quality factor. How often have we heard someone complement a whisky and mention it's age in the same sentence. Older is better is just ingrained in the public consciousness because it's a shortcut to actually acquiring an in depth knowledge of the subject.

Then we have the regrettable example of Scotch whisky. It is not widely known that whisky ages about three times faster in Kentucky than the cold climate of Scotland so we can achieve in 4 years what it takes them 10-12. The public doesn't understand that distinction and believes a 12 year old single malt is three times more mature than a 4 year old Bourbon when in fact they're close to even.

So, yes, I think too much is made of age and not enough discussion about maturity.

to further emphasize your point, dont forget that those 12-25 year scotches are also aged in used barrels, which will further require longer aging, as all the good, easy to get aspects of that barrel were already absorbed by the bourbon originally in that barrel.

[bourboNcigars]

so would you say if they were new barrels would 6-13 years yield the same results has one would get in 12-25?

[squire]

New barrels across the board wouldn't work for Scotch malt which is a different sort of whisky.

[garbanzobean]

so would you say if they were new barrels would 6-13 years yield the same results has one would get in 12-25?

In general, trying to compare bourbon and scotch that directly without significant experience with both is a losing proposition. Single Malt is occasionally aged in new barrels, but it is rare-glenmorangie ealanta is the most mainstream example I can think of. You have to consider that the climates are not comparable, the whiskies are made with totally different grains, and the intended flavor profiles are not similar at all. Your 6-13 example does not take into account the amount of time scotch whisky needs to settle down in Scottish climates.

As to the original topic, age is not important to me, beyond a point. That point is about 4 years, as far as I know. Beyond that, I have a hard time correlating bourbon preference to any particular age. Bourbon is done when it's done.

[mbroo5880i]

Age is one factor. Distiller, mashbill, proof, and CF v. NCF are also important. Knowing the age of bourbon has helped me to identify a preferred age range, 8 to 12 years. Occasionally, I enjoy a rye bourbon less than 8 years old but rarely enjoy a wheat bourbon less than 8 years old. Age just gives me additional information that helps me know whether I may enjoy a bourbon. Do I enjoy NAS bourbons? Yes. I like WT101, OGD, ETL but most of the bottles in my cabinet have an age statement or information on the age of the whiskey in the bottle.

[Scotch Neat]

Spirit age does tame the heat. look at George T Stagg vs Stagg JR. This also applies to scotch.

[393foureyedfox]

maybe it's just me, but if I see something I dont know anything about.......having an age statement makes me far more likely to make the decision to buy it, than does an NAS bottle, which I am more likely to go home and research before (maybe) going back and buying one. That said, it may more easily be summed up by saying that age statements possibly make people more likely to impulse buy.

[Brisko]

My favorite bourbons are in the 6 to 10 year range. For scotch it's more like 12 to 18, leaning closer to 18. For rye, anything over 3, but I prefer it 18 plus.

An age stAtement isn't a guarantee of quality but it tells me a heck of a lot about what's in the bottle.

[393foureyedfox]

it's not intentional, but 3/4 of what I have here at home have age statements, and I find that every one that does is between 6 and 9 years old. So naturally, something new with an age statement in that range quickly gets my attention and possible purchase.

[squire]

Age statements do affect a purchase decision, no question about it. We Bourbon geeks take a more insightful view but that's the public perception.

Master Distillers agree a barrel has fully given up it's natural sugars and other flavoring elements between 6-8 years and beyond that the wood influence takes over. Years ago before small batchs and single barrels all the barrels were mixed together for the brands so choosing a bottle that was 8 years old and 100 proof was the smart choice. It was also the most expensive of the line followed by the 7 year 90 proofs then 6 year 86 proofs.

Things have changed now that prime honey barrels are being siphoned off for the expensive brands but one thing that hasn't changed is Bourbon is still fully aged between 6-8 years.

[jmj_203]

After getting into bourbon, I think I can explain it to the guys who have disgustingly full bunkers. People who are recent into bourbon,but arent douchebag flippers or putting on a show, do want to know minimum ages on bourbons. I don't have the time to spend searching for 20 yr old, and money is better spent elsewhere for us still raising families. What would help is an honest age statement so I can zero in on what I prefer. available to me is ec12, er10 and a bunch of others claiming 6 to 8 years. I want to know what roughly is worth my coin. so many people seem to side with the dropping of age statements, its ridiculous for new guys. Yeah if it tastes good buy iy. I want to learn bourbon to zero in my palate kinda like you old timers had the chance to with age stated bourbons. Think on that for awhile, I didnt have what you had.

[393foureyedfox]

agreed....I think age statements should stay. What I dont care about is 'single barrel's. Some people like the small variations in profile, but I want to know, and not hope, that this month's bottle will taste like the good one I got last month. That oughtta stir up some s@#t!

[squire]

jmj we weren't guided by age statements 30-40 years ago so much as we were by brands, who made it being more important than how old it was and that's still true today. A bottle of standard NAS Four Roses, Buffalo Trace or Old Forester will tell you what you need to know about whether or not you like the brand. If you do then it's time to consider the more expensive small batch, single barrel or limited expressions put out by the same house. For some the expensive ones are exciting, for others they're a yawn.

I don't think an emphasis on age is that helpful. If I like 8 year old Beam Black that just means I like Beam whisky and doesn't mean I will like another brand's 8 year old.

Edited May 25, 2014 by squire