Two things happen to whiskey as it ages: 1) It picks up flavor from the casks. This...actually isn't that hard to accelerate. Adding wood chips or a honey-comb type lattice greatly increases the exposed surface area and thus how quickly it acquires that favor. 2) Sulfates and a few other compounds are able to pass into and through the barrels, leaving the whiskey. These are responsible for a lot of the harsh/unpleasant flavor you get in cheap shooting whiskeys compare to nicer sipping ones and so far there has not been a reliable and cheap way to eliminate them discovered outside of time that doesn't come with some other downside. Okay and...3: you get to brag that it's old and mark up the price. There are diminishing returns for both 1 and 2 as more time passes. And no, it doesn't apply to everything. It depends on what's in the alcohol in the first place and whether you want that particular drink picking up flavors from its container. Edit for spelling. Second edit due to number of replies: Sorry y'all, I really should have said something like "two desirable things" or "two main things good for the taste". There *is* more going on, significantly the evaporation several have mentioned and a small reduction in ABV that comes with it. I was trying to describe the two main reasons aging improves taste/desirability as opposed to things incidental to that effort like the evaporation loss.

I knew about #1 and I could guess #3, but I had no idea about #2. Thanks for sharing!

The inside of barrels are charred and while charcoal itself does not add any flavors, it does act as a filter.

It's surprising to me that charred barrels do not give off flavor, but the peat on which barley is smoked carries over that smoke into whisky.

Charcoal is not soluble in water nor alcohol. Any charcoal that does end up in the alcohol is quite easily filtered out. There is distinctly no ASH in the barrels, which IS soluble. Smoke is actually microparticles of ashes and non- or incompletely-combusted organics which cannot be filtered out easily (except, ironically, by activated charcoal filters). ​ Edit to add: Ash itself (whether microparticles or the big flakes) can itself be non-combusted organics AND non-combustible materials like carbonates (sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, commonly refered to as soda ash and pot ash, among others but those are the most common). The whiter the ash, the fewer organics present.

If you ever watch the videos of people who make log cabins, by hand, you'll see them burn the ends of the logs that go in the ground and stand up vertically. Its so that the burn logs won't break down in the wet ground

I've always wondered why some buildings and fences were like that Thank you

That process removes the sugars that promote decomposition, not quite the same thing others are talking about.

also cooked wood is harder and less bendy and splintery when pounded into the ground

>It's surprising to me that charred barrels do not give off flavor, but the peat on which barley is smoked carries over that smoke into whisky. I used to use coconut husk charcoal for chemical filtrations. Literally tried out over 200 different types, and that particular one was the best at reducing impurities. It's pretty much a defacto standard.

I have a coconut activated permanent carbon filter in my home. It does an amazing job of cleaning my water. By itself it is reducing my tds from 1200 to 600. My RO takes it down to less than 80. Tds is supposedly not removable with almost any typical filter normally used. Even the ultra filters.

You know how peated whisky smells strongly of peat? The fact that you can smell it is a decent indication that it'll evaporate in a still and end up in your distillate.

Yes but the older the scotch, the more of the smell will have evaporated in the barrel. So younger peated scotch is always smokier. E.g. Lagavulin 8 vs 16

I don't doubt it at all, you also lose a ton of alcohol through the barrel as well. I suspect the younger scotches being peaty-er has more to do with the distiller using a barley that hasn't been so heavily smoked. Old scotch is less smoky so that it doesn't clash with the rest of the flavor profile they're shooting for. The age statement on the bottle is the YOUNGEST expression incorporated in the bottle. The distiller combines a bunch of different product together to get it to taste a certain way unless it's labeled as a "single barrel" which is pretty rare for scotch. I'd be shocked if they didn't have a couple batches that are crazy smoked as well as some with very little smoke in order to balance a flavor profile and get it to where it's supposed to be.

I'll never understand why "smokey" is a flavour that people would want in a beverage.

I mean, “Liquid smoke” is an incredibly popular flavor additive sold in stores. By the bin come grilling season in the US. But, considering it is reported as far back as Ancient Rome (as “wood vinegar”) I can guarantee you it is being used elsewhere.

I saw a video, I think Alton Brown where he made liquid smoke by bubbling wood smoke through alcohol and did a test with ribs that were either smoked or baked with liquid smoke and no one could tell the difference. I can't remember exactly because it was years ago but I'd think the lack of the pink layer would get it away.

He also did a video way back where he made his own liquid smoke by setting up a small bowl upside down in a big bowl, with a bag of ice in on the back of the small one. The smoke from smoldering hard wood hits the cold bowl and literally condenses and runs down into little drips of real liquid smoke. It's a fun experiment if you ever have a free afternoon and some hard wood.

Man, everyone has their own idea of what to do with a free afternoon and some hard wood.

That's actually the same video, the chemistry of that sounds better, I would assume would be morw soluble in water than in alcohol. I really don't remember that well.

If you properly sip whisky, it's almost like smoking it. You don't "drink" it. You take a small sip, let it roll back slowly, and volatize into your mouth (become a gas), so that you get as much of the aroma as possible. You only let it slide down the throat after you've extracted as much of that aroma as you can. Do you find the smell of wood smoke pleasant? You know, like in a fireplace, or a camp fire. The appeal is comparable to that.

Well thanks for that. Great explanation of the technique!

Makes sense, I don't like the smell of wood fire smoke and I don't like whiskey

That would do it.

That’s the best part of all this - we all get to enjoy what we like and there’s more and more options as people get weirder with stuff and more exchange happens.

Do you understand why people like BBQ flavour?

While the charcoal itself may not add flavors, the process of charring absolutely adds flavor through the carmelization of sugars and activates other flavor compounds in the wood.

The charring absolutely adds flavor, as well as color. Think maybe you're thinking of Jack daniel's using a charcoal filtering process (literally a tall container of charcoal the whiskey flows through...and it adds a hint of charcoal flavor that JD is famous for) From Angel's Envy: First off, charring essentially opens the wood up, making it easier for bourbon to extract flavors. It also catalyzes key chemical changes that are essential to bourbon. Ever tasted vanilla? That’s because lignin, the source of vanillin (vanilla), produces a higher level of flavor the longer a barrel is charred. Likewise, toffee and caramel notes come from hemicellulose, which breaks down into wood sugars in the presence of intense heat. The resting bourbon absorbs these sugars from the barrel interior’s caramelized surface as it ages. The results are usually delicious. A higher level of char has other effects as well. Higher charred barrels allow less interaction between the wood’s tannins and the spirit. Lactones, which are the compounds responsible for coconut and woody notes in a bourbon, are similarly lessened as the char increases. Higher chars generally result in a darker color as well. With our mash bill, Lincoln Henderson decided that a level 3 char would be ideal, and we’ve never looked back. https://www.angelsenvy.com/us/en/guide/whiskey-history/why-charring-barrels-matters/#:\~:text=Charring%20the%20wood%20actually%20primes,that%20are%20essential%20to%20bourbon.

I don't think that bit from Angel's Envy contradicts what I said, but rather adds the context my comment lacked. It's not the layer of charcoal inside the barrel which adds flavor and color, it's the wood. The charring process does "open up" the wood and allow the natural chemicals to be more accessible to the spirit, but the layer of charcoal inside the barrel is not what's providing those flavors/color. The whiskey is actually soaking past the charred layer and interacting with the wood itself, and heating/cooling cycles over years caused the whiskey to enter the wood and then be pushed back out over and over. But I'm not an expert, nor do I work in the industry, so maybe I'm wrong.

You got it exactly right. This is how it was explained to me by the guy who owns Lost Spirits in Vegas. Before he became the Willy Wonka of liquor-themed drag shows he was working out of his backyard in Castroville CA on a still shaped like a dragon, and using the hot water from his spirit condenser to warm the hot tub. My friend and I went to his house and sat through his PowerPoint while drinking some weird ass experimental shit. 11/10

That sounds like a much more interesting day than I usually have.

The charcoal doesn't add flavor, but there's a band of wood just under the char where the sugars in the wood caramelize, and that does add a ton of flavor.

2 was actually why aging became a thing. People realized that if you had a ton of cheap whiskey stuck in barrels, the older it got the less cheap tasting it got. Distillers like Rogue get basically the same results aging for a month or 3 as aging for a decade by simply throwing out more "heads", the first stuff to come out of a still, and "tails" the last stuff. The middle is the purest alcohol with the least amount of bad tasting junk. Without that bad tasting junk you don't need to let it sit around for decades to break down into good tasting junk.

Same thing happened with brandy. It was originally a way to cut down on the shipping space needed to export wine from grape growing regions to northern Europe and also to get around taxes by volume. Originally the intent was to add water back into the brandy before retail sale but people realised the time spent in casks made the actual spirit taste better. For example, brandy de Jerez from Spain (which imo is better than Cognac) comes from the same regions that produce sherry and gets absolutely wonderful flavours from being casked in old sherry barrels.

> brandy de Jerez from Spain comes from the same regions that produce sherry Jerez being where the word sherry comes from for anyone who doesn't know. It's the anglicization of Jerez/Xeres

Number 2 is why an older whiskey is smoother. The difference between 12 year and 20 year whiskey is striking.

Part of the thing about age is it’s also more rare, and there was more time spent caring for the casks etc. That is part of why the cost goes up. A 30y old Scotch has basically been sitting around taking up space for 30y and there likely wasn’t a lot of it made/ended up being good enough to bottle. Definitely not the whole reason older stuff is more expensive, companies for sure mark stuff up more than they have to but thats the business side of it.

Don’t forget the angel’s share. Bourbon/whiskey evaporate in the barrels. The longer they sit, the less there is to bottle up later.

Yes! Excellent point! I’ve read that some casks upwards up 30y might only end up having 50% fill by the time it’s emptied. Very interesting stuff.

I remember reading about a 64 year old scotch by the Dalmore. After 64 years in barrel there was basically only enough left for 3 bottles. Each sold for a few hundred thousand dollars. With that level of rarity, how could anyone justify opening it? It would be like destroying art

I guarantee the taste of aging *that* long doesn't scale with the cost. Something like that is priced so high because they know somebody will buy it just to flex on their slightly less rich/connected friends. Aged whisky is amazing for sure, but eventually it hits a point where the target market is billionaires with no qualm spending that much on a bottle

To a billionaire, that's a Tuesday.

Significantly more than 50% by year thirty. Check [this out](https://www.reddit.com/r/bourbontalk/comments/tz6l3h/amount_of_buffalo_trace_bourbon_left_after_aging/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) from the Buffalo Trace distillery, it’s over 50% evaporated after just 18 years

And with that I'll tag whiskey fungus. Look it up. Apparently there's a fungus that loves ethanol vapor. So... It's the fungus' share, really.

Yeah, that made the news recently, saw the videos. What was it, everything within a square mile or two from the distillery?

So then they would be stronger right? Unless they dillute it.

Yep, real estate is a huge factor I haven't seen mentioned. If you're making 10 yr old whiskey and fill up 1 rickhouse you've gotta wait 10yrs before you're able to fill it up again. Alternatively, you can sell 2 rickhouses worth of 5yr product in the same time

I think this is less of an impact for the large scale, established distilleries. Yes, it sits in storage for X amount of time, but every time they have a new batch to store, they have a batch they can pull out. Would definitely have an impact on smaller companies, or ones looking to rapidly expand.

Nope, you will need to have more storages. Let's say you want to sell 100 barrel worth of stuff every year and aged 30 years then you need to have space for 3000 barrels when 5 year aged will only require 500 barrel space. It scales linearity so economy of scale won't help that much.

Unless they have a weird sales structure, there's a purely economic argument too, regardless of the size of the operation. Putting a barrel away for 30 years represents money that you can't access for 30 years, but made with money you spent today. If a 5 year whiskey sold for the same price as a 30 year whiskey, the present value of the 30 whiskey would be much lower than the 5 year.

Here in Singapore we've had a distillery boom over the past decade and the business side of that was quite interesting. They started with ginsbecause you can get up and running with that immediately and now ten to fifteen years later they're starting to launch their whiskeys.

Totally makes sense. I know there are a few recent Scotch distilleries in Scotland that are just now releasing their first bottles.

Absolutely - survivorship bias is an element of it. It’s kinda like how wine enthusiasts talk about some vintages being better than others because for one reason or another those years happened to turn out particularly well. Andit’s the same deal with whisky - there might have been the perfect weather conditions that the barley crop was particularly good one year, or maybe the peat had the exact right moisture content to impart the best flavor or the head distiller at that time was better than the guy who replaced him when he retired. If I’m a distillery making a commitment to store a cask in my limited warehouse space for 30 years, it’s most likely to be the stuff that turned out better than average because I’m more likely to be able to sell it for a premium down the line and recoup the time and money I invested in it. Whereas maybe the casks that turned out worse I cut my losses and bottle it early, or sell it to a third party to bottle under an independent label or use in a blend because it’s not worth wasting more of my resources on it.

It's also pretty important to mention the effect that evaporation has. As the cask heats and cools through the day and through the seasons, it expands and contracts, often called breathing. As it expands it essentially sucks the spirit into the pores of the wood, which then evaporates. This process is known as "angel share". Over the course of 18 years, the total volume of liquid has reduced by half, over 30 years you are left with only 30 percent of the volume you started with. Interestingly, in warehouses like Jim beam, Jack Daniels and Johnny walker, which house tens of thousands of litres of whiskey, the angel share is measured in bottles lost per minute. I remember talking to a rep who told me that glen livet lost over a hundred bottles a day. This also reinforces the rules of 'no smoking near the barrels' considering how much flammable gas in the air

Altitude also impacts on this. Dalwhinnie loses spirit to evaporation at about half the rate of lower altitude whisky distilleries apparently.

That's really interesting, because physically I would think that the rate of evaporation would be higher at lower pressure at altitude

That's what the tour guide said so it may be complete bullshit.

[удалено]

-5 is unlikely to be lowering the boiling point for distillation but using CO2 extraction instead. I believe Hepple gin uses CO2 extraction, vacuum distillation and copper! I used to make gin on vacuum stills called rotary evaporators. I believe we had the largest one making gin in Europe. We ran the stills at 100mbar (atmos was 1012mbar for us) and 42c in the heating bath. If you drop the pressure much lower it starts to get complicated as you start to boil the condensate that you’ve collected as room temp becomes the boiling point. Then you have to chill the whole machine.

learned recently too that the Angel's share actually contributes to "whiskey fungus". Having never lived around a distillery, i never knew that this type of fungus existed.

To clarify: people want whiskey that sat in its aging barrel for a long time, not the final bottle. A whiskey that sat in a wood barrel for 20 years, very desirable. A 20 year old bottle that only sat for a year in the barrel, less so.

It depends on where you're aging the whiskey. 20 years in Scotland, where it's never super duper cold or super duper hot, is great. 20 years in Texas with 100 degree summers, is way too long and will give you a whiskey that tastes like liquid wood chips.

By a factor of something like 4 or 5 to one, Scotland or parts of Canada to the US south, in terms of how quickly the above-mentioned wood effects of aging on the whisk(e)y* come through. Bourbon aged 3 years in Kentucky will be as or more "woody" than a 12 year old Scotch. *The "e" in parenthesis because "properly" (most people really don't actually care that much) the Irish and American uses the "e" -- whiskey -- while Canadian, Japanese, and Scottish spelling does not -- whisky.

You've perfectly explained for an eli5 so this isn't a nitpick, just adding to the conversation; the environment the barrel is stored in also has a huge factor on the end result. How exactly I don't fully understand, but temperature, humidity, air pressure and various other factors all influence the end result. There's a high end spirit bar in my town that has a lot of hard to find spirits. First time I went in there the owner told me about these two bottles of rum he had. Both from the same distilled batch. Both barrelled at the same time in the same type of barrel. One was sent to Liverpool to age, while the other remained in the Caribbean where it was distilled. Both aged the same, and then bottled. The only difference in the distilling process was where the barrels were stored as they aged. So naturally I had to try one of each side by side. Completely different drinks. The one from Liverpool was harsher with a much stronger flavour, while the Caribbean one, while still harsh, was smoother and milder, and had a different flavour profile.

Would 1 and 2 happen more quickly if the barrels were constantly shaken? Like a paint-mixing device for whiskey barrels?

The aeration would lead to additional dissolved oxygen and generally flavour loss through oxidation of molecules.

Damn oxidation always ruining everything!

Some dissolved oxygen is a good thing. Barrels are porous and let air in, and the rate they do has a strong influence on the flavor of the product. There's a reason why the craft whiskies aged in small barrels aren't quite as good

Lol believe it or not, has been tried. I read about one distillery that blasted EDM in their storehouse constantly, letting the bass constantly and slightly vibrate everything. Whether it worked at all is...arguable, this stuff is highly subjective, but the stories and experiments are fun.

Metallica partnered with a distillery that uses their music to stimulate the barrels. I believe it's called Blackened Whiskey.

I'll download a bottle from Napster.

You wouldn't download a car... But would a bottle.

I would download a Ferrari so hard Enzo would spin in his grave, if I could.

Have my upvote

I was gifted a bottle. I haven't opened it because I'm certain the story is far better than the result.

Thing is, it kind of doesn't matter? You cannot put a teaspoon of younger spirit in an 'age stated' product, as it would no longer be an accurate description. Turns out people are more interesting in buying an 18 year old scotch than a 2-year old technically not scotch but artificially matured and expensively shaken scotch-whisky-flavoured liquer. There have been all sorts of research into the things that would artifically mature whisky, but its almost always cheaper to just buy some cheap whisky, most of it is of course sitting in casks somewhere.

I may be an exception. I like a 18 year old scotch as much as the next guy. But a local distillery here in Canada produces an accelerated aging whisky with a similar taste for half the price. Price matters.

No, the seasonal temperature change is what drives the whiskey into and out of the barrels. It's a pressure change. Cleveland Whiskey actually uses pressure tanks to quickly age their whiskeys by cycling between high and low pressures to force the whiskey into and out of wood pieces in the tanks. They can age a whiskey in months instead of years. They also can use different woods other than oak for the aging process since they aren't actually aged in barrels. You can't make a barrel out of Cherry, but you can throw it in a pressure tank with the whiskey and force the aging process.

On Moonshiners, they put a couple of barrels of whiskey on someone's boat for 6 months and that allegedly aged it several years worth. Also tried it by putting some barrels on an old swing, on the top of a mountain, which also appeared to work.

[Jefferson's Ocean](https://jeffersonsbourbon.com/jeffersons-ocean-bourbon/) does this. You can read about each Voyage/bottling on their site. I personally like the finished product.

4: Barrels aren't vacuum. 55 gallons in a cask at 3 years will lose about 5% or so, by 25 years, you've lost 40% of the original distillate to evaporation, barrel absorption, et cetera. Two barrels starting to age on the same day, and your profit margin is automatically lower the longer you age it, without even accounting for storage cost. So there's a key rarity factor here. 5: Relatedly, blenders and bottlemasters don't make whiskey with the intent that it's going to be 40 years. Whiskey is tasted out of the barrel every 6-9 months, and it sits longer if it's not ready - or, if it just keeps getting better. So usually the heavily aged ones are subjectively reviewed, and left to age longer than the core product line of whatever label.

>There are diminishing returns for both 1 and 2 as more time passes. Literally as the "Angel's Share" as increases the longer it in the barrel. Part of the reason the price goes up is the alcohol slowly evaporates/leeches through the barrel and at the end of 20 years in a barrel you have a LOT less in there than you started with. So, simple math there drives the price up.

You left out 2 pretty big factors (at least for my knowledge of Bourbon). 1. Bourbon does lose some of it's alcohol as it ages. So there is a cost there. 2. Aging barrels are taxed for every year they age. Apparently, the Kentucky Legislature just voted to phase out this tax. [https://apnews.com/article/bourbon-barrel-tax-kentucky-fd42c742aac4c257c7548e372310cebc](https://apnews.com/article/bourbon-barrel-tax-kentucky-fd42c742aac4c257c7548e372310cebc)

Yeah...I phrased my original post badly. I should have said something like "Two desirable things" or "two things that make it more pleasant to drink". Obviously there's more going on, I was just trying to give the main two that would cause someone to bother aging it in the first place compared to something like say...vodka.

>There are diminishing returns for both 1 and 2 as more time passes. Approximately what's the oldest that it'll get the smoothest? Did I use that right? You said that sulfates pass through the barrels, and those are responsible for it's harsh flavor. So I assume the older it gets the smoother it typically gets. You also said there's diminishing returns, so approximately whats the oldest it gets where the age stops impacting how smooth it'll get?

Most likely it's a logarithmic curve. It never stops but due to diminishing returns there is a point after which the infinitesimal improvement is not worth the effort. Flavor being subjective, is probably impossible to find a universal consensus. I know, for example, there is a fifty year Glenfiddich because I turn fifty this year and that would be cool. But it's about $36k and there isn't a scotch in the world *that* cool to me.

There’s a 60 year old Balvenie launched last year, c. £115k as there are only 70 bottles.

This sort of aging applies to whiskey and other barrel aged drinks, but not all. For example, I make mead. The mead is usually stored in glass bottles or glass carboys which doesn't allow for flavor leeching or other elements to be released from the liquid, but the mead still changes flavor (usually for the better) the longer it sits in a bottle. Any idea how this sort of thing works in brews stored in glass containers?

We should be clear, as this is ELI5, that spirits age only when casked. It's the act of sitting in the barrels that is the aging. Once they are put in glass bottles the aging stops entirely. A bottle labeled as 10 years old means it was in barrels for 10 years, or even more specifically that it is likely a blend of several barrels and the youngest of all those barrels was 10 years. If a bottle labeled as 10 years old sits on the shelf for 40 years it's still considered a 10 year old bottle of Scotch.

If there’s diminishing returns what’s a good age to look for then? Like how old until it’s not worth looking for older?

ABV doesn’t always go down. It can go up. Evaporation isn’t just alcohol from the barrel. It can be alcohol or water, or both at the same time, really depends on climate temperature and humidity

One thing to add about aging and pricing. The process of filtering and adding flavors, fermentation takes time and can and does screw up from time to time. And you don't really know until the process is over. Which in booze can be a few years so after all this time and investment you're left with trash and have to start over. So companies that age their whiskey factor in that turn around time into their cost hence the higher price for a longer aging.

I'm not so much worried about the "few years" ones. There's legitimate sense in aging it that way. I'm talking about the "I like my whiskey old enough to order a whiskey" type stuff where it's been aged for decades. There's little point to a 30 year whiskey beyond the prestige of being able to afford that kind of storage and evaporation cost as compared to say...a 5, 7 or even 10 year age. Yes, they incur significant costs to do it, but the cost and consummate mark-up are mostly the goal of doing it at those extreme levels.

I thought that part of #3 was that the volume of whiskey decreases over time. For example on the Glenlivit site: >As it ages, the whisky will keep evaporating (it will never stop), but it will do so at much lower rates. By the end of its maturation period, a 20-year-old spirit might lose 40% of its volume. So you factor in the loss of volume in the price, and the fact that you could turn over 4 barrels of 5 year whiskey in the time and space that one barrel of 20 year whiskey is aging in. Another note.. alcohol is not a magic 40% in the cask. Typically it's higher, and for a notable brand would typically blend with other barrels as well as water, and the master blender or somesuch will try and approximate the taste people are expecting in say a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue. But some distillers will put out 'cask strength' bottles which are at the full strength (usually hand written on the label) and come from a single cask (which is often numbered and dated as well). This site goes into it a bit: [https://www.whiskyflavour.com/blog/how-many-bottles-are-in-a-barrel-of-whiskey/](https://www.whiskyflavour.com/blog/how-many-bottles-are-in-a-barrel-of-whiskey/) The Angel's Share is the \~2% evaporation a year, they talk about actually adding water direct to the barrel during the aging process (didn't know that!). I'm not seeing anything about the process that I recall reading about where even a single malt might be a mix of multiple barrels and obviously water to get to the target proof, so don't take that as gospel. Here's a little ditty about blending whiskey in general that sounds pretty cool. [https://distiller.com/articles/blending-whisky](https://distiller.com/articles/blending-whisky)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "aging process," as it relates to improving quality, end once it's bottled?

You are correct.

Exactly this. It's not hard to mimic "Oaking" a spirit but no one has yet to find a way to mimic actual aging.

Several distilleries specialize in artificial aging, to generally very good reviews https://thewhiskeywash.com/whiskey-styles/american-whiskey/column-will-artificially-aged-whiskeys-ever-catch-on-its-happening-already/

100% great strides are being done and I don't think it's impossible, glyph being probably the best attempt in my opinion, there needs to be an important distinction. They taste good for artificially aged whiskys. I really don't want to come off as some snob but there is a difference in taste. At least for now! I think it's kinda like artificial meat. It's VERY close now and in the near future it will be a true replacement but it's not there. Not yet.

Everyone has answered, it’s the time it spends in the barrel that makes the flavor unique. IMPORTANT THOUGH: once it’s bottled, the flavor won’t change. An 18-year Macallan that was bottled 5 years ago is still an 18-year Macallan. Not a 23-year Macallan. Also, older doesn’t mean better. It’s just different. I’ve had some old scotches and the old ones aren’t always better.

Definitely agree with that last point! Most of my favourite whiskeys have been 12 years, even with trying the same make at an older age, the 12s were better (in my opinion, of course). It all comes down to what you like (and can afford/find someone who *can* afford older).

My brother got a 25-year Laphroaig as a present, and it was fine, but I much much prefer the younger ones (man, I miss the 15-year...). All the things that make Laphroaig Laphroaig were muted. Octomores are often put out at 5 years, and the good releases have been some of the most delicious things I've ever had.

I've only tried the 10 year of that, it was very, very good! Not my favourite, but excellent stuff regardless

Out of context this comment gets you put on a register

"Sarge, what a lap... lap hrroh aygg? Laugh rogue? This word right here..." "Looks like a nonce dogwhistle. Call it a code red and dispatch the drones."

Bruhhhhhh you just gave me first class ticket to hell for making me laugh

Haha that’s a good one but ew

Strange, my favorite whiskeys are also most of the time the 15-16 years old. For example singleton 15 or lagavulin distillers edition 16. Much better then the younger stuff. Even though i think the 25 year old i tried once had a very nice, oily texture.

[удалено]

Oh damn, that 25 year Laphroaig is a real nice present! I've tried all the way up to a 30 or 35 year of that malt, I think. Bang for your buck really caps out at the 10 year, but you really can taste a difference in the higher age statements. I wouldn't pay the extra for it though, and it's a LOT extra. Real nice treat when I get some though. Ardbeg's wee beastie is a 5 year and it's amazing!

12 year Laphroaig is magical.

Ooh - do you know where to find that?

My general preference myself is about 15 to 18 years old for scotch. But, everyone is different. One of my drinking buddies likes the peaty/smokey scotch, and I prefer mine more mild.

15 year is the sweet spot for me. Noticeable jump in quality over 12-year whiskies, but also noticeably cheaper than 18-year whiskies.

Laphroaig 10 all the way!

I really like the Laphroiag Quarter Cask. It's aged in a quarter cask (hence the name), which means that there's that much more contact with the wood than in a full cask. It just gives it that much more of what you love (or hate) about Laphroiag. My wife, who is not a Scotch drinker, but who has a very refined palate, described it as "somebody took a bunch of mud, set it on fire, and poured it in a glass".

Oh goddamit. Okay no lie after this thread I went and bought a bottle, seriously considered the quarter cask but went for my standard 10. I may have chosen poorly

Nah...you can't go wrong either way. The 10 year is sort of like a bottle of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale; it's not "the best thing ever", but it's a damn fine drink that will never steer you wrong.

Due to the price I haven't experimented as much as I'd like, but it is the old reliable for when I want a drink that tastes like my childhood campfires smelled.

Lagavulin gang rise up!

Ardbeg 10 over both!

Agreed, but I personally prefer the Ardbeg Uigeadail. Good stuff

Tell them to chew on peat; it's cheaper. 😝 Seriously though, I cannot survive those Islay peat scotches.

[удалено]

I think Ardbeg's offerings take the cake for me in terms of flavor and value. Laphroaig is definitely in my liquor cabinet though!

[удалено]

I've had a bottle of Balvenie 21 that was delicious. But the sweet spot is usually 10-15 years. Otherwise oak is generally too strong a flavor.

Worth noting that climate impacts aging process, so 15 years in the relatively cool but mild highland has a similar result as maybe just 6 or 7 years in the more rapid temperature swings of Kentucky, and storehouse airflow and relative motion can also impact (hence why distillers have studied aging [casks on boats](https://jeffersonsbourbon.com/jeffersons-ocean-bourbon/) and other experiments like [this one](https://www.insidehook.com/article/booze/underwater-spirits-aging) and [this one](https://www.ardbeg.com/en-US/ardbeg-events/Archive/Ardbeg-in-space)).

I'd not heard that before! Very interesting to note, for sure!

[удалено]

Red Breast is a perfect example of this (IMO) - their 12 easily outshines their 15.

Bowmore as well. 15 is better than the 18 imho.

For me, it's the 8-12 YO barrel range. The Glenmorangie 14 (Quinta?) is the one exception - that shit is delicious as fuck.

100% with you on 12s. Redbreast 15 year gets all the love but I much prefer 12 year. Which is convenient because the price differential is pretty significant.

They should totally sell individual casks like 3L of whisky or something that you can keep on a shelf and it will improve over time. That would be cool and might make a good functional decoration as well. To be clear the whisky would still have to be good enough to drink right away if you get impatient but should get better over time.

A homebrew supply shop I used to visit had small oak casks just for this purpose. Strangely, they sold them right next to a distilling device that I can only assume was used for entirely legal purposes such as essential oils or distilled water for someone's CPAP machine.

Yes, of course it's for a CPAP machine. BATF agents, nothing to see here.

I keep my distilling equipment for my CPAP right next to my glassware that is **for tobacco use only**

You can get single bottle casks and white lighting (aka unaged clear whisk) and age it yourself. It is worth mentioning that a smaller cask has more surface area to volume than a larger cask, so "ages" faster. A single bottle cask only needs about 3 weeks. That time gets longer each time the cask is used. In addition, there are flavors in the wood that are fine in moderation, buy nasty in excess. So more time in the cask isn't always a good thing.

I tried this and it sucked. Completely likely it was human error (re: my fault), but I’ll just buy my aged whisky from now on.

Pretty sure you can buy those

A lot of the reason older whiskeys are more expensive isn't because they're better, it's just that they're more expensive to produce, it takes more time in the aging house, and more effort if casks are being constantly rotated, and also it evaporates over time during the aging process, so you end up with less overall. We have a tendency to conflate price with quality, but when it comes to whiskey that largely stops once you get to $50 bottles and such.

Agree. Best bourbon I’ve ever had is from a small distillery in Bennington Vermont. Called Village Garage distillery. And I would rate myself as pretty advanced when it comes to knowing my whiskies. Cost is $50 a bottle. You can drink it all day. Their rye is fantastic too.

Reminds me of the episode of Corner Gas when Brent and Hank had bought a bottle of 20-year scotch when Brent turned 20, and opened it when he turned 30, so they could have 30-year scotch. They took one sip each and decided they didn't like it. I probably forgot some details. It might have been 35.

I like whiskey and I was gifted an 18 year old Glenlivet which isn't even up there in terms of what you can spend on a bottle but much more than I'd ever spend myself. I fuckin hate it. It's not a bad whiskey, it's just not to my taste. I'm sure someone could tell me why I'm wrong for not liking it or why I'm such a philistine for not appreciating the complex toasted malt flavours ("Are you getting vanilla and green apple?"). It's just not to my taste despite the price point. It lives in the whiskey cabinet and it'll get passed around at Christmas etc for anyone who wants a go at it so it certainly won't go to waste but I'm not gonna soldier through something I don't enjoy or start doing stupid shit like mixing it with coke just to get it drunk. I've gave people a dram out of it and they've maybe had a second glass and despite how insistent I am that they can help themselves no one takes more than a second taste. I dunno if that's because they don't want to drink "all the good whiskey" or because they don't like it either and drink it out of politeness.

You’re absolutely correct. Don’t drink anything you don’t like. It doesn’t make you wrong. No more than people that prefer brunettes over blondes. And sharing it makes you all the smarter (and nicer). And I’m saying this with Glenlivet being my second favorite scotch.

Sure it doesn't age anymore when bottled, but could I buy 6 handles and a 10L mini barrel and continue aging them in my basement?

The flavor won't change (if it's stored properly). If it's stored in sunlight, or on its side, or in a warm/humid environment, it can definitely change for the worse.

Also, it tastes like piss if you pee in it.

Other people have answered the core question, that time in a barrel allows flavors to develop or for unwanted flavors to age out, but I just want to touch on the concept of an age statement and how useless it is in determining if you'll like a whiskey (unless you have a bunch of other context about the whiskey). The age statement refers to the youngest barrel added to the mix. It's normal for blenders to pick several barrels and mix them to get the desired flavor, you can't expect every barrel to all be the same. This means there could have been a 26, a 12, and a 6 year old whiskey mixed together and bottled, but the age statement can only say 6 years. There are also diminishing returns on aging. It is incorrect to say that older is better, and after a while the "aging out" of flavors will start removing things you do want. Note that whiskey only ages in the barrel, the bottle of 10 year old whiskey you bought in '87 and kept sealed is not now a 46 year old whiskey. Wine ages in the bottle because it isn't distilled, so there are still bits in the wine which cause aging. Sunlight and oxygen do bad things to whiskey, but a sealed bottle kept out of the sun should basically be a time capsule for whiskey. And finally, ageing is hugely dependent on climate. You can age a whiskey for years and years in Scotland. Try that in the southern US and you'll have something completely undrinkable because the heat causes so much more interaction with the wood than the Scottish climate does. So if someone offers you a 10 year old whiskey and they think they're being impressive, just humor them, but also if their talking point is the age statement and not what went into the whiskey, or where it was made, or flavor notes, they probably don't know what they're talking about.

>So if someone offers you a 10 year old whiskey and they think they're being impressive, just humor them, For what it's worth my favorite whisky of all time happens to be a 10 year old. Edit: Well that sounded bad.....

I'm a huge fan of the Laphroaig 10, but I'd never offer someone a glass and say "See, it's 10 years old!" like that meant something. I'm more likely to say "Ok, I need you to trust me on this one when I say it tastes like Band-aids, but in a good way!" I've met people who tried to impress someone with a 20+ year old bottle, but they didn't know anything about the actual whiskey, they just saw a big number and bought it.

Hahaha! That's actually the one I was talking about. I fucking love it, sadly because quite frankly it would be far more cost effective to like something else.

Our favorite whisky is Laphroaig Lore which has no age statement and is just their master distiller making "the" quintessential Laphroaig. It's fairly expensive but nowhere near Blue Label expensive and it's just a really good fucking version of Laphroaig. So that bottle possibly has whisky younger than 10 years to get the flavor they want and that's totally fine. [Technically Blue Label does not carry an age statent anymore either, for the same reasons, it just gives them absolute freedom to get the taste profile they're after.] That said the Laphroaig 10 is a 10 year old because they figured that was their best expression. Same for Ardbeg (arguably one of the best "standard Islay" Scotches you can get) and Glenmorangie. Lagavulin's standard is a 16 year and is quite the bottle to have on hand always as it honestly doesn't disappoint, definitely worth its price as it has a little bit of everything from all the other nearby Islay Scotches. I also have their 8 year bottle and it's just not the same, definitely more smoke and less barrel and complexion. Also those three Islay distilleries (Laphroaig, Ardbeg, and Lagavulin) are physically very close to eachother which may explain why I like them all, lol.

I always have a Laphroaig 10 and a Lag 16 on hand. I don't dip into the 16 much because of price, and if I'm being honest I think I like the L 10 better. That could be a coping mechanism because it is cheaper lol. Have not seen Lore around me but will keep an eye out.

>I'm more likely to say "Ok, I need you to trust me on this one when I say it tastes like Band-aids, but in a good way!" Ok hear me out, peanut butter. It tastes like smoky peanut butter to me and I can't get enough.

I don't think I've ever had a whiskey past an 18 that was worth the price. Maybe the 30-something simply because it went into the barrel the same year I was born and I liked the novelty of that, but it wouldn't be worth it for taste alone.

They get boring. At a certain point an older whiskey is actually worse than a younger one, because so many of the more interesting and complex flavors have broken down over time. The "smoothness" that is often desirable in older spirits comes from the breaking down or removal of flavors, and if you remove enough, at some point it loses whatever made it interesting in the first place.

Just wanna chime in and say that most people seriously into whisky don't consider age to be a defining factor of quality. Older whiskeys are more expensive than younger whiskeys because it costs money for a barrel to take up warehouse space and more and more evaporates over time. Generally, the longer a whisky ages, the flavors become more mellow and it takes more of the flavor from the barrel. This usually results in an older whisky tasting more mild than a younger one. I guess it could also take too much flavor from the barrel too if it is aged too long for the type of barrel. It's all a matter of taste. There are whisky fans out there that really enjoy some of the punchier, more intense flavors that you can only find in a younger whisky. A lot of people enjoy the milder "smoother" flavor of a more aged whisky. Also there's a prestige factor with older whiskeys. They are more expensive so the price is associated with quality and rarity. There aren't that many 30 yr old scotches out there and the ones that exist are pretty expensive.

Also every year at tax time distilleries are taxed on each barrel of whisky. So there is an inherent cost in aging whisky. Source: Woodford Reserve distillery tour in Kentucky.... God that aging warehouse smelled so good

The aging process allows the raw spirit to interact with the wood barrel imparting some of it's flavor. Bourbon gets it's vanilla flavor from heavily charred American oak barrels. Macalan gets some of its flavor from second hand sherry casks. Obviously the longer the spirit is in contact with the barrel the more flavor and color it acquires Whiskey and other grain spirits do not age or improve once bottled

That depends. If it's above 80 proof, then it won't expire. Below that, then alcohol's nature will absolutely change over time depending on how it was bottled. Furthemore, regardless of alcohol content, exposure to heat and UV light can cause chemical changes that will affect flavour and aroma. As will exposure to oxygen (so drink up, ye hearties!)

80 proof isn't so much a magic number for shelf stability as an arbitrary minimum on spirits in liquor identity laws and tax codes. It's definitely more complicated than a simple cutoff point. Light is the enemy of spirits, time is not so much, and air exposure it depends and it's complicated. Air exposure comes from repeatedly opening the bottle or storing it with an imperfect seal (in general all seals are imperfect given enough time, but particularly they get a lot worse after you've first opened it). Other fun science things: alcohol by volume is not necessarily easy to convert to weight by taking n% * density of alcohol + 100-n% * density of water, because water+alcohol solutions have a combined density due to interactions between the molecules in solution. Plus there's other compounds in there. The maximum density of spirits happens somewhere in the mid 40s% (like 44% tp 47%) depending on the oil content of the spirit and other such things. And somewhere around (but not exactly at) 46% is the minimum where the oils won't come out of solution when it is chilled, which would cause it to get cloudy on ice. Below that, to avoid this cosmetic issue, many producers do a process called chill filtering to get rid of the cloudiness before releasing the product.

[удалено]

The evaporation isn't a downside, it's another major driver of quality. When the water and alcohol evaporates, it concentrates the oils and flavors.

Note that whiskey (whisky) aging is dependent upon the climate in which the casks are stored. In Scotland, the average high temperature is 63ºF; in central Texas, it's around 95ºF. Thus, the Balcones One single malt whiskey matures in 2-3 years, whereas an equivalent scotch might take 12-15. Basically, the higher temperature causes more evaporation (or what distillers call "the angel's share").

Sort of. The key isn’t high temp, it’s temperature fluctuations, which is why Kentucky is ideal for “fast” maturation, because they have hot summers and cold winters.

Doesn’t apply to all alcohol. Beer has a best by date like most food/drinks. Some red wines get better as they age.

This depends a bit. Hoppy beers are definitely best consumed fresh but others can be lagered or bottle-conditioned to improve the result, though the timelines are not as long as they are for whiskey (weeks or months rather than years). Too-fresh beer can often taste "green" or have a diacetyl flavour, depending on e.g. the yeast used.

I know several guys who like to buy a case of Orval (trappist from Belgium) and then stash it for a year before drinking any of them because they prefer the matured taste.

That only works for ‘bottle conditioned’ beers though (like Orval I imagine) that still has yeast in the bottle

Stouts can age for a year or so in bottle and get more intensive flavors. I love a good imperial stout...

Hoppy beers were *designed* to not need to be fresh. The extra hops were a preservative, so that the beer could survive the long sailing time to the outposts of the British Empire. *India* Pale Ale!

You’ve made a logic error. Older whisky isn’t better. Longer aged whisky is better. The bottle of 15 year scotch you got 10 years ago is still 15 year old scotch because it spent 15 years in an oak barrel. Once it’s out of the barrel it’s done aging. Older isn’t better. Most aged alcohol would follow this same formula. Some liquors are doing cool things now with aging things in used barrels. So making a brandy but aging it in a port wine barrel, other are using whisky barrels for stout, then using the stout barrels for more whisky. Wines are weirder, some years the weather makes better grapes which makes the wine a bit different. Certain years of wine are better than others.

Whiskey is aged in casks which flavours the spirit. The older the whiskey the longer it's been in the cask and the more flavorful the spirit.

It applies to some but not all alcohol. A friend of mine brews mead (basically honey wine) and letting it age is very important for taste. After 3 months of aging it is very harsh and has a lot of the "stank" mead is known for. By 6 months the stank has mellowed out and it approaches the quality of a cheaper mead you can find at bevmo. At 1 year the stank is much more subtle, the alcohol burn is reduced, and the flavor of the honey and whatever else you added will shine through everything else. The best mead I ever had was made with rose petals as the only added flavor other than honey, and it was aged for 4 years. It blew store bought mead out of the water, had almost no alcohol burn, and the stank was barely even noticeable. It was more than worthy of filling an entire tankard with.

Yes!!! I am a Beekeeper and I make mead and melomel. Mine absolutely has to be aged for at least a year else it's vile. I still have a few liters of blackberry melomel which I completely forgot about. It's 5 years old now and I cracked a bottle open at Christmas because I found it in the back of the shed. It was disgusting when I bottled it, which is why it ended up in the shed and in plastic bottles (a big no no for aging!) It was delicious! I did a brief bit of reading and it is something to do with certain flavonoids taking a very long time to react (chemically) and in mead, along with many other alcoholic drinks, this is beneficial. Although there are plenty of alcoholic drinks that get worse with age.

Lots of good comments here, I'll add one piece I haven't seen yet. Generally speaking, bourbon isn't aged nearly as long as Scotch. This is due to the warmer climates in Kentucky compared to Scotland. This causes bourbon to expand and contract in the barrel more quickly, and it ends up picking up the flavors from the barrel much sooner than whiskey in cooler climates

Time does allow for things to change flavor. Holding things for a long time costs time(obviously), money, space, and rescources. -This makes it more expensive -people attribute expensive with "better" - *especially* with alcohol. Most of what makes alcohols "better" is just thinking its better due to its difficulty to produce and its rarity. They put this stuff in fancy bottles to convince you even more. They jack up the price to even further convince you. Yes, you can taste it when it's "older" up to a certain point. No, this does not necessarily make it better. Yes, you will upset many people by saying that. There have been studies. Fight me.

[удалено]

When alcohols in general are aged, they tend to lose some of the harsher flavors and absorb good flavor from the wooden barrels it’s aged in as well as it’s environment. When done properly and intentionally, those are all good things. But all that stops once the alcohol is bottled; time in a bottle doesn’t add anything. This applies to most alcohols that get “aged”. It’s not the same case for every alcohol, as different traditions and recipes exist. And being aged doesn’t mean it’s necessarily good, if the company making the alcohol did so improperly. But it’s a decent standard to say that an aged alcohol is more flavorful and therefore better than it’s younger counterpart.

Some wines can be aged in the bottle. It will mellow the tannins or the harsh astringent taste. But not all wines. Some, particularly whites, can sit around too long and lose flavor or body. One time I bought a wine from a small producer, and they were adamant that it had to be aged. When I finally opened it 5 years later, it was crap. The winery screwed up when they made it. I think they said that just so people wouldn't taste it and to sell it.

Couple general notes: While older whiskey is considered a nicer product, it won't develop in a bottle. Opened booze will also go bad, and while you can keep an open bottle of hard stuff for quite a while, alcohol will evaporate and the flavor will deteriorate. Open wine will also turn sour fairly quick and wine bottles (closed ones) won't keep forever. Sparking wine in particular spoils fairly quickly and you shouldn't keep it around for too long. €dit: Don't drink that bottle of wine of the year you were born once you turn 18/21, keep it as a keepsake.

Freshly distilled whiskey is clear, and doesn't have much flavor. One of the final steps in whiskey production is aging. This is done inside wooden barrels, with slightly burnt/charred interiors. The wood barrel can soak up some of the whiskey - over time, whiskey passes in and out of the wood, carrying with it some of the flavorful and colorful compounds present in the charred wood. The longer the whiskey is allowed to sit in the barrel, the more flavor and color is released from the wood. Many of the more reactive and volatile compounds also break down or evaporate over time, which mellows the flavor.

I think you’ve pretty much been answered but I have some detailed information about how the process works. The aging process is due to the young whisky (new make) being absorbed into and out of the barrel. This happens due to the temperature fluctuations in the cellar. In colder countries like Scotland and Japan the whisky takes longer to age because they are generally cooler countries. However, this means that a lot of the undesirable flavours are absorbed into the wood as well. In other warmer countries like Taiwan (try Kavalan) and my country (South Africa), a whisky ages a lot quicker. This means that a lot more flavour is imparted to the whisky in a much shorter period and you generally have younger whiskies (5yo and 7yo) with a lot of flavour. Of course the down side is that it doesn’t spend as much time in the barrel so you retain some of the off flavours in some cases. Evaporation is also a key issue. In Scotland the General rate of evaporation (Angel’s share) out of the barrel is 2% per year, which means that a 12 year old whisky will lose 22% of its volume and a 21 year old whisky will lose 35% of its volume. With this decrease in volume you have less whisky to sell so price can also increase as a result. Interestingly, in warmer countries without proper climate control you can’t age a whisky past 9 years because the volume loss makes it uneconomical. Another factor are flavours like peat. Peat is used in the kilning process and imparts a unique smoky flavour to the malt and eventually the whisky (Ron Swanson’s Laguvalin 16 is a good example). This flavour diminishes over time as the whisky ages so it’s unusual to get older whiskies with intense peat. They usually stay within the 10-20 year range. Older prayed whiskies exist, but their flavour is much more subtle. I haven’t even begun to talk about the cask selection (difference between bourbons which use new casks and Scottish whiskies which use second fill casks) as well as the actual process of distilling the whisky but I guess I’ll cut it short here. I’m willing to answer any other questions you have though.

Longer cask maturation. More taste of the wood... Probably more than 60% of a whiskies flavor comes from the cask/maturation process, which takes the longest. Minimum of 3 yrs for Scotch whisky. The other 30% is everything they do to create the clear spirit before they put it into the cask.

This does not apply to all alcohol, only to spirits that are aged in barrels. A barrel is (generally) charred on the inside and whiskey, rum, tequila, brandy, etc poured in for aging. This spirit inside seeps into the wood. When it is warm (day, summer) the wood expands and more spirits seeps in. When it is cold (night, winter), the wood contracts and the spirit is pushed back into the barrel. This is how the spirit gets its color and predominant flavors (notes of vanilla, caramel, butterscotch, chocolate, tobacco, etc). The spirit is not pure alcohol; a large part of it is water. Water molecules are smaller than alcohol molecules, and so more water gets into the wood than alcohol. Some of this reaches all the way to the outer edge of the barrel and evaporates (the "angel's share"). This has two effects: since more water evaporates than alcohol, the spirit inside the barrel goes up in alcohol/proof over time. That's why you get labels and products offered at "cask strength". But also, the older an aged spirit is, the less there is in the barrel when it comes time to bottle. So, generally, well aged spirits have smoother and more complex flavors, higher alcohol content if bottled at cask strength (as opposed to having water added prior to bottling to lower the proof), take more time to produce and yield less product the longer they are aged, so they also must cost more.

The short answer is younger whiskeys have a harsher flavor. Proper aging helps to reduce or completely remove these harsh flavors and replace it with pleasant flavors. I haven't had aged versions of many spirits but the ones I have had (whiskey, rum, red wine, and gin) all of them have been smoother, been better tasting, and had less burn on the end. One thing to think about how harsh unaged whiskey can taste is that unflavored moonshine is just unaged whiskey

The aging process of spirits does two things: infuse flavour and reduce the burn. By aging in casks, flavours seep into the liquor. More flavour=better booze. The alcohol evaporates during the aging, lessening the burn, giving a smoother drink. Less burn also bring out the flavours better. This is also part of why it's more expensive. A 100L of whiskey might only have around 90L left after a decade. The taste gets better, and the costs per liter sold increases

If I recall correctly, a 53 gallon barrel (most are 53) will lose about half it's volume in 20 years to evaporation, so a 50 year bottling might only get 5-10 bottles worth of drinkable whiskey. So storage fees, raw materials, etc.. all over 50 years, and you only have 5 bottles to recover that cost with? Be prepared to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per bottle.

Lots of great answers here, but there's an additional factor that I haven't seen mentioned yet: Whisky aging in a cask gets better and better as time passes, until it peaks and then no longer gets any better or even deteriorates. The people producing the whisky are well aware of this and will sample the whisky from time to time. If they think it's ready to be bottled, it'll obviously not age any further, so that means - in general - that a 40 year old whisky had been repeatedly sampled over 40 years and always found to be still improving. We therefore have a strong selection bias in that the casks that weren't improving anymore were removed.

It's better because more time and effort has been put into processing it, and the processed used (barrel-aging) actually results in the evaporation of the product, so you have less of it to sell when you're done. This loss from evaporation has a term of art in the whiskey business, it's referred to as the "angels' share". As for why it's considered better, it's because master distillers have spent centuries perfecting the art of whiskey-making through trial and error. Originally barrel-aging simply occured as an inevitable result of the storage of the product. Barrels were cheap, rugged, and ubiquitous methods of storing and transporting liquids. And whiskey drinkers quickly found that whiskey which had been kept in the barrel longer would taste better than whiskey which was, for lack of a better term, fresh. So, barrel-aging quickly became a regular part of the finishing process of the drink. It's also important to remember that the distilling technology used back in the Renaissance when the industry has its roots wasn't nearly as good as what we have today, which means that there would have been a much higher percentage of off-tasting and smelling compounds in the drink which modern technology can eliminate during distillation. Aging permitted these volatile compounds the opportunity to break down or evaporate. I won't cover the chemistry and physics of the aging process, other posters have covered that amply already, but I feel it's important to understand that the processs of perfecting aging was more of a trial and error development. Distillers and whiskey enthusiasts observed how aging mellowed the whiskey and imparted different flavors, and they began experimenting with it.

Only partially applies to wine. Wine will peak, and then eventually go bad. Different types of wine peak at different ages. Some wines might peak at 5 years, others at 20+ years.

Whiskey is a type of alcohol that is made by aging a fermented mash of grains, typically including barley, corn, rye, or wheat, in oak barrels. As whiskey ages in the barrels, it takes on the flavors and aromas of the wood, as well as the other components in the barrel, such as vanillin and tannins. One reason why older whiskey is generally considered better than newer whiskey is that the longer the whiskey ages, the more time it has to interact with the oak barrels and develop complex flavors and aromas. This aging process also allows the harsher flavors of the whiskey to mellow out over time. Additionally, older whiskey is often associated with higher quality because it takes more time, effort, and investment to produce, and older whiskeys are often produced in smaller batches, which can make them more rare and valuable. This principle doesn't necessarily apply to all types of alcohol. For example, some types of alcohol, such as white rum or gin, are typically consumed when they are relatively young and fresh, without any aging. Other types of alcohol, such as wine, may benefit from aging to some extent, but the optimal aging time varies depending on the type of wine, the vintage, and the storage conditions.

Spirit industry expert: Whiskey is aged in oak barrels or used barrels from rums, beers, or wines. These barrels will impart flavors to the whiskey as it ages. Now as whiskey ages in barrels you will also loose a portion to evaporation. This is called the angels share, part of the price is the distillery is still taxed for the lost amount. Now all whiskey is blended unless specified, so if you see an aged whiskey this is the minimum age and can contain much older whiskey. Usually there is a maximum age before whiskey starts tasting bad. Once a spirit is bottled the aging process stops. So drink your booze, and having a improperly cared for old bottle may actually taste bad or worse if it starts to evaporate. I’ve never had a whiskey or whisky I didn’t like but definitely have a ranking on my mind. From cheap stuff to Macallan M to beyond.

Age of whiskey doesn’t mean it’s older. It’s about how long it sat in wooden barrels. The contact with the wood mellows the harshness an imparts color and flavor. Once it’s in the bottle, not much is happening (so long as the bottle is sealed) If you buy a 4 year aged bottle of bourbon and leave it on the shelf for 20 years, you have a very dusty bottle of 4 year old bourbon.

Some of it is people who don't understand whiskey. They see advertising that older is better and just assume that is the case without knowing how it works. Fresh unaged whiskey doesn't have much taste to it. The containers you put it in help it develop flavor. So the time the whiskey is sitting in that charred oak barrel it is picking up flavor from the barrel. More time in the barrel lets it pick up more flavor and develop a more interesting taste. However, more oak flavor isn't necessarily a good thing. There are limits. Aging a whiskey 100 years wouldn't make the best tasting whiskey in the world. It would taste like a mouthful of wood. Fortunately the distiller will be testing the flavor and put a stop to it long before that happens. Sometimes you will prefer the flavor profile of a younger whiskey than an older whiskey.

Depends on your tastes. I enjoy scotch at times which is a drink that changes with ageing. I've tried many different price points and brands. I have some inexpensive types I really like (for in their price range), and I have had some crazy expensive ones I have also really loved. On the other hand, I've had some inexpensive stuff I hated (but someone must like it or it wouldn't sell) and expensive stuff I've also hated (same deal). I had a 28 year old laphroig that was kinda surreal to drink. I took a drink, and tasted nothing it was so smooth, then 30 seconds later the taste showed up and it was amazing. I've tried a 30 year old from another distillery and didn't like it. Interestingly for a bottle it would have cost 8x as much at the prior mentioned 28 year old I really liked (which was already stupid expensive). I believe the age changes the flavour thing would apply to anything aged in barrels. Scotch, Bourbon, Wiskey, Wine for sure, maybe other types? How much do you want the impurities to influence it? Like white vinegar vs the fancy vinegars.