For those who follow the world of Whisky there is a debate raging about age statements. As Americans we have been taught older is better, eighteen year old whisky is better than twelve year old whisky - don't even get me going on how much better twenty-five year old whisky is! As of late many distilleries have been releasing products without any age statement. A few of them, like Arbeg, have won top honors with these releases. Sure these ageless bottlings allow the producer to be creative but they also generate cash flow for the distillery much sooner. Some of the houses producing these innovative bottlings rightly point out there is a lot of lousy wood which has been used to age whisky, negatively affecting their industry. I, for one , can see the difference between Laphroaig 10 and 15 very clearly and can appreciate both but prefer the intensity of the 10. To go deeper, I prefer the 10 because I believe it expresses the region better. Perhaps it is time to focus less on the age than the area. If you are a Speysider or a peat freak does the age really matter? I've yet to meet a self proclaimed "18er"!

Comment