How much is whisky worth?

So, to answer my own questions, I'll start with the second one: For me, the amount I'm willing to spend on a blind buy has gone down significantly over the past while. I used to have no problem spending up to $85-$90 for any bottle, provided I'd heard good things. But after having gotten burned a few times I'm now reluctant to even crack $50 unless it's a whisky I've either tasted before, OR it's something that's been personally recommended to me by someone I know and who knows me and what I like. I will go a little bit above $50 if it's currently hard to find or will be hard to find due to it being a limited release - Wiser's Last Barrel being a recent example of this.

If it's something I'm in love with... well, I don't really know to be honest. Mostly because I've yet to come across a bottle that I love that is prohibitively expensive. But for arguments sake, say they'd raise the price of my beloved Gibson 18... how expensive would it have to get for me to stop buying it? I'd buy it at $100 without hesitation. At $150 I'd hesitate but would likely still buy it, and perhaps just drink it a little less often. $200.... I don't think so. So it's between $150 and $200 for me. Not entirely sure where the line would be drawn.

@Nelom

It's an interesting concept. The problem I have though is that a simple score can't tell the whole picture. There are intangible elements at work as well. Plus, daily whims can shift enjoyment by many points.

Then there is the financial thing. A whisky may be so good it's got a high value at $200, but if you can't afford it too bad. Similarly, Glenfiddich 12 may be great value for price, but I wouldn't buy it even if it were free.

In essence my value for quality is variable and depends on how much similar I have and whether this would be a qualitative positive addition to my cabinet. For example, even at a discount, I'm less likely to buy Booker's bourbon because I have enough and the batch variation isn't enough to buy so many batches. In contrast, I would love a bottle of the newly released Booker's Rye, but even at a score of 99/100 I will never buy it at $350.

If I win the lottery my threshold will change dramatically.

Cool topic and cool blog link. Thanks.

I think the approach in the blog overcomplicates things, though. I suppose I'm in line with Nozinan here, but I'll spin it differently (and more simply than that blogger did). Ideally, you can taste a whisky blind and then gauge how much you'd pay for it based on much you liked it.

•"This is fantastic! As long as it's under $100, I'm buying the heck out of this!"

•"Pretty good! I could go as high as $70."

•"It's fine. I might grab one if it's around $30."

•"Blah. I don't want it even if it's free."

You get the idea.

You can, of course, factor in some intangibles when you're NOT doing it blind. Like for me, I really appreciate how Springbank does things and I'm willing to pay a premium over "taste alone" value for their stuff. For other folks, the rarity of a closed distillery or old bottling might bump a bottle's value.

Regardless, you ought to be able to look at what's in your glass and decide what it's worth to you, AND THEN consider what the marketers are trying to convince you to pay. It's an easy yes or no from there. The problem is that the marketers typically initiate this "conversation" between them and you, and they set a price that becomes your mental landmark, instead of coming at it the other way around. When THEY win, we buyers self-justify paying some high arbitrary price they've set. When WE win, we buy only those products that deliver more than cost.

Have whisky prices now risen so high, that we are seeing popular bloggers more or less admit that they can no longer keep up with them? That appears to be the case with Ralfy. Is it the case with these bloggers also?

If so, it makes Serge's ability to acquire bottles and samples (he says only 10% of his samples are free directly from the industry) seem super human. Considering that he appears to be able to taste every whisky distilled no matter how expensive or in limited supply, and many even going back in time as far as before WW I. And many other hard to obtain spirits besides. Dozens every week. For 14 years.

I admit that I have wondered on occasion if he is a shape shifting lizard......

Surprised to find this here! A worthy discussion I think (obviously, and perhaps even more subjective than taste.

@OLJas @Nozinan I agree....I don't think a simple value score dictates value, in the same way that a "taste" score for me doesn't dictate all that a whisky holds. I'm not sure yet if I like my value score yet....it is, at this point, interesting - it partly comes out of getting burned by a number of bottles as well.

@McTeague - I've had similar questions about Serge...when I judged for the CWAs I reviewed 6 whiskies a day for nearly a month - no way I could keep that up.

For me AUD$200 is as far as I will go for drinking stock, typically I tend to stick around the AUD$150 Mark.

Where I am at, a bottle of the Laphroaig 18YO is around AUD$180, Lagavulin 16YO is about AUD$95 and Glenfiddich 12YO around AUD$55.

I believe I would struggle to find value if I spent more, just paying the premium for prestige, packaging or number of years which may not translate to good value.

The price point changes if I am buying to collect.

@sengjc When you say "buying to collect" what exactly do you mean? Bottles you'll never open and might eventually resell? Or unobtanium type stuff that you will drink eventually, but which you don't think you'll ever be able to restock? Or perhaps something else?

I like the topic also, I does question how far you will go. Personally speaking I think I can easily hand over 130 (12,000 yen)for my favorite Hibiki 17 but that's about it. I can't justify anymore on one I know. The 21 is amazing but not for the price point. Which is 26,000 yen if you can actually find it, or 33,000 yen+ on auction sites here.

If I was recommended one I think I would go at high as 5000 yen.

As a collector I would go up to 30,000 yen.

Sku's blog has a cool post today that's relevant to the inherent value of whisky, especially rare stuff:

recenteats.blogspot.de/2016/06/…

@Nelom, Nice topic to discuss. Pricing and quality seem to be in dis-balance. I saw the prices of HP18 rise very fast, same as the Japanese Whisky's. Off-course the liquid didn't change, only the rarity changed and lifted the prices (same taste/higher price). Personally I'm not paying over € 100,- for a bottle. In the range € 25,-/€ 40,- there is good price/quality and one step up € 60,- / € 80,-, but in that price range there has to be a number on the bottle, no NAS whisky's for me anymore that are prices over € 60,-. At the moment I'm enjoying Glengoyne 18 (€ 68,-) and Bowmore Laimrig 15 (€ 60,-) no need to pay more!

@OlJas, thanks for your link. Sku's survey findings were no surprise to me. As an extremely unsentimental and a very sense-oriented whisk(e)y drinker I am never surprised that blind tastings frequently if not generally reveal that many if not most people are unable to overcome their whisky prejudices, both positive and negative, and actually experience the whisky at hand on its own merits. Many people love romantic fantasies, and that is certainly true of many many whisky drinkers, who fall in love with their ideas of what the whisky in their glasses should taste like, and manage to ignore and 're-frame' the actual realities staring them in their mouths.

@DutchGaelisch, the problem is as whisky prices continue to double or triple, the juice remains the same...or in some cases gets worse! I have bottles I bought for $60 a few years ago that are now being sold for $150 retail, and I wouldn't have bought another even if the price remained the same. It's really becoming difficult to drop good money on bottles sight unseen these days since prices are definitely not a reflection of the quality in many cases.

The increase in prices has been ridiculous. @Victor - I agree fully with your comment. Blind tastings certainly do reveal a whole lot. I have been quite surprised at what a blind tasting can do, and doing them I think is quite important. If only all ratings were blind.

@JasonHambrey, totally agree with that. People may say they aren't swayed by popular opinion, but we all know that isn't always true.

Right on. I really only trust reviewers who do it blind or who, like Serge (though it's not quite the same) do a full lineup of "sparring partners" when they review.

And as long as I'm posting value-oriented links on this thread, I'll also toss out the often-posted link to the blind tasting of Black Bowmore at the LA Whisky Society: lawhiskeysociety.com/pages/…