Hacker News Reader

Comment by glup | Hacker News Reader

Even if the result is effectively the same, won't there still be a place for a small number of high-end distilleries that age things naturally? The ridiculous duration is part of the appeal of the product, and something that (some) consumers want to signal, right?

View on HN

Buffalo Trace will probably never change its ways; they have been in constant operation for over 120 years I belive (even through prohibition, selling "medicinal" whiskey). And their products are consistently fantastic.

But age as a signifer of quality is archaic, as distillers have gotten much smarter about how to make a good product rather than just letting things go for a long time and hope for the best. Honestly if you're buying a bourbon older than 10 years you're overpaying for diminishing returns. Most of the best bourbons/american whiskeys I have had are right around the $40-$70 range, and most don't mention age. I feel similarly for scotch but thats far trickier territory.

Source: I worked three years in an upper-scale wine and spirits shop.

Interesting claim. I don't drink bourbon, Scotch is my preference. The difference between Highland Park 12y and 18y is almost night and day. They're both lovely, but 18y is smoother and much more complex, with far more taste of the oak. 25y is almost spicy, and most definitely a sipping whisky that you want to last.

It can be done without extreme age though. Two of my absolute favorite whiskeys are Aberlour A'bunadh and Ardbeg Uigedail. Both are non-age-stated and consist of a blend of spirits, a majority under 10 years old - but they're both fantastic whiskys, and both cheaper than just about any 15yr old, much less an 18. Of course, both are bottled at full cask strength or near it, which certainly helps.

I tasted the A'bunadh at the distillery alongside the 16, and while the no-age-statement stuff is fine, it doesn't really compare to the sherry cask stuff. I'm suspicious of no-age whiskey.

Not sure what you mean by that? A'bunadh is 100% sherry aged.

I thought it was aged in bourbon and finished in sherry. Either way, the 16 sherry cask was noticeably better.

Well, here's two things that I don't think has been addressed in this thread yet:

1) Virtually all commercially-produced liquor that has a flavor and isn't single cask is blended. The no-age-label is blended, the 16 is blended. The difference is in what they're blended with and how much.

2) Every study done of wine tasting involving brain scans shows that expectation modifies how taste is interpreted. So yes, to you, it totally did taste better, but not because it necessarily was better, from an objective standpoint. And at a certain level that'll be based purely on personal preference anyway.

That's ridiculous. The difference between a strong sherry finish and a weak one is unmistakeable. It's like saying my brain is playing tricks on me when I say I can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

Put the A'bunadh and the 16 Sherry in front of me blindfolded. I'll identify them every time.

People who make this wine comparison presumably don't drink much whiskey.

They're both still single malts, so a long way from tosh like Johnny Walker blends which are awful even with a stated age. :)

I've only tried the Ardbeg, and it's nice enough, but I'd call it a bit rough round the edges. Like tptacek, I'm wary of no-age, but if they get good enough to pass for long age complexity but bring them into my price range...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com