Seagrams Crown Royal

[guller]

So I inherited an unopened bottle of Seagrams Crown Royal dated 1961. Does this stuff age well?

[jakethebake]

Since it's repulsive new, it would have to age well to be worth drinking at all.

edit: Is it some special bottle? Is there a special reason someone kept it since 1961? If so drink it even if it's bad. Use it to drink to whomever it is you inherited it from.

[guller]

The only thing I see different about it is it says "Seagrams Crown Royal" on the bag and box instead of just "Crown Royal" like it does now. It was only saved because my grandmother in-law didn't drink. It belonged to her husband and he died a long time ago.

[Lazymeatball]

I've heard of Seagram's 7, and I've heard of Crown Royal, but I've never heard of Seagram's Crown Royal. What is it, some sort of premium version of 7?

And I would figure that any whisky would improve with age, or at least not get any worse.

[ethan]

It's not likely to have changed all that much. Aging matters when the liquor in question is aging in wooden barrels - the glass bottle isn't going to react with the liquid inside it. If the bottle's not completely airtight, the biggest change will be that the alcohol content is lower because it's evaporated.

What I'd do with this depends upon from whom I inherited it. I might sell the bottle to a collector and buy a bunch of good scotch, and I might drink it in tribute the person who left it to me. Given that it's someone who'd leave me whiskey, I'd probably go with the latter. It's the sort of thing that I'd do at a proper wake. But if you're not interested in getting smashed in tribute to the deceased, this bottle's not going to be any better than one you buy today.

[HDPM]

the novelty of an unopened 45 year old bottle would be worth more than the whiskey, in the case of Crown Royal. Whiskey doesn't age in the bottle, but as mentioned, if the seal is poor it could get worse.

[bronzepiglet]

I had some about this old... it was my first taste of the stuff at all; I wasn't impressed.