Buy Low or Buy High?

[Brussell]

Still somewhat of a beginner having sampled about 30 whiskies so far. I'm wondering if I should put my financial resources into buying many of the readily available, cheaper and younger bottles, or should I put that money into buying fewer of the older, rarer and/or more expensive bottles. It is important to note that, at least right now, I never save back bottles. I try them as soon as I get them, can't help it - my mission is to experience scotch not trade or work in it. so none of them would be "investment whiskies" for me.

Until recently I had never spent more than $100 on a single bottle. To date the most expensive I have bought was Balvenie 21 Portwood, followed by Highland Park 18, Glenmorangie 18 Extremely Rare and then a 200ml bottle of JW Blue Label (expensive in terms of money per volume).

I haven't touched EVERY single base when it comes to entry 10 and 12 year bottlings, but I feel I have experienced quite a bit of this range and have a relatively good idea of the kind of whiskies I like. So I feel it is time to start moving on. I'd like to try 21+ year (namely 30 year) whisky, but I'm unsure if I should go straight to that point or start meddling more in the 15-25 range.

Side question: how and where do so many of these scotch reviewers get all these crazy, excessively old and rare scotches? How do people afford to try so many of these madly expensive bottles? Am I the only one whose local liquor stores aren't exactly teeming with rare, old distillery issues of scotch? Most stores in my area carry the Classic Malts collection if I'm lucky haha.

[kpw1000]

Yes, is the answer, I believe. I came into some cash, and I used several thousand dollars (US) to explore and learn about single-malt scotch. I have found several good scotches for as little as $40. Highland Park 12, Caol Ila 12, Bunnahabhain 12, Talisker 10, An Cnoc 12, Glen Garioch 12 are all excellent values.

Wondrous offerings under $100 include Aberlour A'bunadh, Jura Prophecy, Lagavulin 16, Laphroaig 18, Glenfiddich 18, Glendronach 15 "Revival". And there are many others.

The most I spent for a 700-750 ml bottle was just over $300, but I've had samples (30 ml) of distillations in the $500-600 area.

My observation is that---as a generalization---the more you spend, the better the quality. Stunning observation, eh? However, I'll add to that that while the quality certainly tends to improve as you go up the expense chart, there are exceptions, bottles that are incredible at lower prices, and boring offerings for over $200.

The other thing I'll suggest is that if money is a big concern, go for value. I absolutely adore my Bunnahabhain XXV, but I can buy five Bunnahabhain XII's and still have money left over for what I spent on the Bunnie XXV. But if you can afford to blow a few dollars, you will be able to experience some complex whisky flavours that just aren't available for under $200.

And don't forget the samples. This is not a value-laden approach to whisky, but it will enable you to explore expensive whiskies for prices you can afford. There's another thread concerning where to get samples.

[Brussell]

Kpw, thank you for taking the time for such a detailed answer it was very useful.

I think the issue I am having with the higher priced bottles is just that high price moat everyone comes to in any hobby or interest. The point where they have to jump over that line of expense and dedication.

It is naturally somewhat of a nervous adventure, especially due to the fact that I am just starting out in my career and although I am single and have some disposable money right now, it has to be maximized for benefit. There have been more than one occasion where I felt robbed of $50 by a bottle and wished I could return it with a broken seal. And seeing that I cannot get samples in my area, this would make an expensive bottle a risky gamble.

It is exceedingly frustrating to not be able to obtain samples. You have no idea how bad I want to just be able to order a sample from somewhere, but my state laws do not allow shipment of alcohol at all. I have looked into tastings in my area but all I have been able to find so far are expensive charity events and a Scottish festival down the road with undisclosed samples (most likely readily available 12 year malts). In addition, every bar I have been to carries only Glenfiddich or Glenlivet with the regular blends.

My entire life I've heard people complain about my state's liquor laws, but I never cared myself until recently. Before scotch, alcohol was just alcohol and drunkenness. But now they are a legitimate pain in my rear. But at least I don't live in one of the MANY dry counties in Oklahoma, eh!

[Islay Peat]

I've not tried as many different whiskies as some, but have tried many upper range bottlings and at this point in time understand that there is no 'better', so much as their is preference. I have not cared for most of the bottles aged over 10 years, and the exceptions are very few, notably Lagavulin 16, Taketsuru 17 and Port Ellen 25.
I didn't care much for the $700 Taketsuru 35, and found that most of my dissatisfaction with older bottlings has to do with many of them just tasting a bit too sweet for me, although I do like the fragrances of many.

[mondo]

You really don't have to spend a huge amount of money to get a really good whisky. Unless you're looking to invest then it's simply a case of trying what you can and and having a selection of favourites.

For me - my favourites are mainly local to me. Ardmore (4 miles away) Glen Dronach and Glen Garioch (both around 13 miles) but Balvenie has to be no.1 in my book. (only about 30 miles away) I have yet to try a Balvenie which I don't like and the Tun 1401 batches are simply sublime. They are relatively expensive compared to other Balvenie bottlings but if you are disciplined to keep one you will almost certainly make a bit of cash. That said, my staple diet id 12 Y/O doublewood - simply delicious and only about £30 per bottle here and I've seen it in the US for around the equivalent price in USD.

My wife is from Orkney and I also love Highland Park. Just the right amount of smokieness to make it spicy and tangy without being overly heavy or peaty. Again, fairly cheap at around £25 per bottle.

Neither of these are particularly collectable however. If you want to collect then you really need to be buying special editions (which do not necessarily have to be overly expensive) or anything that is made in small batches - especially if you get Batch 1. Balvenie Tun 1401 Batch 1 sells for around £1800 a bottle having only cost £150 a bottle when released. Batch 2 is just as lovely (to me) but sells for a modest £350 or so (again it was released for £150)

Above all however your aim should be to enjoy the whisky.

Cheers

[IslayAddict]

Originally Posted by Brussell

Still somewhat of a beginner having sampled about 30 whiskies so far. I'm wondering if I should put my financial resources into buying many of the readily available, cheaper and younger bottles, or should I put that money into buying fewer of the older, rarer and/or more expensive bottles.

My understanding (and experience so far) is that the longer a whisky sits in the barrel, the more of its fundamental flavor it loses, the more it smooths out and picks up the wood flavors. For this reason I didn't even bother to try Laphroaig's Triplewood. If I want Laphroaig, I want it to taste like Laphroaig. That's what I'm buying it for... the peat. The idea behind triplewood is to give it that aged taste in a shorter time... which means less peat taste... and that's not what I'm looking for in my Laphy.

If a whisky's fundamental flavoring IS the barrel, then I suppose the longer it sits in the barrel ,the better it would be. But in the case of Laph and other islays, the barrel can just soak up the flavor you're after.

To answer the question, I would spend time with all the younger whiskies and only move up in age if I thought the added wood flavor and subtracted malt flavor would be a good idea. Or if it had too much of a "spirit taste". Or if I was bored out of my mind with the whiskies I'd tried and had nothing left to try

[Islay Peat]

Originally Posted by IslayAddict

My understanding (and experience so far) is that the longer a whisky sits in the barrel, the more of its fundamental flavor it loses, the more it smooths out and picks up the wood flavors. For this reason I didn't even bother to try Laphroaig's Triplewood. If I want Laphroaig, I want it to taste like Laphroaig. That's what I'm buying it for... the peat. The idea behind triplewood is to give it that aged taste in a shorter time... which means less peat taste... and that's not what I'm looking for in my Laphy.

If a whisky's fundamental flavoring IS the barrel, then I suppose the longer it sits in the barrel ,the better it would be. But in the case of Laph and other islays, the barrel can just soak up the flavor you're after.

To answer the question, I would spend time with all the younger whiskies and only move up in age if I thought the added wood flavor and subtracted malt flavor would be a good idea. Or if it had too much of a "spirit taste". Or if I was bored out of my mind with the whiskies I'd tried and had nothing left to try

Great post but I couldn't help but hope that you're not going to miss out on Laphroaig Quarter Cask; in my world, it definitely belongs next to the bottle of Laphroaig 10.

[IslayAddict]

Originally Posted by Islay Peat

Great post but I couldn't help but hope that you're not going to miss out on Laphroaig Quarter Cask; in my world, it definitely belongs next to the bottle of Laphroaig 10.

Thanks! Nope, I have a nearly empty bottle of 1/4 cask sitting right next to a few Laphy 10s

I didn't find the 1/4 cask that different. Just stronger is all. I suppose its younger whisky, isn't it? Its good stuff though, but not sure its worth the extra 25% in price over a bottle of regular 10yr.

Speaking of price... I noticed the price of the 10yr went up 10% since my last purchase and its up 30% from a year ago! And the Pound is down. It should be cheaper!

Look at the trend of google searches http://www.google.com/trends/explore...&geo=US&cmpt=q

We should keep our mouth shut

[Islay Peat]

Stev, it's apparent from your posting that you're a shill for Dewar's and I hope the mods here see fit to strike all your posts, which only number 4 so far, every single one of them advocating for Dewar's.

[IslayAddict]

I picked up on that too, but wasn't sure what to say about it.

[Islay Peat]

The quicker we pick up on them, the sooner they'll be called out.

Lately I've had the chance to share with a lot of friends here at work and some of the results have been pretty conclusive.

Everyone seems to find the Jim Beam Black and Crown Royal Reserve to be very easy to drink and a few have really liked the Bulleit Rye, one saying it might be the new favorite he's been searching for.

Well, until he tried the Ardbeg 10, which has two new fans in just as many days.

One that no one has liked, myself included, is the Black Velvet Black, but when mixed with Black Grouse, everyone likes it. Two $20 bottles combined make something much better than the price suggests, but alone, mediocre.

[IslayAddict]

Well, I wasn't sure. Maybe he is just a fan of Dewars. Figured I'd leave it to someone else to decide.

I find most from canada tastes like vodka with sugar and caramel color. I think most canadian whiskey is mixing whiskey for mixed drinks... which may explain why it mixes so well. The Crown isn't too bad by itself though.

Some people judge whiskey by the degree of hangover they have the next day. Canadian is clean and doesn't leave you feeling as much like crap as Jim Beam would.

[Brussell]

Until recently I didn't like much bourbon, but I had some blantons, some bulleit, Jim beam and a rye. I enjoyed them all very much. They're just so dang sweet though.

And nothing has scotch smokiness like scotch.

[IslayAddict]

Until recently, I liked some bourbons lol! Scotch has ruined me for bourbon.

[Islay Peat]

Every time I doubt my ability to still enjoy American whiskies or bourbon, I have some and they still taste good - just different from scotch.

That said, I think I'll have a taste of the old Ardbeg 10 now...

[IslayAddict]

Was a Peat Monster and Caol Ila night for me.

[Brussell]

For me, tried Bowmore.

[IslayAddict]

Originally Posted by Brussell

For me, tried Bowmore.

Was it any good?

[Islay Peat]

I've only tried two Bowmore's so far and like the 12 enough that I'd like to get another bottle someday. It was shortly after trying Ardbeg for the first time and it seemed that it offered some of the smokiness that I like, but in a much gentler fashion.

The other Bowmore I've tried is the 18, but I've realized that I don't generally care for older bottlings, so I traded off the rest of the first bottle and now have a second one gathering dust.

[IslayAddict]

Have you tried any peat monster or caol ila?

[Islay Peat]

Yes to the Caol Ila 12, both in Japan and a few weeks ago here. I like it, but think that it kind of reminded me of the Bowmore 12, which I think I like better, at least enough that I'm looking forward to another bottle of it.

[IslayAddict]

Was a laph night tonight. Finshed off yet another bottle. Only 43,557 bottles to go until I own an acre of Islay lol