Old whiskey

[jcskinner]

I cracked open a bottle of Tullamore Dew dating from the Late Sixties/Early Seventies the other night. There was very little evaporation from the bottle, and the cork and seal were perfectly sound. It had been clearly well taken care of, not only by me but by others before me.
Anyhow, my point is this: it tasted terrible. It was definitely young and grain-heavy in the blend, and there was a pronounced caramel taste that indicated significant addition of the substance (as the colour also indicated.)
There was a strange mintiness too, that put me in mind of a minty caramel sweet I used to have as a child. All in all, even for a young whiskey, it was pretty rough going.
It just made me think how lucky we are to live in an era where even the entry-level whiskeys, the youthful whiskeys, the blends, are of a high quality. While no doubt there were decent whiskeys to be had back in the day, I suspect the overall quality in the market has never been as high as now.
I don't mean to pick on Tullamore Dew. I've had older Paddy's too, and it wasn't much cop. Although older Powers and Black Bush I've had were good, though interestingly different to the present day variants.
I just wanted to puncture the idea that whiskey back in the day was all fantastic. It wasn't, and there was perhaps a degree of lashing out any oul stuff at the bottom end of the market. Thankfully today, all the way from the cheapest blends up to the rarest single malts, Irish whiskey is pretty universally a product of genuine quality and taste.

[DavidH]

I just wanted to puncture the idea that whiskey back in the day was all fantastic. It wasn't, and there was perhaps a degree of lashing out any oul stuff at the bottom end of the market. Thankfully today, all the way from the cheapest blends up to the rarest single malts, Irish whiskey is pretty universally a product of genuine quality and taste.

Yes, I'm very much over the old stuff. When I got into whiskey I was regretting not being able to taste the output of the original distilleries. Since then I have tried some of them and none were any great shakes. A Redbreast 12yo in the Bull & Castle stands out as particularly awful.

Barry Crockett said the same thing at our PPS event. He said they make whiskey the same way today, just with much better quality control. I don't think that's marketing. I think he's right.

[JohnM]

I could be wrong, but I think Barry Crockett was particularly referring to much older whiskey, but I agree generally. Whiskey is much better today. I do like that particular flavour of stuff from the 50s and 60s, though. It's unique.

I love Powers, but had a Powers pure pot still mini that I opened and it was awful. I kind of hope it was just gone off or something. But I had a Paddy blend that was really good, very much like the older Powers blends that I like. Maybe the output was much more variable than it is today.

[TheWhiskeyBro]

I think in general it is not a good idea to open older mini's as in my experience they tend to be not great and are not a reflection of the similarly aged full bottle.

Anyone else have experience of this...

[DavidH]

I could be wrong, but I think Barry Crockett was particularly referring to much older whiskey, but I agree generally.

I won't swear to it, but I think he actually compared the new Midleton plant with the ones it replaced, and said you just couldn't get the same quality from the older plants. I was struck by his complete lack of sentimentality, which I ascribed to his conviction of a step up in control and quality.

Besides that, we know generally that a lot more attention is paid these days to wood management from the tree on, the chemistry of the barley grain and so on. Maybe it's not better than the best of the old stuff but it's hitting that level consistently.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Yes, I think that old minis are crashes waiting to happen ... They are obviously some much less able to fend off the rigours of ageing possibly due to the flimsy screw caps they usually have ... The Preston Jameson mini I had lately is testament to that.I have not yet had a mini that was not ruined whether Irish or Scotch. Old full bottles of Powers & Blackbush as already mentioned have all been good though.

In relation to the mint I think is a common trait in some PPS especially younger PPS.

[JohnM]

I could be wrong, but I think Barry Crockett was particularly referring to much older whiskey, but I agree generally.

I won't swear to it, but I think he actually compared the new Midleton plant with the ones it replaced, and said you just couldn't get the same quality from the older plants. I was struck by his complete lack of sentimentality, which I ascribed to his conviction of a step up in control and quality.

Besides that, we know generally that a lot more attention is paid these days to wood management from the tree on, the chemistry of the barley grain and so on. Maybe it's not better than the best of the old stuff but it's hitting that level consistently.

You could be right, of course, but the reason I have it in my mind is that he said that if you tasted whiskey from 100 years ago, he'd bet you wouldn't like it at all. And someone said that we have fans of that old stuff, but I thought at the time that probably nobody there would have tasted whiskey from this era.I don't think he'd bet that nobody there would like something like a Midleton 1967, a Bow Street 1963 or one of the old Cadenhead Tullamores.

He also said that the quality control was much more difficult without the modern checks and with the old direct-fired stills, referring to the 'more recent' stuff from the old distilleries. So that era was also discussed. But I think this was in relation to the consistency of quality.

Anyway, I'm open to correction on all this.

It just made me think how lucky we are to live in an era where even the entry-level whiskeys, the youthful whiskeys, the blends, are of a high quality. While no doubt there were decent whiskeys to be had back in the day, I suspect the overall quality in the market has never been as high as now.

This is also how I'd feel about quality.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

It is an interesting topic and one that holds some validity. I happened to come across a snippet from a Pamplet Titled "Scotch Whisky" printed in 1890. Obviously the scotts were as adept at self promotion as the Irish were at this time. These are an interesting couple of lines " ... the maturing of whiskies has increased to a very great extent in recent years. People will not drink new Whisky, as they used to not very long ago, and, to meet demand for old whiskies, immense warehouses have been errected."

This snippet exposes the common practice of selling new spirit as whisky which the big Irish Distilleries were totally against and actually did not consider it whisk(e)y but insisted on aging their whiskey. However let us not be fooled that Irish distilleries did not practice similar antics.

Imagine drinking new spirit or even spirit aged for less than a year as your regular tipple

[John]

This quote seems apt at this juncture:

"Quality in whisky is more than age. Even the poorest spirit can become old, though never palatable. Whiskies put down for ageing must have quality from the very start."

This was originally published on 14th June 1924 in Wine & Spirit Trade Record. The text was re-printed as an illustrated pamphlet called A Good Foundation which was, in effect, a marketing brochure intended to persuade whisky blenders to purchase Highland Park new make spirit.

(Courtesy of a HP mailshot)

[JohnM]

There was a fellow called Michel Couvreur who produced some whiskies a few years ago. It was his contention that it didn't matter what distillery the spirit came from, it was all about the barrel and maturation. Apologies if I'm misquoting him. Anyway, it seems like nonsense.

I bought a few of his whiskies, for God knows what reason. I kind of liked the bottles...

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

There was a fellow called Michel Couvreur who produced some whiskies a few years ago. It was his contention that it didn't matter what distillery the spirit came from, it was all about the barrel and maturation. Apologies if I'm misquoting him. Anyway, it seems like nonsense.

I bought a few of his whiskies, for God knows what reason. I kind of liked the bottles...

Were they the square bottles (i.e. like Bushmills) but with the lable on the corner (side edge) in a DIamond shape? ...if that makes any sence???

I definately think that the wood has a hell of a lot to do with the taste but to say that the still has nothing to impart I find a bit hard to believe ... half of Islay get their bourbon casks from the same source yet they are all different are they not?

[JohnM]

Yeah, that's the one. I have an idea that he matures barrels in a cave or something.

Wood has a huge effect, of course, but it's nonsense to say that the original spirit doesn't matter.

[TheWhiskeyBro]

On the age matter, if you look at advertisements and the sales by whisky brokers in the mid to late 1800's a lot of whiskey were sold very young. (c.3 - 7 years)

How older whiskies became more popular I'm not quite sure, more wealth thanks to the industrial revolution, post 1860 - 1885 boom excess stocks leading to older bottlings, a change in palettes/tastes etc, the advent of more whiskey being kept in private cellars (post that moxy wine thingy), I'm not quite sure.

But certainly by the turn of the last century (1900s) the prevalence of aged bottlings seems to have grown...

Good topic for an essay.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Yeah, that's the one. I have an idea that he matures barrels in a cave or something.

Wood has a huge effect, of course, but it's nonsense to say that the original spirit doesn't matter.

It's obviously all down to the type of cave you use so ...

[sipourit]

I cracked open a bottle of Tullamore Dew dating from the Late Sixties/Early Seventies the other night. There was very little evaporation from the bottle, and the cork and seal were perfectly sound. It had been clearly well taken care of, not only by me but by others before me.
Anyhow, my point is this: it tasted terrible. It was definitely young and grain-heavy in the blend, and there was a pronounced caramel taste that indicated significant addition of the substance (as the colour also indicated.)
There was a strange mintiness too, that put me in mind of a minty caramel sweet I used to have as a child. All in all, even for a young whiskey, it was pretty rough going.
It just made me think how lucky we are to live in an era where even the entry-level whiskeys, the youthful whiskeys, the blends, are of a high quality. While no doubt there were decent whiskeys to be had back in the day, I suspect the overall quality in the market has never been as high as now.
I don't mean to pick on Tullamore Dew. I've had older Paddy's too, and it wasn't much cop. Although older Powers and Black Bush I've had were good, though interestingly different to the present day variants.
I just wanted to puncture the idea that whiskey back in the day was all fantastic. It wasn't, and there was perhaps a degree of lashing out any oul stuff at the bottom end of the market. Thankfully today, all the way from the cheapest blends up to the rarest single malts, Irish whiskey is pretty universally a product of genuine quality and taste.

I agree that whiskeys nowadays are much better than those in the old times. Because there are new techniques and technologies that are develop to improve the quality of whiskeys now.