Few things reveal a distillery’s evolving philosophy quite like tasting two versions of the same whisky side by side. So when I lined up the older Port Charlotte 10-year-old against its newer incarnation, I knew this would be a fascinating head-to-head.
Both are 50% ABV, non-chill filtered, with no added colour, yet they tell surprisingly different stories in the glass. The question I set out to answer was simple: how has this Islay staple changed, and is newer actually better?
The differences begin before you even nose the whisky. The older bottling, from 2016, is noticeably lighter in colour, suggesting a smaller influence from those sherry and tempranillo wine casks. The newer version, bottled in 2018, sits two or three shades darker, which points to a larger proportion of first-fill bourbon casks in the mix. Curiously, the newer style hides behind a darker-tinted bottle, and it makes you wonder whether that decision was deliberate, perhaps to stop drinkers being thrown off by a shift in the recipe and the resulting colour.
Quick whisky question
Single malt is everywhere, but what does it mean? We want to know what the word “single” means to you. Three quick questions, under a minute.
On the nose, the older version wins comfortably. It carries that classic Port Charlotte peat, but leans into a more old-school Islay character, something reminiscent of an Ardbeg profile yet a touch sweeter and more barbecue than clinical. There is apricot, peach and grape here, all remarkable for a bottle that was fresh cracked. The newer 10 is decidedly more ashy, a different expression of peat that trades fruit for smoke.
The palate cements my verdict. The older bottling is rich, viscous and fruit-forward, with clear wine cask influence still humming underneath. The newer version is good, genuinely good, but there is a slightly metallic note on the finish that holds it back. With less wine and sherry involvement, the bourbon casks let the peat step forward, which some will love. Placed alongside its older sibling, though, it simply cannot match the depth.
My final scores land at 88 for the older style and 86 for the newer, though I suspect the newer one could climb to an 87 on its own merits. Being tasted next to something better dragged its mark down a fraction. Both are excellent whiskies, but the original edges it for me.
What Will Whisky Look Like in 2027? Voices from Whisky Live Paris
READ THE STORYDo you prefer your Port Charlotte fruity and rich, or ashy and peat-driven? Let me know in the comments.
To see my full tasting of the whiskies side-by-side, check out my YouTube video.
Latest On The Whiskey Wash
