Whisky Magazine Issue 90
This article is 3 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 © 1999-2013. 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.
With much interest I have read your editorial and Dave's column in WM 89. In both your writings Chivas Brothers gets (most of) the blame for putting too much emphasis on the stated age on whisky bottles and the supposedly correlated quality of the contents. Of course I do agree with you that young whiskies can be just as good (or even better than) older ones. I have tasted enough to be able to say that, although I do not consider myself an expert (far from it). I simply love the stuff, especially the ones made on Islay, the place I tend to call my “spiritual home” after having visited there many times.
Having said that, I must add that in my view both Dave and you more or less missed the point. When I started to drink whisky and tried to read and understand the labels, I was indeed told by my local shop owner that older whisky was better (and hence more expensive). On top of that, the very fact that the age statement on the label gives the age of the youngest whisky in the bottle also strongly suggests that.
After all, distilleries want to promote their product and by saying that the whisky in my just acquired bottle is “at least” so many years of age they are really saying that the quality is at minimum that of the youngest aged whisky in the bottle and better. Every distillery that I know of does this. I must praise Ardbeg distillery here for giving the exact contents of every vintage in terms of a percentage in one of their latest expressions. It a...