@dhsilv2 Cool thx!

@Soba45 Got it, thanks!

@Anthology cadenhead, signatory, and g&m in that order.

@dhsilv2 Thanks. Which IBs, in your opinion, consistently put out great quality whiskey? Conversely, any IB you absolutely won’t go for anymore (much in same vein as you wouldn’t G-farc)?

@dhsilv2 Yes I would agree. Whether they are VFM is subjective I guess :-)

@Anthology There is wild variation between both the distilleries and bottlers and within categories of both. For example i had the Caperdonich 1977 39 yr (Cadenhead) 4.25 vs 21 year 1992 (cask 46220) The Duncan Taylor Single 3.25., Cambus 24 year Batch 2 (That Boutique-y Whisky Company) 2.5 vs Cameronbridge same year and bottler 4.25. Tis a lottery!

@Anthology I'd say it is heavily dependent on the particular casking and particular release way more so than single malts. A lot of the grain whiskeys are relatively blank canvases as they were designed to bulk out blends. People may have their favourites but i would definitely seek out reviews on the particular bottling you are interested in.

@Anthology I think the 25-30 is reasonable for IB's too, but it's MUCH less stable and consistent. There are just way more great bottles of younger whisky coming from IB's than the offical bottlings imo, BUT IB's at 25-30 are cheaper and are often awesome. With the right IB's I'm less concerned about buying "younger" bottles and with that, my dollars are more ok being spent on a glenlivet 12 year first fill sherry bottling at 46% for 90 bucks than on a glenlivet 21 year for 200-275 at 43% or even their 25 year at 400 or so. But would I buy a new glenlivet 14 year for 80? Nope! So yeah IB's tend to be worth their sticker price more often and as a result that's where I like to explore younger whisky. I'd represent that better if adding bottles to distillers wasn't so hard due to needing to use my phone to do it. I've got so many IB's I'd love to add review here for.

@Soba45 Since you introduced the topic, what are your thoughts on Invergordon and North British distilleries? I selfishly ask because I’m eyeing and likely to pull trigger on a 45Yr (1974) Invgrd and a 40Yr (1979) NB grain whiskeys.

@dhsilv2 Since you introduced the topic, would you say the same (I.e. same age ranges) for IBs? Or is it more of a crap shoot or coin toss for IBs in terms of getting top quality 23+ drams?

@Soba45 well, I use the 25-30 as the "peak" ages as a loose but reasonable tethering point. An 8 year amrut, which I've had, actually compares very much to a 20-25 IB bunna for example, but that's because the rate of age. Of course casks matter. Of course distillers/blenders matter. Of course with single casks things get wild. But if you tell me I'm getting an offical bottling, it's 46%, and it's from a respectable distillery...I'd say lets do the 25 year if the price isn't beyond 500 as a starting point all else equal. But that's just a guideline and I'm not saying older=better. I'm saying generally offical bottlings are their best 25-30 years old, but maybe I should say 23-28 as to point out I think 21 year offical bottlings aren't up to par and I have to admit, it's gotten rare you don't see a crazy spike in price on a 30 year (glengoyne's 30 however was rather fair in terms of markup vs 25 but the 25 was the sweet spot for price, not the 21 or 18).

@dhsilv2 Yes I'm pretty much same mentality in that I'd rather have 1 I think is amazing vs several I think are just ok. I find I'm a bit more flexible on the older is better rule. I was aware of Amrut aging which in my mind shows the age is just the starting point you need to know all other relevant factors. e.g.Climate, casking policy, whiskey type, who was the blender or distller at the time e.g. Bowmore went through a terrible period so id much rather have younger stuff not from that period than older stuff from that period. There are also distilleries which will quite happily pump out old aged stmt whisky which is randomly amd seriously flawed. I've had a great Talisker 25 and a seriously overoaked terrible one. Glendronach the same amazing 25+ year single cask bottlings but some absolute terrible ones where a 13yr from the same release was very much better. Boutique whiskey did a 50 year blend and a 35 and the latter was superior etc etc. I still think generally older is usually better but not always especially at the extreme end as I've had a lot of 40yr+ bottlings (particularly grain) and they can be very variable. I'm a lot more cautious around knowing the year or estimated timeframe of the bottling than the age. Examples being Bunnahabhain 18 which itself has been known for quality issues. I agree on Glenfarclas. Just seems like tired overused casks most of the time. I had a 1980's 15 year bottling which was waaay better.

@Anthology the make bad whisky. I have had the 22 year 107 or whatever. a 50% + 25 year, the 25, the 17, and some family cask. it is all over priced and they use terrible casks. I cant imagine ever wanting to drink any of them again.

@dhsilv2 Oh wow, that’s a pretty strong rejection of G-farc. What did it for you?

@Anthology well, to be honest i don't see myself ever buying anything from them again. family casks included.

@dhsilv2 I presume, nay conclude, that Glenfarclas 25Yr (and your experience with it), is the lone outlier [objection your honor, hearsay?]

@Soba45 if anything Amrut proves the point about age, just indirectly. It's age relative to region. Amrut's amazing because due to the heat it gets more contact with good sooner, but it's still all about the interaction with the wood. Similar to why we rarely see great bourbon over 20 years, and almost never over 25. My point with the whisky prices is a bit more nuanced here. I say you buy whiskies around 25 years because their are so few "bad" bottles. Sure with springbank maybe the 25 is too much and you settle for a 21, which is often the better bottle anyway. But with a talisker where sometimes you can find the 30 for 300 USD, it's a FAR better buy than the 25 which I don't care for at 250 (I know it often goes for way more). A laphroaig 18 is a joke next to a 25 and a 4x original cost 18 vs today's 25 is well worth that premium. But ultimately, the number of failures to me on the 18's and 21's has lead me over time to rather spend often way more than seems rational for that 25 because an over priced bottle is better than spending 100 bucks on a bottle I end up not enjoying. I'd rather enjoy and over pay than effectively just get something that gets me a buzz for what isn't a small sum of money. Hope that clarifies. Mind you and old bottle of bunna 18 imo is 95% of what the bunna 25 is, so get that. The new bunna 18? You can keep it...I don't need that bottle in my life. It's just not 100++ dollar whisky. The 25 year, I'd pass on at 600, but you find a deal at 400? I would be happy to have that in my life even if I think it's a 250-300 dollar bottle at most.

@dhsilv2 I'd also add whilst I generally trend to older is better distilleries like Amrut show that age definitely isn't everything with great several year old whiskies.

@dhsilv2 Woah that really is crazy pricing. Safety from COVID and cheap whisky..two great reasons to live in nz...haha

@Soba45 but frankly, glendronach 18 which is 24 years old aside, I don't care for that many 18 let slone 15 year whiskies. is sb 21 2x as good as the 18? For my money, yes. Though sb21 is on the high end. I am ok paying 2 or 3x more money for a sure thing.

@Soba45 18 is 235, 21 is 420, and i paid 800 for my last 25

@dhsilv2 I can get Springbank 18 for $120USD here. The 21 is $200+. Glendronach 18 $115, 25 yr = $500. Not to sure what it's like in your mkt but here 15 18s are still very reasonable whereas 25 yr and the occasional 21 are detached from reality.

@Soba45 15 to 18? I rarely find bottles in that range that are worth their price point, especially as 18's are moving into the 300's. I'd much rather gamble at something in the "peak" age range 25-30. that's when whisky really seems to work best. After 30 you start seeing the oak over power the spirit.

I think my buddy got his for around the 300 mark, and bought like 7 of them. I'd argue it is an almost perfect whisky, all be it sometimes we demand bold over refined. It really is a whisky that if you don't enjoy it, whisky might not be for you. Now to the current going rates on it? Well, yeah I'm not buying one at that price.

@ContemplativeFox Yeah I generally find the best stuff is around the 15 to 18yr mark especially once VFM is factored in. Once you get to old it really is a matter of skill and luck you can get enough decent casks to produce something that isn't overoaked or just gone AWOL. That said the older drams are often a different unique experience...just not one you'd want to pay a stupid premium to drink a lot of!

@Soba45 Thanks for that comparison. It seems like a lot of scotch starts declining in quality past 25 years and for Islay I often hear that the decline starts sooner. I won't be going out of my way to hint this down so long as the 18 is an option.

Nice review. Na it's a nice dram, I rated it a bit hirer but the 18 I thought was better and waay cheaper