Recent discovery about the price of spirits

[Rusty Blade]

I have always been mindful of the way I spend my money...not to be wasteful. And when it came to buying spirits, I didn't buy the cheap stuff (more so because of the after effects, hangovers, etc.), but I didn't buy the expensive stuff either. My philosophy on buying spirits has changed. Now I tend to buy the most expensive rum or cognac I can find and drink less and enjoy it more. I drink it neat, not mixed. There is a remarkable difference between the cheap or moderately priced spirits and the expensive stuff. Much smoother, and the way it seeps into the veins and warms the blood is smoother as well.
Anyone else have the same experience?

 

[bobmsp]

I usually buy the upper end of the mid price and use it for my mixed drinks. But then I also have more expensive whisk(e)y on hand for enjoyment with water or ice. I’ve gotten to the point in my life where I can afford more expensive liquor and, like you, I’m drinking less.

 

[Doc4]

The most notable quality/price ratio improvement, IMHO, is when you go from buying Johnny Walker Red to buying Glenlivet 12.

Above that, it's the law of diminishing returns. Yes, I do go down that rabbit hole a ways ... I find my comfort zone in terms of how much "more quality" I want to pay for, and of course there are different paths to follow (Speyside? Islay? Sherry or peat? &c). Yes, there is an additional challenge of seeking and occasionally find products that "punch above their weight" in terms of delivering more quality than their price would lead one to expect ... and the challenge of avoiding those products that are selling a name and reputation from yesteryear rather than today's quality (*cough*themacallan*cough*).

My comments are scotch-based. The OP was focused on cognac and rum ... but ... same thing applies in either case.

Generally speaking ... yes, the $1000 bottle is better than the $100 bottle, but it's not 10x better. But the $50 bottle IS three times better than the $25 bottle.

 

[JPO]

In Norway there is no cheep option

 

[Rusty Blade]

The most notable quality/price ratio improvement, IMHO, is when you go from buying Johnny Walker Red to buying Glenlivet 12.

Above that, it's the law of diminishing returns. Yes, I do go down that rabbit hole a ways ... I find my comfort zone in terms of how much "more quality" I want to pay for, and of course there are different paths to follow (Speyside? Islay? Sherry or peat? &c). Yes, there is an additional challenge of seeking and occasionally find products that "punch above their weight" in terms of delivering more quality than their price would lead one to expect ... and the challenge of avoiding those products that are selling a name and reputation from yesteryear rather than today's quality (*cough*themacallan*cough*).

My comments are scotch-based. The OP was focused on cognac and rum ... but ... same thing applies in either case.

Generally speaking ... yes, the $1000 bottle is better than the $100 bottle, but it's not 10x better. But the $50 bottle IS three times better than the $25 bottle.

I agree with your assessment. Indeed, in one case in particular -- my favourite rum -- the 15 year old vintage is better, IMO, than the 20 year vintage...and as you note, less expensive. And I agree there are some spirits that punch above their weight. The trick is to find those ones.

 

[Doc4]

the 15 year old vintage is better, IMO, than the 20 year vintage

Often the case.

Extra age brings extra cost ... you are paying for the longer storage time, you are paying for the evaporation, AND you are paying for the perceived "better" of age. The extra age certainly makes it a different spirit, but "better" is a maybe.

 

[Rusty Blade]

Often the case.

Extra age brings extra cost ... you are paying for the longer storage time, you are paying for the evaporation, AND you are paying for the perceived "better" of age. The extra age certainly makes it a different spirit, but "better" is a maybe.

There seems to be a magic tipping point -- 15 yrs is better than 10, but 20 is not better than 15. Go figure. That's why I am not a distiller.

 

[Bhugo]

There seems to be a magic tipping point -- 15 yrs is better than 10, but 20 is not better than 15. Go figure. That's why I am not a distiller.

Finding that tipping point is fun but expensive. Part of the rabbit hole……

 

[Toothpick]

I like the $40-$70 Rums a whole lot better than the $10-$20 Rums. Even my amateur taste buds can tell a difference.

But I can’t tell the difference between a $10 bottle of wine and a $70 bottle. To me it all just tastes like wine.

 

[Rusty Blade]

I like the $40-$70 Rums a whole lot better than the $10-$20 Rums. Even my amateur taste buds can tell a difference.

But I can’t tell the difference between a $10 bottle of wine and a $70 bottle. To me it all just tastes like wine.

Very true. Wine is one of those products that you cant always go by price. I have tried some $50-$75 bottles of red that should have been put back in the horse. And some $10-$15 bottles that punched above their weight.

 

[Doc4]

But I can’t tell the difference between a $10 bottle of wine and a $70 bottle. To me it all just tastes like wine.

Very true. Wine is one of those products that you cant always go by price. I have tried some $50-$75 bottles of red that should have been put back in the horse. And some $10-$15 bottles that punched above their weight.

But I think that @Toothpick is saying he basically doesn't notice the difference between a good bottle and a "meh" bottle of wine. (In which case, obviously he should stick to the $10 bottles and avoid the $70 ones.)

 

[Toothpick]

But I think that @Toothpick is saying he basically doesn't notice the difference between a good bottle and a "meh" bottle of wine. (In which case, obviously he should stick to the $10 bottles and avoid the $70 ones.)

Yup. I’ve tried some. I have some! It all tastes like wine. Red or white. I think I can pick out the Merlots and the Cabs and the Rieslings but not by price point. A $15 Cab tastes the same as a $80 Cab

But I know the Plantation XO 20th Anniversary rum tastes a whole lot better than the Flor de Cana 4yo rum. Or even Bacardi 8. I have all 3 and to me they all taste a lot different than one another. Maybe because they are made differently. Who knows.

 

[Doc4]

Yup. I’ve tried some. I have some! It all tastes like wine. Red or white. I think I can pick out the Merlots and the Cabs and the Rieslings but not by price point. A $15 Cab tastes the same as a $80 Cab

But I know the Plantation XO 20th Anniversary rum tastes a whole lot better than the Flor de Cana 4yo rum. Or even Bacardi 8. I have all 3 and to me they all taste a lot different than one another. Maybe because they are made differently. Who knows.

Some guys who are "really into" wine can spot the difference between a good bottle and a mediocre bottle ... and sometimes the prices of the bottles aren't connected to the "quality" of the contents. Sort of the way you are with rum; I bet you could suggest a rum that's a great bargain at $20 ... much better than the other $20 rums out there ... and a $40 rum that should be sold for $20 ... and a $50 rum that is worth every penny ... and so forth.

Some guys are like that with wine.

It's basically just a question of where guys put their efforts into becoming knowledgeable and experienced ...

 

[TexLaw]

Very true. Wine is one of those products that you cant always go by price. I have tried some $50-$75 bottles of red that should have been put back in the horse. And some $10-$15 bottles that punched above their weight.

Wine is one of the best examples of how supply and demand affect price. Wines from certain areas (such as France, Napa Valley, etc.) may be mighty good, but they are expensive largely because folks want wine from those areas because those are the names they know. Get out of those areas, and you start to see prices go down pretty quickly even though there are all sorts of excellent wines.

 

[Doc4]

Wine is one of the best examples of how supply and demand affect price. Wines from certain areas (such as France, Napa Valley, etc.) may be mighty good, but they are expensive largely because folks want wine from those areas because those are the names they know.

It's the best red wine in the world. (Unless you prefer Bordeaux, in which case it's the second best.)

Here's where it comes from:

Yes ... pretty much the whole vineyard fits inside that photo.

It's 4.6 acres in total, and averages just over 5 thousand bottles per year. In Bordeaux, the greatest wine there (oh, let the debates continue!) is Chateau Latour ... which comes in at 190 acres and about 18,000 cases ... 216,000 bottles ... per year (plus 11,000 cases of it's "second" wine.)

 

[TexLaw]

Ha. I didn't even address the topic.

I certainly don't buy the most expensive stuff out there, but that's for a couple reasons. First, I drink a lot of Scotch whisky, and the most expensive stuff is VERY expensive--$1,000 and up for stuff that isn't even some sort of special, limited edition. However, and second, I also don't enjoy that stuff as much as I do many of the less expensive options. Don't get me wrong, now. I've had 30 and 40 year old whiskies, and they are very nice, but I'm typically happier with something in the 10-18 year range, and those also happen to be a good deal less expensive.

My calculation of "value" for a long time has been to ask myself a simple question: What am I going to miss more, the money or the thing I want to spend it on?

I have no qualms spending $100 on a bottle of whisky that I enjoy, such as Lagavulin 16 or Distiller's Edition). I like it a lot, it's not like I guzzle it, and I can afford it. Once we get over $120 or so, we start getting into "special treat" territory. Anything over $200 needs to blow me away or otherwise have some damned good reason. Unless it's a very special gift or a ransom, I'm not going to drop $1,200 on a bottle of Balvenie 30, because (besides the fact that it's $1,200) I would rather have that Lagavulin (or even a $40 bottle of JW Black).

I quit buying "cheap stuff" a long time ago for the same reason. I don't like it, so it isn't worth the money at all. Sometimes, you can waste all your money by not spending enough. That doesn't mean I don't look for bargains, but it's not a "bargain" if you aren't getting quality.

 

[Tirvine]

Interesting subject and I also endorse the notion of paying up for good stuff you can savor. A few random thoughts...at least for most whiskies there is a sweet range for aging. You need to get one old enough to be in that range. As you move out of thst range you are increasingly paying for the flavor of the cask. As regards $15 cabs and $80 cabs tasting the same, if both are real fruit bombs and are quite young they will taste similar. If they have good structure and enough bottle age they will diverge sharply. There are always some real values to be found. Some are really well known like Ardbeg 10, Four Roses Small Batch, or Pierre Ferrand Ambre. The real fun is finding the ones not on anyone's radar yet! In the world of wine I am enjoying finding Sonoma cab blends and Willamette chards.

 

[Doc4]

I quit buying "cheap stuff" a long time ago for the same reason. I don't like it, so it isn't worth the money at all. Sometimes, you can waste all your money by not spending enough.

This ain't no Romanee Conti ... !!

I drink a lot of Scotch whisky, and the most expensive stuff is VERY expensive--$1,000 and up for stuff that isn't even some sort of special, limited edition. However, and second, I also don't enjoy that stuff as much as I do many of the less expensive options. Don't get me wrong, now. I've had 30 and 40 year old whiskies, and they are very nice, but I'm typically happier with something in the 10-18 year range, and those also happen to be a good deal less expensive.

Interesting ... the crux of scotch pricing seems to be the age of the scotch, while with wine it's the land the grapes are grown on (ie Chateau or Domaine). The Chateau can only grow so many grapes on it's land ... harvest once in the fall ... and that's the upper limit of how much wine it can make that year. Each type of wine and individual producer is a bit different but ... basically they bottle and sell the wine as soon as they reasonably can, within a few months or a few years at the upper end. If it gets aged, wine gets aged in the consumer's cellar.

Scotch gets aged in the distillery's warehouse (but usually that's actually somewhere other than the distillery) and it isn't bottled and sold until after the ageing process is "done". But the distillery can make as much scotch as it wants, limited only by the production rates of its stills: The Macallan can buy another dozen pot stills if it wants to increase production; Romanee Conti can't go to the real estate agent and buy more Romanee Conti vineyard! (Yes, they can buy other vineyards ... IIRC they own some Montrachet vineyards, for example ... but they those vineyards they buy don't become Romanee Conti any more than if I buy a Toyota Corolla it suddenly becomes a Rolls Royce because I already own a Rolls Royce.)

So the limits with scotch are more to do with decisions of the distillers, both in terms of setting the amount of production and in picking which particular barrels get the "extra age" treatment and/or the "special edition" treatment rather than just going to the standard "12 year" (or whatever) bottling.

My calculation of "value" for a long time has been to ask myself a simple question: What am I going to miss more, the money or the thing I want to spend it on?

I take a similar approach, but more focusing on trying to get the best "bang for my buck" within the limits of what I am prepared to spend.

Not that I figure out a specific number in advance, more a general feeling sort of thing, but ... there's only a small amount of my funds that I am prepared to use for buying booze. I don't see a need to ask myself if I would prefer to pay my mortgage or drink Talisker ... if I'd prefer to pay for my son's winter jacket or upgrade my bottle of scotch from 12 to 20 year-old ... but I allow myself to buy a few bottles here and there as long as I don't spend "too much".

I'm "buying quality not quantity" ... and looking for that "bang for buck" golden point.

I have no qualms spending $100 on a bottle of whisky that I enjoy, such as Lagavulin 16 or Distiller's Edition). I like it a lot, it's not like I guzzle it, and I can afford it. Once we get over $120 or so, we start getting into "special treat" territory. Anything over $200 needs to blow me away or otherwise have some damned good reason. Unless it's a very special gift or a ransom, I'm not going to drop $1,200 on a bottle of Balvenie 30

That's kind of the attitude/approach I take too ... but with perhaps somewhat lower numbers: no qualms spending $50 for a quality bottle, $80 is "special treat", and $100+ is "once in a blue moon" and only for really really phenomenal stuff.

I'm not going to drop $1,200 on Balvenie 30.

Na.

Ga.

Da.

 

[Bosh Hog]

Some people get a bit snobby over these types of drinks. There are a lot of terms used to jack up the price like double barrel, master’s choice etc etc. in the end we have to use common sense. Don’t think there are many of us that empty 1000 dollar bottles every month. There is the stuff you drink on special occasions and the stuff you drink daily. Monkey Shoulder or Buffalo trace won’t offend anyone. A step up could be Redbrest 12. Won’t break the bank with that one. If vodka is your game, can’t go wrong with some Grey Goose. If you like cognac and feeling a little crazy then a bottle of Martell Cordon Blue should do. There is a lot of good stuff out there to be tried.

 

[Bosh Hog]

Ha. I didn't even address the topic.

I certainly don't buy the most expensive stuff out there, but that's for a couple reasons. First, I drink a lot of Scotch whisky, and the most expensive stuff is VERY expensive--$1,000 and up for stuff that isn't even some sort of special, limited edition. However, and second, I also don't enjoy that stuff as much as I do many of the less expensive options. Don't get me wrong, now. I've had 30 and 40 year old whiskies, and they are very nice, but I'm typically happier with something in the 10-18 year range, and those also happen to be a good deal less expensive.

My calculation of "value" for a long time has been to ask myself a simple question: What am I going to miss more, the money or the thing I want to spend it on?

I have no qualms spending $100 on a bottle of whisky that I enjoy, such as Lagavulin 16 or Distiller's Edition). I like it a lot, it's not like I guzzle it, and I can afford it. Once we get over $120 or so, we start getting into "special treat" territory. Anything over $200 needs to blow me away or otherwise have some damned good reason. Unless it's a very special gift or a ransom, I'm not going to drop $1,200 on a bottle of Balvenie 30, because (besides the fact that it's $1,200) I would rather have that Lagavulin (or even a $40 bottle of JW Black).

I quit buying "cheap stuff" a long time ago for the same reason. I don't like it, so it isn't worth the money at all. Sometimes, you can waste all your money by not spending enough. That doesn't mean I don't look for bargains, but it's not a "bargain" if you aren't getting quality.

Expensive is paying for something you don’t like.