i don't know how to respond to this. they're also different recipes (different abvs and barrels). if you're saying a beer with more age has fallen off more than a beer with less age, then... ya, i agree. therein lies the problem: the ba community seems to think the purpose of 'the game' is to buy 12 bottles of 2010 bcbcs, drink one, age eleven. in two years they discover bcbcs is best drank fresh, and insist it wasn't a mistake. just to be sure, though, they buy 12 bottles of 2012 bcbcs, drink one, age eleven.... fyi, i thought all bcbs was better fresh except maybe for 2007. '07 and '08 are drinking well right now, but as a guy who bought them for their barrel flavor, aging them to reduce the barrel component strikes me as absurd. '09 is doing ok, '10 and '11 are down from where they were fresh. so are rare and king henry. like lurchingbeast said, develop != improve. i think a lot of people need to figure out what they really want out of a beer (flavor-wise) when they buy it, and what they want age to do. i think, without a frame of reference, ba's reflexively think "aging will do this one some good!" and in 3-4 years, they think the flabby, oxidation-dulled flavor package is an improvement, because "aging always improves a beer!"