If Money was no Object . . .

I'd have to go with a Lagavulin from the 1960s, oooof just imagine! Or a pre-war Mortlach, something from the 1930s. A taste of history.

@jeanluc - Good calls! Be happy with either of those two!

One of those 1967 Duncan Taylor Springbanks that @victor is always teasing me about.

Here it is, my pick: wine-searcher.com/find/…

@Victor, ha! While you were posting that, I was updating my previous post with the detail I dug up from a search.

There is no way I would make a choice for a one and only money-is-no-object whisky choice without having tasted the whisky first. I did have some of that 1967 40 yo Duncan Taylor Springbank and I felt like my body would dematerialise into Nirvana. Interestingly the current prices for that one are about the same as the only price I could find for it online in 2009. Maybe one of those European vendors would swap me one for a couple of bottles of Van Winkle. Yeah, that would be possible if I didn't have to fly to Europe to do it.

My second choice was a bottle of Willett 23 yo Rye, "The Iron Fist", except that Bill Thomas owner of that private barrel and of Jack Rose Dining Saloon in DC laughed out loud at the idea that he might trade me one for a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle 20 yo. I understand his position. I would not make that trade either. He wants to keep it to drink it, and he knows that there are no other barrels like that one. In other words, as a whisk(e)y lover, he would much rather keep those bottles to enjoy drinking them than to easily make $ 2,000 selling off PVW at his business. And he would have no trouble at all making those $ 2,000.

@MadSingleMalt, I wish you no disrespect for declaring an interest in that 1967 40 yo Duncan Taylor Springbank without having tasted it for yourself. I just would want to taste the whisky first in order to take no chances if I were given a money-is-no-object bottle. Not that you would be taking any chances in trusting my taste. And, of course, you and I already know that you love your Springbank. It would be a low-risk choice on your part.

@Victor, for sure!

Probably the only bottle that I have tasted and that I'd be gonzo to get a bottle of would be the living cask of Campbeltown malt from the Edinburgh Royal Mile Cadenhead's.

The choice between those two strikes me as glaringly asymmetrical. So between the two, I'm 100% willing to live life dangerously and gamble my unlimited single-bottle fantasy money on your 1967 40 yo Duncan Taylor Springbank.

Black Bowmore from 1963 (I think). Our Provincial liquor dictatorship had one bottle last year as part of their annual special releases. Somebody popped the $3500 for it.

@BlueNote, the whisky gods care nothing about the prices set by your provincial liquor dictatorship.

@MadSingleMalt Very true, but I expect this one is pretty pricey everywhere.

@BlueNote If someone got a Black Bowmore for $3500 that's the del of the century.

My whisky benefactor bought 9 of them at LCBO for $100 apiece when they were released (the 30 YO release - the original 3 releases were 29, 30, 31) in the 1990s. They are now worth between $23k and $45k according to Wine Searcher. Not a bad turn on investment for 24 years.

Sadly he died before tasting it, and I fear that his collection may have been mixed with coke by his relatives...

@Nozinan Maybe it was $35,000, I can't remember the exact amount. I know it was very expensive.

@Nozinan "Sadly he died before tasting it." That supports the argument that it is for drinking, not investment.

@BlueNote the only time I bought with an eye to investment was when I thought Glenora might be forced to change the name of Glen Breton. See how that turned out. Anyone need a case of mediocre whisky?

Kidding, I only have one bottle of the 10 and one of the ice wine finish put away. Anyone want it?

I have definitely seen some of my bottles gain value. Why? I'm a little behind in drinking them. The true value, for me, of holding on to these for a long time will be to share with friends when they aren't available anymore.

$3500 still sounds like too much to me.

@MadSingleMalt If buying to drink, I totally agree with you. If buying to flip...I'd say GO.

But let's say you inherited or were gifted a $10 000 bottle. What would you do with it?

If I inherited or was given a $10K bottle from someone who particularly wanted me to have it, I'd keep it and drink it with enormous gratitude.

But if it was from some long-long uncle's will, or passed on by someone who won it in the Showcase Showdown or something and didn't want to waste it, then I would most definitely sell it—assuming I could find a way to sell it.

If money were no object, I’d probably request a 30+ Year Old bottling of Lagavulin or Laphroaig that was distilled in 1979, because that’s my birth year.

Ardbeg " Malin " 25 yo 1991 ( Dutchess )

Any Ardbeg before 1974. But I would very happy with Ardbeg Airigh Nam Beast

My wish is very modest, if I could have the Bruichladdich Octomore 1.1 First Edition I would be very thrilled. I have sampled (and collected) most of Octomore series from 2.1 to 7.1 but the very first release is always in my mind to hunt for. One of these day!

@NamBeist Oh yeah, me too. That was an 18 year old Ardbeg at a reasonable price and I wish I had bunkered a dozen.

If money really doesn't matter: Brora 22 yo 1972 -1995

This I think

thewhiskyexchange.com/p/22043/…

37 year old Lagavulin!

I'd like to pick an old rare Islay bottle from Lagavulin or Ardbeg but i'm not really knowledgable enough to know what to pick.

So I'd probably go for a bottle of the 40 year old Balvenie that I tasted while on a tour there last year. That was a dram I won't forget.

I tasted a 32 year old from the cask at Lagavulin when I was on their warehouse experience last week. The consensus between Iain at Lagavulin and those tasting was that the 25 year old was way better than the 32 year old. You never can tell with these things!