Please note items can not be offered for sale on this forum.
A friend of mine just sold his bussiness for a huge payout. He decided he wants a scotch collection. I am therefore looking to buy and suggestions on what to buy in the "over 200 quid" range, he is looking for old stuff almost without regard to taste. (don't ask).:
Macallan Lalique 50 x2
Macallan Lalique 55 x2
Macallan 69 Celtic Heartlands
Macallan GR 1979 ( I snuck this in)
Macallan 25, 30
Fiddich 40 x 3
Bowmore white x2
Bowmore black x2
Bowmore 71/34 x2
Bowmore 30 Ceramic
Balvenie 25, 30
Laddie 70 x2
Laddie 73 x2
Laddie legacy 3,4,5,6
HP 40 x2
Brora 30 (2007)
I still have a large budget but I am looking for good prices. For example I paid 1800 quid for the White Bowmore and $17,500 for the Macallan lalique SETs. But I am willing to deal.
This is not my collection, that is listed on another thread.
People derive pleasure in many different ways. Just because we, as 'collectors' enjoy the search and acquisition of sought after bottles, that does not mean that the pleasure, or gratification, someone else gets from just buying various expensive items is any less or more valid.
It does not make them a fool, they just have a different set of values, potentially where the 'collecting' bit is less important, and the knowledge that they are drinking the 'best', is more important.
and, it also has the benefit of supporting the market, especially if they are consumed.
Just look at the hugely varying scores on MM there are consistently 15 point variations. Also belying the taste is everything issue is why are all 40 yo more expensive? Oh so you don't buy those automativcally, only those that are "good?" but inevitebly every overage whisky is "good" because it tastes "younger." In other words, if it tasted 40 yo it would be bad. So, taste wise it is like a 25-30 yo, so the only value is non-taste i.e. that it is/says 40+ yo. So do you buy any?
That was my point. A "good" 40 yr old is one that tastes like a 30 yo. yet I daresay many if not most scotch drinkers WOULD pay more for the older malt. So they are paying for the "age" (aka label) rather than for the "quality."
The variables , in my opinion are flavors that come to life vs those that fade away and the "umph" vs the mild, smooth and mellow!
All these factors have been found in only a couple of malts I've tasted,(out of a population of several thousand malts I've tasted) - a private cask bottling of a 21 yr old and a 35 yr old cask strength Springbank!
Having said all this I must add, that the normal expectation of an older malt is that "there would be some influence of wood".
One mans collecting is another mans .................
johan brugge wrote: I feel that's condescending to all the collectors who're spending their hard earned money on whisky (exclusive or not) for the love of it all. It makes my hard bleed really.
You could also say the same of collectors ... i.e. they buy bottles to keep in collections and prevent drinkers from having it. I'm convinced a fair few collectors buy with the intention of never opening certian bottles as if they were honest are to expensive for them to open ... is that not an insult to the drinker. How many ardbeg collectors are going to open the frightfully expensive 1965 .. very few I'd suspect.
This person obviously enjoys their whiskey and eventhough they may not seem to appreciate it could well be buying expensive bottles more for status than anything else but at the end of the day this person is obviously wealthy and they will get a far bigger satisfaction from super expensive bottles than a 300dollar bottle or regulat 25-30. It all down to where your priorities are.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests