Whisky Magazine Issue 110
This article is 2 years old and some information provided may be time sensitive. Please check all details of events, tours, opening times and other information before travelling or making arrangements.
Copyright Whisky Magazine © 1999-2015. All rights reserved. To use or reproduce part or all of this article please contact us for details of how you can do so legally.
There has been a lot of chatter on the social media sites recently about Diageo's latest addition to the Talisker line up, and it throws up that age old topic of age statements, good or bad?
It looks like the no age statement Storm expression has got the blogging world in a bit of a lather and of course two camps have emerged. Surely this is just a storm in a teacup? The excuse to drag out old arguments and pontificate away.
So what is the real issue at work here? Is it because Diageo has released another non-age statement whisky?
This argument, whether older is better, can run and run but I do think there is an element of misunderstanding here.
All those self righteous mutterings about older is better…time to wake up and realise that young whisky can be utterly brilliant. I will admit it can be utterly rubbish too, but then so can an older whisky spoilt by spending too long in the oak. We all know that a good whisky depends less on its age and more on the quality of the cask it matures in.
Let's face it, young whisky should not be mellow, it should be challenging, vibrant and bruising. What it should be is balanced though, walking that fine line between oak and distillery character.
All this argument does is denigrate anything that does not carry an age statement as inferior whisky. Given that the world is waking up to making whisky, from Australia to America, Europe to Asia, dismissing young, or no age statement, whisky risks missing out on some stunners.