Article: Most Expensive Scotches

[fullmetalgenesis]

Thought y'all might find this interesting - article documenting the world's most expensive scotches.

http://www.wineandalcohol.com/blog/w...nsive-scotches

I wonder if they're really worth the price?

 

[Connemara]

$75K for a bottle of booze? Unless you're a hedge fund douchebag with billions to spare, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

 

[Ludeykrus]

Nice scotch, but I'm still trying to figure out how those bottles are supposed to give me a ******* as well....

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by Connemara

$75K for a bottle of booze? Unless you're a hedge fund douchebag with billions to spare, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

how does running a hedge fund make one a douche bag? And if one had the money why not?

 

[Huntsman]

Well, perhaps because in many senses account balance is not directly proportional to intelligence.

On a scotch note...the Park Avenue Liquors mentioned is in NYC and is great for service.

Regards,
Huntsman

 

[sho'nuff]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

On a scotch note...the Park Avenue Liquors mentioned is in NYC and is great for service.


are they on the 5 last?

 

[Augusto86]

Originally Posted by scarphe

how does running a hedge fund make one a douche bag? And if one had the money why not?

no, buying $75,000 scotch makes one a douchebag.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Augusto86

no, buying $75,000 scotch makes one a douchebag.

and a sucker to boot.

 

[chas]

I'd still like to try it.

 

[MCsommerreid]

Originally Posted by chas

I'd still like to try it.

Some other early vintage of Macallan (1934?) was cracked open a few years back, and apparently age had turned it into a vile, thick, and oily liquid.

 

[Tomasso]

A friend of mine is the spirits buyer for a large U.S. liquor retailer. He has been there/done that and is considered an "expert". His thoughts:

a.) you don't have to spend a ton of money for a great whisky,
b.) at a certain price point you're buying rarity, not necessarily the best whisky, and
c.) age isn't everything.

 

[Xenok]

whiskeys are aged in oak casks, not in glass bottles. i don't see the point of overpaying for something that really doesn't benefit from being kept in a glass bottle for a long long time.

for wine, at least the aging improves the wine (to a certain point, after that excessive aging gives you vinegar), but that's not the case for whiskey. so you're paying almost exclusively for rarity, which IMO is pretty damn stupid.

 

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Augusto86

no, buying $75,000 scotch makes one a douchebag.

+1. Douchebag for sure.

I happen to love single malts, and I have been guilty of spending quite a bit on some before, but there's no need to spend that much money unless you're buying for collector reasons, nostalgia reasons, or status reasons.

The "Korean businessman" angle leads me to believe he was buying for status reasons.

For $50-60 a bottle you can buy all the single malts you'll ever really need and still be at the top of the taste range.

Macallan 12, a great starter scotch for people who have never tried it. Enough body to satisfy a conoisseur, sweet enough and approachable for newbies.

Glenmorangie 10 with any of the special cask finishes, esp. the Port wood finish. Lighter and airier, also suitable for newer scotch drinkers, but still great.

Lagavulin 16, the absolute king of them all. Not for the faint of heart or the uninitiated.

For fun, throw in an Ardbeg 10 or Laphroaig for a dunking in the peat bog. Or maybe a Dalwhinnie, or Oban, or Highland Park, or many others for a different twist. But the three bottles above are the best in the business at just about any money.

 

[carlhuber]

Be still my heart, Douglas....you're putting together a shopping list for me. I've had one or two of those, but I'll be making note of all of them. Thank you.


(I'm more of a whiskey than a scotch, but I never mind a bit of playing the field)