To expand...since my nmusic, "Bleggae" is a fun but not overly fruitful livelihood, I enjoy seeking out bargain prices on quality whiskies. Recent "triumphs" include:
Aberlour 10 -£17 Tesco's
G'morangie Portwood -£20 - Tesco's
Aberlour A'bunadh £25 - Waitrose
2 litres of Ardbeg 10 for £45 -Heathrow airport Duty Free
Glenfiddich solera Reserve 15 YO £15.99(Daily Mail offer, now defunct!)
...but once in a while, I splash out. I just HAD to have an Ardbeg '77, and having tried it, I have to say it's REALLY special...but the bottle is still not empty a year on. So I drink the 10 and "pretend!!" Ditto Macallan 18.
It's nice to have special drams you can't afford to visit too often. So that must apply to the HP 18(BTW I picked up a mini for £5)
That said, I have posted previously on finding an HP 18 for ...£19!!! 2 years ago Safeways had HP 12 "on offer" at that price, and my local happened to have three HP 18s in mouldy boxes on the same shelf..but no price. So they HAD to let me have one for the same price as the 12!
Should have bought all 3...by the time I returned they'd sussed it! It was then £47.
VERY nice dram.[/list]
I personally have been very dissappointed by the price value ratio, in a lot of the older versions in ways, as I am very price consious. Thsi is because single malts can be an expensive habit in little old Ireland.
HP12(45.00Euro) wins over HP18 (80.00Euro) but I bought a single cask half bottle version for 50.00 and won hands down over both above. I love all 3 but 18 is just too expensive for me for not a whole pile more.
Jameson 12 (35.00Euro) wins over Jameson 18 (100.00Euro) no contest. Again both are great but the gap between is just to small to justify the extra spend.
However it is nice to treat yourself every so often with a good bottle. Any bottle that I buy over 100.00 Euro is to be savoured and I like to be sure that I'm getting a great whiskey not just a good one.
Maybe I'm just a scrouge
Elagabalus wrote:If you can afford it, it is never a waste to throw extra cash in, for a scotch aged an extra say 6 years. Here's a hint, reduce the amount of tips freely given to incompetent servers at the bars you frequent and use that extra cash to tip yourself a bottle of HP 18 yo.
Not true in my book...The Caol Ila 12 and 18, while different, are about the same in my book, with the 12 being much cheaper. Bowmore 12 is almost as good as 17 (depending upon the batch), and I like the Laddie 10 as much as the 15 or 17..Also, have you compared the Dalmore 12 verses the 21? One third the price, and a better malt.
Elagabalus wrote:If you can afford it, it is never a waste to throw extra cash in, for a scotch aged an extra say 6 years.
I'd certainly disagree with the never in this statement (statements containing an absolute are never true ) though for the most part for those extra few years and extra few pounds you will get a better malt.
Whether it is worth those extra pounds though is multifactorial. Certainly a lot depends on how much that money means to you as Mr T points out.
A lot also depends on your personal palate. 1) It doesn't matter a jot if the older expression is "better". Complexity is important but if the flavours and aromas you get from the older expression are less pleasant to you as an individual than those of the younger whisky then it is worth no more money to you. 2) It also depends on the sophistication of your palate. If you are educated/practiced enough to appreciate the finer nuances of the older expression over the younger then it is worth the cash (if you have it). It will also vary for different distilleries. Some people would much prefer a 15yo Laphraoig over the 10yo but not a 15yo Glenfiddich over the 12yo wheras the next guy/gal would think the complete opposite.
Of course it also depends on how much extra money it is. Take a Bruichladdich 10yo at less than £30 and upgrade it to a 15yo at £45 and you will (in opinion of my palate) have spent your extra money wisely. On the converse take an Ardbeg 10 and upgrade it to a 17 at the moment and will have had to pay silly money to have done it because rarity comes into it more than quality.
If you could measure the ratio between quality and price as a surrogate of value for money you would find that value will almost inevitably diminish as the whisky ages. Take Bruichladdich again:
The 15 year old may be a good 50% better than the 10 and just about worth the extra, the 20 year old would have to be nearly three times as good to be the equivalent value to the 10 and the 40 year old would have to be 40 times as good. If you look at Michael Jackson's scores for Ardbeg the scores do, for the most part, climb as the whisky ages but only by a point at a time. The cost certainly doesn't go up in such small increments.
I'm sure I had thought of another point when I started typing this. But it seems to have escaped me. (Everyone sighs with relief... )
Elagabalus wrote:Oh please you are being argumentative and dismissive.
No I'm not. I won't hear another word on the matter.
Mr TattieHeid wrote:You have funny ideas of "southern" and "gentleman". I doubt he'd be so argumentative and dismissive of his wife--I'm sure he respects her. I imagine she deserves it.
And funny ideas of argumentative and dismissive...
Though my partner and I are not married she does indeed deserve a great deal of respect and gets it in spades. Gin drinker mind...
So back to the argumentativeness: Are you saying then that it is always worth the extra money for the older whisky?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests