Aging

[Jimbourb]

Somewhat of a newb here.  Seen some threads about bottles tasting much better with age.  Any links or docs on how/why to age bottles once you've brought them home, or opened and then aged?

 

Appreciate the advice!

[Bob_Loblaw]

3 minutes ago, Jimbourb said:

Somewhat of a newb here.  Seen some threads about bottles tasting much better with age.  Any links or docs on how/why to age bottles once you've brought them home, or opened and then aged?

 

Appreciate the advice!

Are you asking about aging unopened bottles or about how the bourbon changes with time after being opened?

 

I believe the general consensus is that Bourbon does not age further once out of the barrel and so once it is bottled that is your final product.  However, obviously things like sunlight and heat can affect the sealed bottle contents for worse.  And some speculate that the bourbon will continue to age slowly inside the sealed bottle, but I am not really a believer of this concept.  Finally, store (age) bottles upright, not on their side like wine as the bourbon may damage the cork.  

 

I do believe that the air that gets into an open bottle does seem to "age" or impact the bourbon.  I would say the most obvious culprit of this is 4 Roses where you often hear stories about how a bottle was hot, harsh with muted flavors initially, but  really opened up nicely after getting some air.  I personally have an unsupported theory that 4R bottles are wider on the bottom to maximize this airing out effect.  An idea I have toyed around with, but have not tried yet would be to open a fresh bottle and run half of it through a blender for 30 seconds to aerate then do a blind SBS.  I suspect they will be noticeably different.  

[CUfan99]

1 hour ago, Jimbourb said:

Somewhat of a newb here.  Seen some threads about bottles tasting much better with age.  Any links or docs on how/why to age bottles once you've brought them home, or opened and then aged?

 

Appreciate the advice!

Welcome to SB from a fellow south cackalakian! There’s a pretty common held opinion that at least certain bottles react favorably to being opened and getting the level of whiskey down past the bottle’s shoulders to provide more air contact. Barrel strength 4R can be hot and tight when 1st opened. A month or so open seems to really change them for the better. I’ve noticed it with many other brands and bottles too. Some say it’s our imagination though. 

[EarthQuake]

When it comes to distilled spirits, "age" means something very specific: to spend time in a barrel. Bourbon and other whiskies are stored in charred oak barrels for years, as the seasons pass and the temperature fluctuates, the spirit moves in and out of the wood, extracting flavors and generally becoming more complex. As soon as the whiskey comes out of the barrel, aging stops. If you have a bourbon that spent 10 years in the barrel, and 10 years in the bottle, it's no a 20 year old bourbon. It's 10 years old and always will be 10 years old. 

 

When it comes to aging whiskey at home, you've got limited options. You can buy small (1-5 liter) oak barrels on the internet, and fill them with your spirit of choice. This will restart the aging process. However, these small barrels have a very high ratio of wood surface area to spirit, so they impart oak flavor very quickly and it's easy to over do it. Additionally, they're often of poor quality. So you can age your whiskey by putting them in these barrels, but they generally will not improve whiskey that is already well aged. Something fun that you can do with these barrels is to soak them in something else for a few weeks, like sherry or port, and then dump the liquid and fill it with whiskey to create a "finished" whiskey, but be careful and taste it every day, 1 week is usually a good amount for a 1L barrel. But honestly, if you're looking to improve the quality of your whiskey, these barrels, or the little oak sticks you can put into the bottle, are best avoided. They won't turn bad whiskey into good, and they're more likely to make good whiskey taste worse.

 

Generally, when people talk about a whiskey improving after it has been opened, they're talking about exposing the whiskey to air, also known as oxidation - which is not the same thing as aging, though oxidation is an import part of the aging process. You'll frequently see the phrase "air time", and that refers to oxidation. As whiskey (or any spirit, wine, beer, etc) is exposed to oxygen, the flavor changes. A simple illustration of this concept is opening a bottle of wine, after 10 minutes in the glass the wine will "open up", and after a few days a half filled bottle of wine may taste significantly different. Whiskey is a lot more stable than wine or beer though, so the effects of oxidation are less dramatic, and happen over a longer time frame.

 

All whiskey oxidizes, even unopened bottles - just at a very slow rate because there is relatively little oxygen in the bottle. Oxidation does change the flavor of the whiskey too, that's something that I think most people would agree on. Now, where this gets contentious is: how much and for the better? Opinions vary wildly, with some believing that oxidation has little to no effect on whiskey, and that whiskey is stable more or less indefinitely. Others worry that oxidation will ruin the spirit in a short period of time, and take extra measures like using wine preserving gas to remove the oxygen from the bottle, or transferring the liquid to a smaller bottle when the fill level gets low. If we accept that oxidation does change the flavor of the whiskey, the next question is, does it improve or degrade? You'll find it difficult to get any sort of consensus on this point. A reasonable position would be: it varies. Depending on the whiskey, it may improve or degrade with time. For instance, I've found barrel proof whiskies generally hold up very well, while whiskies finished or aged in wine casks hold up less well - though these are very much anecdotal findings. It would be safe to assume that some amount of oxidation is good for most whiskies, but that too much will eventually degrade the spirit. So if you have a special, opened bottle with a low fill level that you plan to keep for a long time (many years), wine gas or transferring it to a smaller vessel is a good idea.

 

I've done some simple experiments myself. I used a couple bottles from a single barrel whiskey (same barrel), and drank one down to the point where there was about 1oz left in the bottle. I then let it sit, stewing in oxygen, for a full year. Then I opened the other bottle, and had my wife do blind pours so I didn't know which was which. It was very difficult for me to find differences between the whiskies, and while I felt like I could detect a small difference, I guessed incorrectly when trying to figure out which was which. This leads me to believe that oxidation can change the taste of whiskey, but at a very slow rate, even for opened bottles.

 

So if it is a very slow and subtle process, why do we see people writing comments such as "I hated it at first but then I came back it after it had some air time and it was a lot better". Well, some suggest there is a psychologic component at play - that what changes more than anything is your perception of the whiskey as you get to know it. I think there is something to that, maybe a lot to that. What you eat, drink, smoke, or generally ingest into your body will make a big difference as to how you taste as well. So some of these "it sucked then it was great" reports should be taken with a grain of salt - the person may have had a spicy curry before having it the first time, they may have been eating cookies when they thought it was great (a combination I've never been disappointed by).

 

Lastly, we have UV exposure. I think this is the one point nearly everyone will agree on. Exposure to UV light can significantly damage whiskey, and in a fairly short time frame (months-years). If at all possible you should store your whiskey in a dark, climate controlled place. If you intend to leave bottles out on display, exposed to direct sunlight, colored bottles are best, as they filter UV light more effectively than clear bottles.

 

At the end of the day, the best thing you can do to really enjoy your whiskey is, well, enjoy it. Pour it in a glass and drink it. Don't worry so much about if it might change or home remedies to somehow make it taste better. Any whiskey worth drinking is already delicious.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by EarthQuake

[GaryT]

There are several threads on this, I'd definitely search the archives.  I've never opened a new bottle, poured some into another bottle to create air space for the purpose of 'improving' the whiskey.  Have I had some bottles that as I got closer to the end seemed to have tested better?  Yup.  I've also had bottles that went the other direction.  I personally have decanted bottled that I planed to nurse for a long time (like a WLW knowing I may never have the opportunity to buy one at retail again) when they get down to half full.  But I don't do it every time either.  

[flahute]

21 minutes ago, EarthQuake said:

 

I've done some simple experiments myself. I used a couple bottles from a single barrel whiskey (same barrel), and drank one down to the point where there was about 1oz left in the bottle. I then let it sit, stewing in oxygen, for a full year. Then I opened the other bottle, and had my wife do blind pours so I didn't know which was which. It was very difficult for me to find differences between the whiskies, and while I felt like I could detect a small difference, I guessed incorrectly when trying to figure out which was which. This leads me to believe that oxidation can change the taste of whiskey, but at a very slow rate, even for opened bottles.

 

So if it is a very slow and subtle process, why do we see people writing comments such as "I hated it at first but then I came back it after it had some air time and it was a lot better". Well, some suggest there is a psychologic component at play - that what changes more than anything is your perception of the whiskey as you get to know it. I think there is something to that, maybe a lot to that. What you eat, drink, smoke, or generally ingest into your body will make a big difference as to how you taste as well. So some of these "it sucked then it was great" reports should be taken with a grain of salt - the person may have had a spicy curry before having it the first time, they may have been eating cookies when they thought it was great (a combination I've never been disappointed by).

 

Thanks for reporting on that experiment. I'm not a big believer in air time but even I would have expected a change in one ounce left in a bottle for a year. That's a very revealing experiment.

Thanks also for mentioning psychology and daily palate variation. As I've mentioned before, there are just bad palate days where I can try a long time favorite and find it to be horrible. Then the next, all back to normal!

[clearmoon247]

Here's my thoughts on all of this. Firstly, the widely accepted stance is the introduction of air to a new bottle will affect the flavor. It is possibly a combination of oxidation of the whiskey by the addition of air or the evaporation of more volatile chemicals dissipating during the "airing out" of the bottle.

 

Then, comes the next topic of "dusty" bottles. Some people will argue that the older bottles are slowly aging over the course of decades (think 1994-1995 split label turkey). The other argument is the age of the oak used in the past in the industry, such that it would have more flavor to extract during the aging process. They also could be considered as amazing as they are because of how much older product went into the blends from the "glut" era.

 

Lastly, you could say all of these components described above are psychosomatic and it really doesn't make a difference and for older bottles, things were just aged longer and blended better than today. My opinion is that all of the above factors come into play to make whiskey what it is. Its crazy to think that bourbon in the 90's and 80's were THAT good and nobody was really bunkering cases of the stuff for how amazing the whiskey was (especially with how sought after they are today).  This may come as a potentially unpopular opinion, but I think the whiskey made today is better than any of the products made in the past (with some exceptions).

[markandrex]

I am a big believer in oxidation impacting  bourbon.  I recently opened a MM RC6.  Many here have found it less then impressive.  I find that  6 - 8 weeks of air-time lets this open up to quite an enjoyable pour.  I have bunkered a few with this in mind.  

[Richnimrod]

Short answer?   IN MY OPINION: Nobody knows for certain about any particular bottle or brand in advance; but many have anecdotal stories to support their particular pet theory regarding "changing" (a far better term than 'aging' when applied to already bottled Bourbon) of a spirit with the addition of air (in varying amounts) and time (also of varying duration).   NONE of these anecdotal stories will always hold water, though some may be repeatable on occasion, at least in the mind and mouth of believers.    All that said, I don't think any differences noted occasionally in 'older' opened bottles can reliably be attributed to 'bottle-aging'.   It just doesn't happen...IMHO.

[EarthQuake]

1 hour ago, flahute said:

Thanks for reporting on that experiment. I'm not a big believer in air time but even I would have expected a change in one ounce left in a bottle for a year. That's a very revealing experiment.

Thanks also for mentioning psychology and daily palate variation. As I've mentioned before, there are just bad palate days where I can try a long time favorite and find it to be horrible. Then the next, all back to normal!

Yeah I was surprised by it as well. I was expecting there to be a significant, or at least clear difference going in. My biased laid more with trying to prove that oxidation has a noticeable effect, but I came away thinking the opposite.

 

It would be neat to do a large group with different brands and styles and multiple tasters, but that's probably more effort than I'm willing to throw at it.

[Flyfish]

15 hours ago, EarthQuake said:

So if it is a very slow and subtle process, why do we see people writing comments such as "I hated it at first but then I came back it after it had some air time and it was a lot better". Well, some suggest there is a psychologic component at play - that what changes more than anything is your perception of the whiskey as you get to know it. I think there is something to that, maybe a lot to that. What you eat, drink, smoke, or generally ingest into your body will make a big difference as to how you taste as well. So some of these "it sucked then it was great" reports should be taken with a grain of salt - the person may have had a spicy curry before having it the first time, they may have been eating cookies when they thought it was great (a combination I've never been disappointed by).

 

This has been my experience which is why I try to withhold judgement until I have tasted a bourbon several times. This is also why I am definitely not a fan of those tiny airline bottles as an inexpensive way to sample an unfamiliar bourbon. Sure, I appreciate the little samples they serve at the distilleries but I have never reached a conclusive assessment based on so little evidence--though they may tempt me to conduct more extensive research. I never trust my palate until I have it exposed it to about a half bottle. (Consume a half bottle all at one sitting, though, and a palate becomes totally untrustworthy.) Besides, there are some bourbons that seem unexceptional when tasted thoughtfully in a Glencairn but are well within the acceptable range when consumed casually with a cube or two in a rocks glass. Sometimes bourbon tasting is serious business. Sometimes it is just one of the great pleasures in life. I try not to overthink it. Mrs. F is well acquainted with my motto: When I work, I work hard. When I play, I play hard. When I think, I go to sleep.

 

15 hours ago, EarthQuake said:

 

 

 

 

 

[ondarocks]

Isn't it true that ethanol evaporates when exposed to air over time? Thus, the reason a hot bottle will improve over time? Makes sense to me. I've certainly noticed it and have had my best sip come from the last pour out of a bottle on more than one occasion. Usually a cask strength bottle. I don't think it's my imagination. 90 to 100 proof offerings not so much. I'll have to do some more experimenting, R&D and medicinal purposes strictly.

Edited February 12, 2020 by ondarocks

[Postal Grunt]

In reference to the effects of sunlight on whiskey, we should consider why  breweries bottle beer in brown bottles for reason other than tradition. Sunlight will "skunk" beers that are packaged in bottles other than brown in color.  It has to do with how sunlight affects the hops component of the beer. Beers that are bottled in green glass, as is common with beers from the Netherlands, or clear glass such as domestic Miller High Life and a few English beers, utilize compounds that prevent skunking.  The treatment obviously hasn't hindered the marketing or sales success of these beers.

 

There's at least one whiskey that I know of that does use hops in its production but it's such a small niche product that it has little impact on the overall market. We're not likely to see whiskey marketed based on the appeal of Citra or Mosaic hops. An internet search shows that there are people who believe that sunlight bleaches the compounds that give whiskey its color and dull the flavor. The reality is that whiskey isn't often displayed in most storefront windows due to security concerns.  As long as we buy whiskey from outlets that store and display properly and use a little bit of common sense when we take it home, we'll continue to be just fine.

[BottledInBond]

6 hours ago, Flyfish said:

This has been my experience which is why I try to withhold judgement until I have tasted a bourbon several times. This is also why I am definitely not a fan of those tiny airline bottles as an inexpensive way to sample an unfamiliar bourbon. Sure, I appreciate the little samples they serve at the distilleries but I have never reached a conclusive assessment based on so little evidence--though they may tempt me to conduct more extensive research. I never trust my palate until I have it exposed it to about a half bottle. (Consume a half bottle all at one sitting, though, and a palate becomes totally untrustworthy.) Besides, there are some bourbons that seem unexceptional when tasted thoughtfully in a Glencairn but are well within the acceptable range when consumed casually with a cube or two in a rocks glass. Sometimes bourbon tasting is serious business. Sometimes it is just one of the great pleasures in life. I try not to overthink it. Mrs. F is well acquainted with my motto: When I work, I work hard. When I play, I play hard. When I think, I go to sleep.

 

 

I have had people try to tell me that the only acceptable way to drink a high end whiskey neat is in a Glencairn glass a couple times. In each case, that was the last thing I even paid attention to that they had to say related to whiskey. Those sorts of people are far too pretentious for me to handle listening to. I’ve got plenty of Glencairns in my house, and plenty of other types of glasses, and one isn’t better than another by any means. Just different. On of my biggest whiskey pet peeves.....

[Kane]

I perform these experiments with juice from the same bottle. Take samples when I open and midway through, SBS all with the last pour. Many (not all) end up markedly different and discernible blind, I think calling this just an opinion or perception isn't right 

 

Now, I have no idea what does that. Oxidation, heat, something in the air, alignment of the stars? Don't know.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Kane

[EarthQuake]

11 hours ago, ondarocks said:

Isn't it true that ethanol evaporates when exposed to air over time? Thus, the reason a hot bottle will improve over time? Makes sense to me. I've certainly noticed it and have had my best sip come from the last pour out of a bottle on more than one occasion. Usually a cask strength bottle. I don't think it's my imagination. 90 to 100 proof offerings not so much. I'll have to do some more experimenting, R&D and medicinal purposes strictly.

In a properly sealed bottle evaporation should be minimal. In a leaky bottle, both the alcohol and water will evaporate. Humidity may be a factor here, just as it is in a rack house. The general rule of thumbs is: if dry, water will evaporate at a higher rate (proof will rise), if humid, the air is already saturated with H2O and alcohol will evaporate at a higher rate (proof will lower). But I'm not sure how much this applies to the average home - we don't have air saturated with alcohol like you would in a rack house.

 

Evaporation is one of the easier things to test. Take a crappy bottle you have no intention of drinking (we all have a few) and put a bit of tape at the current fill line. Then wait a couple years and see where it is. Bonus points, take a hydrometer reading before and after, then you'll see if there is any chance in proof.

[BrokeCal]

11 hours ago, BottledInBond said:

I have had people try to tell me that the only acceptable way to drink a high end whiskey neat is in a Glencairn glass a couple times. In each case, that was the last thing I even paid attention to that they had to say related to whiskey. Those sorts of people are far too pretentious for me to handle listening to. I’ve got plenty of Glencairns in my house, and plenty of other types of glasses, and one isn’t better than another by any means. Just different. On of my biggest whiskey pet peeves.....

I'd agree with that except for nosing.  A Glencairn, to me anyway, doesn't change the taste on the palette but man the design certainly enhances the smell.  Just pour some bourbon in an old fashioned glass then pour some in a Glencairn.... The Glencairn makes almost any bourbon smell amazing!! Meanwhile you really have to hunt for the aromas in pretty much any regular glass.

[BottledInBond]

5 hours ago, BrokeCal said:

I'd agree with that except for nosing.  A Glencairn, to me anyway, doesn't change the taste on the palette but man the design certainly enhances the smell.  Just pour some bourbon in an old fashioned glass then pour some in a Glencairn.... The Glencairn makes almost any bourbon smell amazing!! Meanwhile you really have to hunt for the aromas in pretty much any regular glass.

I’m glad you enjoy your Glencairns. But you’re talking about something that is merely subjective and a personal preference issue, far from definitive or fact. The Glencairn design holds/directs the liquid and/or aroma differently than various other types of glasses. That does not mean it is necessarily better, just different. 
 

In the wine world there are tons of different sizes/shapes of glasses that are intended to be specifically tailored to different types of wine. I know plenty of people that use one wine glass regardless of what they’re drinking. I know other people who change glasses if they switch from one type of red to another. I’m not saying either side is right necessarily, it’s up to the individual preference. Same thing for whiskey. I think there are a range of glass sizes/designs that probably would do better jobs of enhancing the experience of different types of whiskey. To say that the Glencairn is the “best” across the board for everyone is just something I can’t agree with.

 

The one thing I will say about the value of a Glencairn is that it can be a good basis of standardizing sides by side sampling. If I’m trying 3 things blind SBS, I do think they should all be in the same glassware to reduce another variable in the situation so you can focus just on what’s in each glass. Glencairns are common enough so they can be useful for that but I certainly don’t think they’re the only acceptable glass for this either. 
 

Drink from whatever makes the experience the most pleasant for you. For me that just isn’t my Glencairns most of the time 

[ondarocks]

I use my Glencairn for lower proof (90 to 100) whiskeys. I like my James Bentley glass for higher proofs where I want some ethanol dissipation to occur... 

[BrokeCal]

It may be subjective, but then I wonder, at what point does it become objectively different? Look I'm not talking about just glencairns here, any wine shaped or snifter shaped glass concentrates the aromas for the user.  Literally ALL of my bourbon buddies AND the world agree that aromas are amplified by a Glencairn shaped glass. Its not really a debate that you smell a whiskey better in a sampling/tasting shaped glass.  Now... if you subjectively find that not smelling a whiskey to the fullest extent by drinking it out of a straight edged glass is better... Well, then that is subjective.  

[flahute]

3 hours ago, BrokeCal said:

It may be subjective, but then I wonder, at what point does it become objectively different? Look I'm not talking about just glencairns here, any wine shaped or snifter shaped glass concentrates the aromas for the user.  Literally ALL of my bourbon buddies AND the world agree that aromas are amplified by a Glencairn shaped glass. Its not really a debate that you smell a whiskey better in a sampling/tasting shaped glass.  Now... if you subjectively find that not smelling a whiskey to the fullest extent by drinking it out of a straight edged glass is better... Well, then that is subjective.  

Glencairn and similar glasses also concentrate volatile alcohol vapors much more readily, especially at higher proofs, to the point of diminishing smells in some cases but you don't hear people talk about that much. You should also nose from the top of the glencairn instead of the bottom. You should not swirl the whiskey in the glass like you do with wine but yet you don't hear that discussed much. It's a much more complicated topic then simply saying "this is the best glass type for x therefore you should always use it in this situation".

[Richnimrod]

I'll add to the thread drift a bit her...sorry!   

My favorite glass for sniffing and tasting a barrel proof Bourbon is a very tall narrow "Champagne Flute".   

If you sniff from the top of it, after allowing a bit of time for diffusion and evaporation to occur, the narrow shape keeps the aromas concentrated, yet the distance from the surface of the liquid (unless you fill it way up, I guess) leaves the alcohol less concentrated... at least in my poorly documented experience.

[BottledInBond]

15 minutes ago, BrokeCal said:

It may be subjective, but then I wonder, at what point does it become objectively different? Look I'm not talking about just glencairns here, any wine shaped or snifter shaped glass concentrates the aromas for the user.  Literally ALL of my bourbon buddies AND the world agree that aromas are amplified by a Glencairn shaped glass. Its not really a debate that you smell a whiskey better in a sampling/tasting shaped glass.  Now... if you subjectively find that not smelling a whiskey to the fullest extent by drinking it out of a straight edged glass is better... Well, then that is subjective.  

As @ondarocksmentioned, the higher proof whiskeys are a specific situation where I don’t prefer them. Since I drink a lot of barrel proof whiskey, that’s probably part of where my preferences are. 

 

You’re sounding pretty preachy when you say “the whole world agrees with me” and that only my view is subjective. It’s all subjective, your view and mine, and we’re both entitled to our own opinions. If you want to insist that the only way to nose a whiskey is with a Glencairn and anything else is inferior, I’ll just stop paying attention. I’ve got at least 60 or more whiskey glasses of various types and hundreds of bottles of whiskey in my house, and have been drinking whiskey for a couple decades pretty seriously. I’m pretty capable of determining if I think the Glencairn is only acceptable glass for my uses. 

[BrokeCal]

I don't mean to be preachy.  I'm just saying for better or worse a tapered shape glass condenses aromas.  That's why they are used and have been used for hundreds of years for tasting purposes.  It's not even really debatable is it.  I mean it's a fact.  Now how you enjoy your own bourbon or wine is completely subjective.  I mean some people like to drink wine out of a pint glass, good for them.   I hope no one is saying you HAVE TO use a Glencairn.  If that's what's being said then that person is wrong!

[BottledInBond]

2 hours ago, BrokeCal said:

I don't mean to be preachy.  I'm just saying for better or worse a tapered shape glass condenses aromas.  That's why they are used and have been used for hundreds of years for tasting purposes.  It's not even really debatable is it.  I mean it's a fact.  Now how you enjoy your own bourbon or wine is completely subjective.  I mean some people like to drink wine out of a pint glass, good for them.   I hope no one is saying you HAVE TO use a Glencairn.  If that's what's being said then that person is wrong!

Well the actual Glencairn glass is less than 20 years old, created in 2001. And for someone that doesn’t want to sound preachy, saying something isn’t debatable and is a fact is just wrong. It is intended to concentrate aromas according to the company that makes them. But that’s the thing, it’s all just marketing. There certainly may be other glasses out there that are better for nosing a whiskey. That is certainly debatable.

 

Maybe you should tell some of the most prominent whiskey producers of the last few decades that they’ve been drinking their whiskey incorrectly? Well you can’t really tell Parker since he’s dead but the point remains the same, that it is very debatable  about what glass is best for what uses, and I am far from alone in my stance. 
 

For the record, the Glencairn glass was developed to be a malt whisky glass. Malt whiskey generally being bottled at lower proofs than many high end American whiskies. Regardless it eventually became popular with a wider variety of whisky/whiskey. In my opinion, and the opinions of many other people, many higher proof whiskies do not benefit from what the Glencairn glass is trying to do. In fact, many people believe it detracts from the experience with big barrel proof whiskies. I don’t need a narrow glass to try to further concentrate the nose of a hazmat GTS or ECBP release.