This comment is not relating directly to the nature of whisky, but the gentleman hosting these videos (which I found today through curiosity about cutting single malt scotch with water, yes, no, etc.), should host documentaries, radioplays, audio books, and television programs. I find something about his voice, and presentation to be completely fantastic.
+Wolfman Dan You do know he's actually in the movie "Angel's Share" that revolves around whiskies? It's a solid "adventure" film IMO. He has a role as a whisky expert at a tasting.
I grew up in California drinking Jack Daniels and Jim Beam. Recently I got this urge to get into scotch whiskey and of course after doing research Macallan popped up. I bought me a Mac 12yr sherry oak bottle, a Glenfiddich 18yr and a Glenlivet 18. So far ive just sipped on the Mac and its pretty good straight up and am waiting to crack one of the other two on New Years and wont lie am pretty excited to see if there's a difference for me. The Mac was $75 and the other two were just over $100 a bottle, I figured you only live once so why not? Salud people!!
Your key message is spot on: Older whiskies are not necessarily better - but different. With increasing cask influence, you might find a tendency towards dryer and bitter notes, whereas peatiness is diminishing.
Well said, indeed. And there is also the distinction to be made between old bottles and old whisky. The former, e.g. blends bottled in the 70ies at age 12 , reflect a different style. The latter likewise do, but many still get bottled (at an even older age) today. For the sake of curiosity, old bottlings of blends and younger aged, not so sought after distilleries can be acquired at auctions for reasonable prices.
It evaporates very, very slowly if left in an unopened bottle I have heard. Otherwise, it can oxidize if you have opened a bottle and have it say half full or so. Hope this helps!
I bought the Glenfiddich 12 years and it is one the best if not the best drink i ever had. Of course a 21 or even a 50 years old may be more expensive but i like your comment! They are just different not better.
@SingleMaltTv Thanks, it's an old antique from my family but I'm Scottish pretty much I'm related with the Cunningham and Scott Clan. Unfortunately all of the scotch is gone.
I have a bottle of 1944 seagrams V.O. Imported Canadian Whiskey. On the label it says it's six years old so 1938 maybe. So it's pretty close to the end of prohibition. I wonder if it's worth anything.
@Cougar139tweak As a Scotsman and an avid malt drinker I can understand why he swirls the whisky and explain to you why he does this. The reason to swirl it (and you can try this with your next dram) is it lines the glass with a thin layer of whisky, this allows you to see the oilyness of the whisky left on the glass and is also part of the appreciation. The main reason however is that that this film of whisky quickly evaporates which gives you a hit to your nose when you raise it to smell.
When seeking advice on old bottlings from classic distilleries, one often finds an array of superlatives for 1972 Broras or 60's bottlings of Ardbeg. People go wild for old Springbank and Port Ellen. Is it not a tad disingenuous to imply that whisky of the contemporary is in no way inferior to produce from forty of fifty years ago? I appreciate the diplomacy in stating that new whisky is simply different, I just can't help thinking that things aren't as rosy as they once were.
I enjoy malt whisky but have only once deliberately drunk a really expensive one (30 year old Highland Park). Interesting to have tasted it, but I could have bought a bottle of decent malt for the price I paid for a dram of the 30 yr old. I realise now that I have inadvertantly drunk a very expensive whisky, 1957 bottled 100 proof Talisker. My wife and I were served it after a day in the Cuillin sometime in the nineteen eighties. We sought out two bottles, paid seventeen pounds each an enjoyed them over a couple of years. The last price I saw was one thousand eight hundred pounds.
There is a difference between high quality scotch and low end whisky, but probably not THAT much of a difference. Once you get above the $200/200GBP price point you're just showing off.
Currently there is a somewhat clear point of diminishing returns around that price point. I did several blinds with numerous whiskies from 7 years to 42 years, price points from $45-$1200. There were a lot of instances where, for example, a $400 bottle would be rated a point or two higher than a $100 bottle. I’ll take FOUR bottles of the latter please! There are so many very good-to-great whiskies in the $100-$200 range that I don’t much bother with the very high priced bottlings. Wouldn’t even if I was made of money.
Have to live a little... the $250 I paid for a bottle of Balvenie Portwood 21 year old was well worth it, but for special occasions... that said, Teachers is my "everyday" Scotch, and Glenmorangie Original is a worthy upgrade... Laphroaig is a great value, also around $30...
@Cougar139tweak I find swirlin the whisky does help sometimes, depends really - but they say experts can do it cos they know what to look for in the glass
I would never spend too much, specially to drink, but I'm willing to spend a little more for quality. In the US, the single malts are around I would say the $60-100 range...high than that and you may be paying for rarity. Since all the tastes come from casks, the whiskey producers use age to create an experience rather than a taste. If the idea alone doesn't excite you that something sat in a barrel for 18 years just to mature and you can taste it all those years later than you are weird already to me. Younger whiskies have a bigger bite that comes in earlier, aged whiskies are smoother and more refined...this is where blending mastery comes into itself to create a balanced experience and taste, specially in the non-age-stated whiskies.
I have offered more than a few whiskey lovers 20 dollar Jim Beam rye out of an antique crystal decanter. They all compliment it and call it exquisite, sometimes I go along with it "explaining" how it's a rare scotch from the early 1900's. You should try it yourself very entertaining.
Guck Foogle Haha that's funny, I can usually tell when a whiskey has a lot of grain. To a certain extant, never take it all on faith when it's out of a decanter lol
There is a lot of experimentation going on in the industry now. You will notice a lot of whiskies are coming to marker under all manner of names rather than a specific age. This is really driven by demand but at the base of it is Scotch whisky MUST be aged 4 years minimum. This is coupled with rapidly growing demand is driving whisky makers to be inventive and try speeding maturation whilst still aging a minimum of 4 years. In Kentucky Bourbon undergoes forced maturation by moving the barrels higher and lower in the warehouse (cooler at the bottom, warmer at the top) and Woodford Reserve even use cycled heating and cooling in winter to help the “breathing “ of the casks. Also not the Laphroaig “quarter cask”. Theory is the smaller cask means greater surface area of oak in contact with the whisky so more rapid aging. So essentially you might age the four required years but have the flavor profile of perhaps a 6-8 year old.
I would love to have a dram with this gentleman. There are few things in life more enjoyable than sipping a good scotch with someone who appreciates its complexities.
I understand spending 500k £ for a house, a piece of art or even a car. But these things were made to last, not to be eaten or drunk. I think it comes down to individual taste, but I don''t think that this expense is justifiable, aside from charity.
It was confusing to me, as well, at first but I'm sure what he meant was "£500, £1,000, or £1,500 for a bottle." He also references the same bottle and indicates that it would fetch between £1,500 and £2,000 at auction.
Phillip. We are working on a monthly webcast on RUclips with Charlie and occasionally a distillery guest with both answering questions live with the audience.
Try the Sainsburys house label products where you can get a pretty decent blend for $15 or a single malt for $25. You will have to pay double the price to buy better.
As investments, expensive bottles can be worth it - but this all depends upon the bottle in question, what the market thinks it is subsequently worth, and in the context of the value of other investment/risk. As drinkables, expensive bottles are almost never worth it in terms of Quality/Price Ratio - a whisky can really only be so good while, with price, the sky's the limit. Thus the only expensive bottles that are really "worth" it are also the ones that you can never open or taste, so they're really just distilled doorstops in terms of utility beyond investment.
Huh. I was expecting something along the lines of "Only consider buying the more expensive kinds of whiskeys after you think you're able to easily taste all the subtleties and flavorurs of the cheaper whiskeys." I know I was more able to appreciate the flavours of Crown Royale after I'd spent time developing my palette and learning to appreciate the cheaper whiskeys. I haven't had a good whiskey in quite a while, so I'll have to start developing my taste all over again with the cheap stuff. If I can get the appreciation to make the junk taste good to me, then the difference in quality in the more midrange stuff is going to be magnified, making it a much better experience overall. Unless you're able to appreciate the good stuff, then upgrading from the bottom shelf is most likely to just be a waste of money that does nothing other than make you look like a fool trying too hard to impress people.
+Thalanox I disagree, entirely. While it is true that the more expensive stuff is better appreciated by a trained palate, it is just as true that the cheap stuff may well discourage, and with good reason, the pursuit of the better stuff, simply because they are horrendous. These whiskies are not even whisky, just as cheap coffee is not coffee, cheap cigars are not cigars, cheap wine is not wine - they are merely cheap imitations. One then concludes that whisky tastes like that - harsh and undrinkable - and misses out on the great enjoyment of the real thing.
Couldn't agree more. Starting out you should buy the cheaper stuff and get used to discerning the different tastes as well as being able to detect the different notes. Once you've developed the skills to distinguish the subtleties going to the more expensive Scotch will be an amazing treat. The analogy would be like a student learning guitar on a $3,000 custom signature model as opposed to a $400 Fender Mexi-strat. A beginner is going to sound the same on both. That being said when I started, I bought a decent Fender for $400 not some cheap ass POS Squire for $150 which could ruin the experience. So for training on Whisky, I wouldn't recommend trying anything less than 10 years old to start.
@johnatv1995 Charlie is contacting an expert on Canadian Whisky for a definite answer. He feels it is definitely of some worth though Canadian Whisky tends not to have the same sort of value as Scotch. However we will have an answer for you shortly. Cheers.
Some things are priceless... The problem with price is how far would you want to go.....And how it will effect you......If the price would be right for things, then having fun drinking a great whisky should not effect your credit balance :).... Given that we had one great great year, when the whisky came out like nothing that was or will be for a long long time... And we kept about 50 liters of the spirits, and I'm mostly afraid to drink the god damn glass because I know that I'm drinking a fortune :)).... But compared to a bottle that costs about 30-50 pounds, a 500ml bottle I would sell for 400-500 pounds (just that's the difference in taste)..... As a "normal person" I consider that there are great bottles of whiskey that are all less than 100 euros, pounds or dollars.....And most of the people haven't experienced them, but want something expensive.
I think people spend large amounts on whisky for the history of what's inside the bottle. Not because the taste of the whisky is going to actually be better or "worth" more money. Same reason people spend stupid amounts of money on other "antique" shit.
See ....Highland Park Whisky 101 - How to do a Tasting Don't do like this pommy, stop swirling your whisky, it's not wine or sherry- go back to drinking sherry old boy......Opinions on flavour are just that.........in his defence he does mention "not better but different" then rails a young Springbank
This comment is not relating directly to the nature of whisky, but the gentleman hosting these videos (which I found today through curiosity about cutting single malt scotch with water, yes, no, etc.), should host documentaries, radioplays, audio books, and television programs. I find something about his voice, and presentation to be completely fantastic.
+Wolfman Dan You do know he's actually in the movie "Angel's Share" that revolves around whiskies? It's a solid "adventure" film IMO. He has a role as a whisky expert at a tasting.
+Cocktail Nyymi I did not no, I'll have to see if I can find a copy, thank you.
Just remember to get subtitles...you've been warned :D
He reminds me very much so of Christopher Hitchens in terms of voice and accent. Very pleasant!
@@pane36 Actually,
he is a graduate of Oxford and Eton
Charlie, you are a delight as an instructor. Thanks for being so damn good!
I grew up in California drinking Jack Daniels and Jim Beam. Recently I got this urge to get into scotch whiskey and of course after doing research Macallan popped up. I bought me a Mac 12yr sherry oak bottle, a Glenfiddich 18yr and a Glenlivet 18. So far ive just sipped on the Mac and its pretty good straight up and am waiting to crack one of the other two on New Years and wont lie am pretty excited to see if there's a difference for me. The Mac was $75 and the other two were just over $100 a bottle, I figured you only live once so why not? Salud people!!
You sure love your e150.
Try buying something cheaper that is much much better..
Do some homework for Pete's sake..
@@jeffmill999You’re right of course, but there are nicer ways of putting it! LOL.
Your key message is spot on: Older whiskies are not necessarily better - but different. With increasing cask influence, you might find a tendency towards dryer and bitter notes, whereas peatiness is diminishing.
Well said, indeed. And there is also the distinction to be made between old bottles and old whisky. The former, e.g. blends bottled in the 70ies at age 12 , reflect a different style. The latter likewise do, but many still get bottled (at an even older age) today. For the sake of curiosity, old bottlings of blends and younger aged, not so sought after distilleries can be acquired at auctions for reasonable prices.
Totally agree with the “different rather than necessarily better” comment. Disagree with his opinion of young Springbank. Even the 10 is sublime!
I was doing fine until the video ended and then I wanted more Charles MacLean! How do I get more?!
It evaporates very, very slowly if left in an unopened bottle I have heard. Otherwise, it can oxidize if you have opened a bottle and have it say half full or so. Hope this helps!
I bought the Glenfiddich 12 years and it is one the best if not the best drink i ever had. Of course a 21 or even a 50 years old may be more expensive but i like your comment! They are just different not better.
@SingleMaltTv Thanks, it's an old antique from my family but I'm Scottish pretty much I'm related with the Cunningham and Scott Clan. Unfortunately all of the scotch is gone.
I have a bottle of 1944 seagrams V.O. Imported Canadian Whiskey. On the label it says it's six years old so 1938 maybe. So it's pretty close to the end of prohibition. I wonder if it's worth anything.
@Cougar139tweak As a Scotsman and an avid malt drinker I can understand why he swirls the whisky and explain to you why he does this. The reason to swirl it (and you can try this with your next dram) is it lines the glass with a thin layer of whisky, this allows you to see the oilyness of the whisky left on the glass and is also part of the appreciation. The main reason however is that that this film of whisky quickly evaporates which gives you a hit to your nose when you raise it to smell.
This might be a bit of a newbie question, but does Whiskey every spoil like wine would after a certain amount of time?
Cheers Charles for sharing your thoughts and gems of wisdom, if there was a Whisky U and you were the Dean, I'd be attending licketysplit!
This guy is great, such a character, could watch his vids all day long
When seeking advice on old bottlings from classic distilleries, one often finds an array of superlatives for 1972 Broras or 60's bottlings of Ardbeg. People go wild for old Springbank and Port Ellen. Is it not a tad disingenuous to imply that whisky of the contemporary is in no way inferior to produce from forty of fifty years ago? I appreciate the diplomacy in stating that new whisky is simply different, I just can't help thinking that things aren't as rosy as they once were.
very informative vid. Nice work.
I enjoy malt whisky but have only once deliberately drunk a really expensive one (30 year old Highland Park). Interesting to have tasted it, but I could have bought a bottle of decent malt for the price I paid for a dram of the 30 yr old. I realise now that I have inadvertantly drunk a very expensive whisky, 1957 bottled 100 proof Talisker. My wife and I were served it after a day in the Cuillin sometime in the nineteen eighties. We sought out two bottles, paid seventeen pounds each an enjoyed them over a couple of years. The last price I saw was one thousand eight hundred pounds.
There is a difference between high quality scotch and low end whisky, but probably not THAT much of a difference. Once you get above the $200/200GBP price point you're just showing off.
Well, you can get really good ones for about 500, such as Redbreast Dream Cask and Glenfiddich 30.
Currently there is a somewhat clear point of diminishing returns around that price point. I did several blinds with numerous whiskies from 7 years to 42 years, price points from $45-$1200. There were a lot of instances where, for example, a $400 bottle would be rated a point or two higher than a $100 bottle. I’ll take FOUR bottles of the latter please! There are so many very good-to-great whiskies in the $100-$200 range that I don’t much bother with the very high priced bottlings. Wouldn’t even if I was made of money.
If you are sporting a monocle around your neck, you should be able to afford those whiskies.
NutriFIT nutritie si fitnes Yes, monocles were used as corrective lenses, or magnifying glasses.
It's exactly the opposite. When you can sport whiskies like those, then you can afford a magnifying glass.
Paguro traduzioni hahaha true
No need for the language but your sentiment has some validity. Thanks for the comment.
Have to live a little... the $250 I paid for a bottle of Balvenie Portwood 21 year old was well worth it, but for special occasions... that said, Teachers is my "everyday" Scotch, and Glenmorangie Original is a worthy upgrade... Laphroaig is a great value, also around $30...
I'm going to open a micro-distillery (craft distillery) is there a way for me to offer the highest quality whiskey at such a low production?
@YERAULDA Well put....sorry we did not see your comment sooner. Thanks for the response.
Love the channel! Just found you and instantly subbed! Now my first thoughts are, have you ever hung out with Ralfy???
@Cougar139tweak I find swirlin the whisky does help sometimes, depends really - but they say experts can do it cos they know what to look for in the glass
I would never spend too much, specially to drink, but I'm willing to spend a little more for quality. In the US, the single malts are around I would say the $60-100 range...high than that and you may be paying for rarity. Since all the tastes come from casks, the whiskey producers use age to create an experience rather than a taste. If the idea alone doesn't excite you that something sat in a barrel for 18 years just to mature and you can taste it all those years later than you are weird already to me. Younger whiskies have a bigger bite that comes in earlier, aged whiskies are smoother and more refined...this is where blending mastery comes into itself to create a balanced experience and taste, specially in the non-age-stated whiskies.
I have offered more than a few whiskey lovers 20 dollar Jim Beam rye out of an antique crystal decanter. They all compliment it and call it exquisite, sometimes I go along with it "explaining" how it's a rare scotch from the early 1900's. You should try it yourself very entertaining.
Guck Foogle
Haha that's funny, I can usually tell when a whiskey has a lot of grain. To a certain extant, never take it all on faith when it's out of a decanter lol
please put some more videos please
0:48 *drops the bottle* .... hmmmm sheit
is it possible to make better whiskey quicker than older whiskeys?
There is a lot of experimentation going on in the industry now. You will notice a lot of whiskies are coming to marker under all manner of names rather than a specific age. This is really driven by demand but at the base of it is Scotch whisky MUST be aged 4 years minimum. This is coupled with rapidly growing demand is driving whisky makers to be inventive and try speeding maturation whilst still aging a minimum of 4 years. In Kentucky Bourbon undergoes forced maturation by moving the barrels higher and lower in the warehouse (cooler at the bottom, warmer at the top) and Woodford Reserve even use cycled heating and cooling in winter to help the “breathing “ of the casks. Also not the Laphroaig “quarter cask”. Theory is the smaller cask means greater surface area of oak in contact with the whisky so more rapid aging. So essentially you might age the four required years but have the flavor profile of perhaps a 6-8 year old.
I would love to have a dram with this gentleman. There are few things in life more enjoyable than sipping a good scotch with someone who appreciates its complexities.
Canadian taxes for whisky makes us pay about double the price,or more.
Man has a great voice
The prices are SO off in Canada. Whats cheap and common in EU is costly as hell and seen as high end in Canada lol :P
Everything is expensive here.
Swiss here. Even the price for Jack Daniels is cringy.
I understand spending 500k £ for a house, a piece of art or even a car. But these things were made to last, not to be eaten or drunk. I think it comes down to individual taste, but I don''t think that this expense is justifiable, aside from charity.
It was confusing to me, as well, at first but I'm sure what he meant was "£500, £1,000, or £1,500 for a bottle." He also references the same bottle and indicates that it would fetch between £1,500 and £2,000 at auction.
Millionaires and Billionaires always have to find new ways to spend lots of money on things. These Whiskey's are literally made for those people.
I like this guy...
Make a podcast!
Phillip. We are working on a monthly webcast on RUclips with Charlie and occasionally a distillery guest with both answering questions live with the audience.
Any idiot can spend GBP1,000 on a whisky and buy something great, but it takes real wisdom to get one for GBP15.
Truer words have seldomly been spoken.
Try the Sainsburys house label products where you can get a pretty decent blend for $15 or a single malt for $25. You will have to pay double the price to buy better.
Any idiot can be poor
Well said
As investments, expensive bottles can be worth it - but this all depends upon the bottle in question, what the market thinks it is subsequently worth, and in the context of the value of other investment/risk. As drinkables, expensive bottles are almost never worth it in terms of Quality/Price Ratio - a whisky can really only be so good while, with price, the sky's the limit. Thus the only expensive bottles that are really "worth" it are also the ones that you can never open or taste, so they're really just distilled doorstops in terms of utility beyond investment.
Huh. I was expecting something along the lines of "Only consider buying the more expensive kinds of whiskeys after you think you're able to easily taste all the subtleties and flavorurs of the cheaper whiskeys."
I know I was more able to appreciate the flavours of Crown Royale after I'd spent time developing my palette and learning to appreciate the cheaper whiskeys. I haven't had a good whiskey in quite a while, so I'll have to start developing my taste all over again with the cheap stuff. If I can get the appreciation to make the junk taste good to me, then the difference in quality in the more midrange stuff is going to be magnified, making it a much better experience overall.
Unless you're able to appreciate the good stuff, then upgrading from the bottom shelf is most likely to just be a waste of money that does nothing other than make you look like a fool trying too hard to impress people.
+Thalanox I disagree, entirely. While it is true that the more expensive stuff is better appreciated by a trained palate, it is just as true that the cheap stuff may well discourage, and with good reason, the pursuit of the better stuff, simply because they are horrendous. These whiskies are not even whisky, just as cheap coffee is not coffee, cheap cigars are not cigars, cheap wine is not wine - they are merely cheap imitations. One then concludes that whisky tastes like that - harsh and undrinkable - and misses out on the great enjoyment of the real thing.
Couldn't agree more. Starting out you should buy the cheaper stuff and get used to discerning the different tastes as well as being able to detect the different notes. Once you've developed the skills to distinguish the subtleties going to the more expensive Scotch will be an amazing treat.
The analogy would be like a student learning guitar on a $3,000 custom signature model as opposed to a $400 Fender Mexi-strat. A beginner is going to sound the same on both. That being said when I started, I bought a decent Fender for $400 not some cheap ass POS Squire for $150 which could ruin the experience.
So for training on Whisky, I wouldn't recommend trying anything less than 10 years old to start.
@johnatv1995 Charlie is contacting an expert on Canadian Whisky for a definite answer. He feels it is definitely of some worth though Canadian Whisky tends not to have the same sort of value as Scotch. However we will have an answer for you shortly. Cheers.
Some whisky collectors 🧐 disliked this great video
Some things are priceless...
The problem with price is how far would you want to go.....And how it will effect you......If the price would be right for things, then having fun drinking a great whisky should not effect your credit balance :)....
Given that we had one great great year, when the whisky came out like nothing that was or will be for a long long time... And we kept about 50 liters of the spirits, and I'm mostly afraid to drink the god damn glass because I know that I'm drinking a fortune :)).... But compared to a bottle that costs about 30-50 pounds, a 500ml bottle I would sell for 400-500 pounds (just that's the difference in taste).....
As a "normal person" I consider that there are great bottles of whiskey that are all less than 100 euros, pounds or dollars.....And most of the people haven't experienced them, but want something expensive.
Absolutely agree. You do not have to spend a fortune to get a really cracking whisky.
Any question regarding a price for anything being "worth it" is completely subjective in my opinion.
I think people spend large amounts on whisky for the history of what's inside the bottle. Not because the taste of the whisky is going to actually be better or "worth" more money. Same reason people spend stupid amounts of money on other "antique" shit.
I don't think I'll ever pay more than £500 for a whisky that I intend to drink.
Thanks helps a lot, I know that wine will turn to vinegar after 30 years or so.
gr8 info sir
sorry... i got a lil carried away... and better yet whisk(e)y is meant to be enjoyed...
there is one reason I respect this more than an other scotch video.
For me lagavulin is worth it.
so when it comes down to it.......its just whatever ur into
drops bottle,
+eamonn cole Thought about the same thing lol :D
@Ungart404 if you dont find, check out ralfy`s
VAT69 Forever!😎
"The Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith
It's awesome that this guy is very well spoken and classy gentleman, yet still called the pound, quid. Ah yes.. the mans gentleman.
There not better their different, Brilliant!
Thank you for spelling whisky the proper Scottish way :)
maybe he had a few before the post lol!
@johnatv1995 Will run it by Charlie and see what he thinks.
At very high prices you aren't paying for the taste. Your senses aren't that sharp and a good amount of it is psychological.
If you are a millionaire of course it is, how else will you show off to other millionaires?
And? Don't leave us hanging :(
he poured it back in the bottle after he sniffed it
i say, ol boy.....
Colour me interested also. Don't leave us hanging!
no money no honey?
that is why it was bottled... to be enjoyed... you'll thank me...
See ....Highland Park Whisky 101 - How to do a Tasting
Don't do like this pommy, stop swirling your whisky, it's not wine or sherry- go back to drinking sherry old boy......Opinions on flavour are just that.........in his defence he does mention "not better but different" then rails a young Springbank
He probably drank too much whisky already...
money talks bullshit walks?
Toodaloo