In my youth, when I could only afford 20 for a bottle of scotch, I thought they all tasted about the same. Later in life I graduated to single malts 5 to 10 times more costly. Each year, we stopped blind tasting wine and did a whisky tasting. All we had to go on were tasting notes, because even the bottles had been exchanged to remove that clue. Bottom line is that I correctly identified all eight whiskies presented. One was 16-year old Lagavulin with its signature iodine, seaweed and hospital bandage aromas.
We blended the left-overs. Lagavulin dominated the blend ... and it is now my favourite drop. As a treat, my partner bought me a bottle, but sadly it was only 8 years old and a pale shadow of the older stuff.
I believe that, unlike wine and even beer, whisky does not change once it is bottled. I can see no reason why a single malt cannot be improved with a little blending - I am looking at a very rare Tasmanian double malt as I type. Like hifi, a law of diminishing returns comes in until like a painting, the value is in the rarity, not the picture ...

