Weird Question

Is it better to age a homebrew beer uncarbed in a carboy or to carb it and age it? Or does it make a difference?

For example

say I left an uncarbed beer in the carboy for 3 months then carbed it and bottled. Will it be a more tasty beer compared to a beer which was carbed after two weeks of fermenting?

It would be better to bottle, it will age better in the bottle.

I've done both, (depending on the style/abv etc...) with the exception of at least a month in the fermentors before bottling/kegging. In my opinion aging in bulk makes a better brew. Sometimes though, that isn't practical. If your making a Belgium strong or barley wine, you'll want to 'bulk age' for awhile and still age more in the bottle (maybe for years....). Carbed or not...it'll still condition.

It's not a matter of better. They are different kinds of conditioning and somewhat different process. One, bottle conditioning is dependent on the activity of yeast and carbonation.

For big beers I leave them in primary for a month to finish fermenting (they tend to be slow anyway) and to let the yeast clean up, then I rack to a secondary for several months to bulk age before bottling. Bulk conditioning tends to be mellower, and it all happens together. Slight differences in temps of the bottles could cause slight differences in each bottles.

It may or may not change the timeframe of the final conditioning in the bottle, some things still need to have the co2 of carbonation to clean and mellow, so don't look at it as a way to speed anything up...look at it as a way to make great beer.