Scotch, where to start?

[The Knize]

Well, yes and no.

If they've been paying about the same for heating and lighting month in month out for years, and all of a sudden the bill doubles or triples, they're not going to wait a decade to recoup those costs.

Well, theorectically, in a competitive market, prices would be set by the intersection of supply and demand at somewhat above the cost of production. I guess this would be long term, whatever long term means. I suppose that buying a bottle of Scotch today has aspects of buying Scotch futures, since that bottle is still going to be good to drink in the coming decades. So, I suppose you are right, that current and projected future costs are going to figure into the price for ten year old whisky, by shifting the supply curve. Maybe the demand curve is shifted, too. I am willing to pay more today if I think a good will be more expensive in the future because of rising costs. I doubt the market for Talisker is really a competitive one and my guess is that price is probably based more on consumer perceptions than actual past, current, or future costs. I wonder how much it really costs to produce a bottle of Talisker. I should probably be willing to pay $80 for a bottle of Talisker now because the price will be as high or higher in the future. I would expect Talisker and/or the middle men and/or the tax men to charge as much as they think they can to maximize profits.

 

[The Knize]

Okay, I give up after this. It turns out that $79.95 seems like an anomalously high price for the DC area for the Montgomery County stores for the Talisker 10. Those stores are usually well-priced, but the Virginia states stores, which are usually on the high side, have it for $69.95, and it is easily found in DC, prices in the middle when not on sale and excellent when on sale, for $59.95 and for as low as $50 and change. Interestingly Talisker Storm, a non-age statement whisky, which used to be priced above the 10, now seems to consistently come in about $10 below the 10. The $50-60 range does not seem like much of a price increase to me.

On-line sources seem to blame increases in Scotch prices on various things, including an inability to get liquid into barrels during COVID, a barrel shortage, a rise in energy costs, but mostly on a big increase in demand for Scotch worldwide. Also, there seem to be a tax increase on the UK end.

I suppose ending in mid 2021 there had been a 25% tariff imposed on Scotch imports by the Trump administration.

 

[rideon66]

Glenfarclas 105 cask strength is my favorite by far Highlands single malt. The 105 refers to alcohol content in British proof or 60% 120proof. For something with a little smokey peat I only like the Ardbeg Uigeadail and the laphroaig select as they stay on the lowest peat side for both those brands. The Old Pulteney 12 single malt isn't bad for the money either.

 

[bobmsp]

Okay, I give up after this. It turns out that $79.95 seems like an anomalously high price for the DC area for the Montgomery County stores for the Talisker 10. Those stores are usually well-priced, but the Virginia states stores, which are usually on the high side, have it for $69.95, and it is easily found in DC, prices in the middle when not on sale and excellent when on sale, for $59.95 and for as low as $50 and change. Interestingly Talisker Storm, a non-age statement whisky, which used to be priced above the 10, now seems to consistently come in about $10 below the 10. The $50-60 range does not seem like much of a price increase to me.

On-line sources seem to blame increases in Scotch prices on various things, including an inability to get liquid into barrels during COVID, a barrel shortage, a rise in energy costs, but mostly on a big increase in demand for Scotch worldwide. Also, there seem to be a tax increase on the UK end.

I suppose ending in mid 2021 there had been a 25% tariff imposed on Scotch imports by the Trump administration.

Also - the dollar has increased in value in comparison to the pound. That may cause additional cost in the U.S.

 

[Doc4]

It turns out that $79.95 seems like an anomalously high price for the DC area for the Montgomery County stores for the Talisker 10.

Here, Talisker 10 is $109.99 (Canadian). That's $83.54 in Yankee bucks.

Okay, I give up after this.

It's enough to drive a man to drink.

... just can't afford the Talisker.

 

[The Knize]

Here, Talisker 10 is $109.99 (Canadian). That's $83.54 in Yankee bucks.



It's enough to drive a man to drink.

... just can't afford the Talisker.

Ian, does that seem like a big recent price increase? I am guessing you can afford it and that I can, too, but the issue is more like whether I want to! Bourbon is tasting better to me every day!

 

[Doc4]

Ian, does that seem like a big recent price increase? I am guessing you can afford it and that I can, too, but the issue is more like whether I want to! Bourbon is tasting better to me every day!

It's always been expensive here. So I haven't really followed the price. But yeah, a decent bourbon is less, and a good Canadian whisky even less, so ... options abound!

 

[The Knize]

It's always been expensive here. So I haven't really followed the price. But yeah, a decent bourbon is less, and a good Canadian whisky even less, so ... options abound!

Nothing lacking in a good Canadian. Actually, when I say bourbon, I really mean rye, as much as I mean corn whiskey.

 

[Doc4]

Nothing lacking in a good Canadian.

... or a good Canadian whisky.

Actually, the Canadian whisky industry spent decades churning out bog-standard, decent-but-uninspiring, mixing whisky good for rye-&-coke and not much else. Drink it straight and you get the classic cowboy-movie "whisky shooter wince".

In the past couple of decades things have been turning up, with "quality" from artisans proving to be profitable, so there are some good ones to find. But the bog-standard mixers remain as well, so one must not judge all Canadian whisky from one bad experience ... just like I wouldn't judge all American bourbon &c based on J.D.

Actually, when I say bourbon, I really mean rye, as much as I mean corn whiskey.

I never learned the intricacies of American whisky styles and nomenclature, but what little I have tried ... I have liked.

 

[TexLaw]

Also - the dollar has increased in value in comparison to the pound. That may cause additional cost in the U.S.

It works the other way around. A stronger dollar (related to the pound) means bourbon costs more over there and Scotch costs less over here.

 

[bobmsp]

It works the other way around. A stronger dollar (related to the pound) means bourbon costs more over there and Scotch costs less over here.

D’oh! You’re right.

 

[The Knize]

D’oh! You’re right.

You had me fooled the first time around, and them I was thinking about this just the other day, and thinking maybe not! Fun stuff!

 

[The Knize]

... or a good Canadian whisky.

Sorry!

In the past couple of decades things have been turning up, with "quality" from artisans proving to be profitable

I actually have some of that. Seemed good. I suppose I was really thinking of Crown Royal, which seems pretty decent to me.

I never learned the intricacies of American whisky styles and nomenclature, but what little I have tried ... I have liked.

As I recall, and I am no expert, event though I sometimes pretend to be one on this forum, bourbon requires a 50% plus a smidge grain bill. Although many bourbons also include rye in the grain bill, so in fairly high proportion. (Also, malted barley it turns out!) I do not know if there is a minimum percentage requirement of rye to call a whiskey a rye. I suspect most ryes have some corn in them.

 

[Doc4]

Sorry!

I actually have some of that. Seemed good. I suppose I was really thinking of Crown Royal, which seems pretty decent to me.

IIRC, there are lots of different Crown Royal variations. I knew that one growing up as the one in the purple bag ... dunno if it still does but it used to come in a purple velvet bag.

I would get those as a kid to repurpose for holding golf balls or whatever. It seems like most of their bottles are now naked on the shelf in the store, and probably only "deluxe" special editions (like around Xmas?) would come in a box and bag.

The one version of CR I am familiar with is the Northern Harvest rye. It got notoriety a few years ago as being declared "best whisky in the world" by some whisky reviewer, and so became very hard to source virtually overnight. I figured the award was part hype but also part based on it being a good whisky, so got a couple bottles. It's actually pretty good and more refined than most rye whiskies.

Lord knows if quality has stayed constant over the years since ... no doubt they had a lot of demand to fill for a few years, which might have strained things ... but IMHO worth a try if you can get it at a decent price.

 

[The Knize]

Interesting stuff, as always, Ian. I was thinking of the standard purple sack version of Royal Crown, which I guess is now called the Deluxe. Seems quite inexpensive really. A quick perusal of the web did not tell whether it still comes in a purple, but apparently it did up until 2020, at least in some places. It has been a while since I have had RC or any type. I had no idea they had so many expressions of it these days.

I think of Canadian whiskey as being or at least featuring rye. Apparently CR uses a bourbon mash bill with 50% plus corn, and rye and malted barley, so way less than 50% rye. CR seems very dodgy about its actual mash bill. It does say it uses five different ones. Some on-line sources seem to say it use neutral spirits, too, which to me means alcohol made with whatever is cheapest. Kind of disappointing. The Northern Harvest Rye looks intriguing.

BTW, I read that JD has an 80% corn mash bill. No wonder I am not fond of JD!

Like you said, I know there are small, artisan distillers doing good work up where you are!

 

[Whisky]

Interesting stuff, as always, Ian. I was thinking of the standard purple sack version of Royal Crown, which I guess is now called the Deluxe. Seems quite inexpensive really. A quick perusal of the web did not tell whether it still comes in a purple, but apparently it did up until 2020, at least in some places. It has been a while since I have had RC or any type. I had no idea they had so many expressions of it these days.

I think of Canadian whiskey as being or at least featuring rye. Apparently CR uses a bourbon mash bill with 50% plus corn, and rye and malted barley, so way less than 50% rye. CR seems very dodgy about its actual mash bill. It does say it uses five different ones. Some on-line sources seem to say it use neutral spirits, too, which to me means alcohol made with whatever is cheapest. Kind of disappointing. The Northern Harvest Rye looks intriguing.

BTW, I read that JD has an 80% corn mash bill. No wonder I am not fond of JD!

Like you said, I know there are small, artisan distillers doing good work up where you are!

In 2016 Jim Murray’s Whisky Bible awarded CR Northern Harvest Rye it’s “Best Whisky in the World.” I don’t know if I agree with that but it’s a really good, reasonably priced, Canadian Rye.

 

[The Knize]

The plot thickens. Jim Murray actually picked five best whiskies in the world for 2016. The CR Northern Harvest Rye, and

2. Pikesville Straight Rye

3. Midleton Dair Ghaelach

4. William Larue Weller Bourbon (Bot.2014)

5. Suntory Yamazaki Mizunara (Bot.2014)

I guess I would say I like the Pikesville rye and would have had some as soon as it was first released, which may have been 2016. But I would not say it was or is currently one of the best five whiskies in the world. I cannot speak to the others.

In some later years, at least, the CR NHR was selected as the best Canadian whiskey, but did not end up on the, then, top three whiskies in the world list. Although I do not know how many whiskies actually make repeat appearances. It is said to have a 90% rye mash bill, which seems really unusually high. Seems to be about $33 near me. Not all online reviews seem to share Mr. Murray's opinion as to quality. Still interesting. A Canadian that really is a rye!

 

[Whisky]

The plot thickens. Jim Murray actually picked five best whiskies in the world for 2016. The CR Northern Harvest Rye, and

2. Pikesville Straight Rye

3. Midleton Dair Ghaelach

4. William Larue Weller Bourbon (Bot.2014)

5. Suntory Yamazaki Mizunara (Bot.2014)

I guess I would say I like the Pikesville rye and would have had some as soon as it was first released, which may have been 2016. But I would not say it was or is currently one of the best five whiskies in the world. I cannot speak to the others.

In some later years, at least, the CR NHR was selected as the best Canadian whiskey, but did not end up on the, then, top three whiskies in the world list. Although I do not know how many whiskies actually make repeat appearances. It is said to have a 90% rye mash bill, which seems really unusually high. Seems to be about $33 near me. Not all online reviews seem to share Mr. Murray's opinion as to quality. Still interesting. A Canadian that really is a rye!

Murray picking NHR as the Whiskey of the year in 2016 caused a lot of eyebrows to be raised and he took some heat for the pick. The forums were awash with rumors of monies paid etc. One thing I can say though it’s one of the few Whiskies of the Year that had never disappeared from the shelves. He has some critics and I’ve seen people question how he can taste his claimed 1200 whiskies in 3-4 months.

I tend to rely on Fred Minnick’s picks more that Murray’s. Minnick has his critics as well but I’ve found that our palates are pretty similar. If he recommends something I’ll probably like it, there have been a few misses, but only a few.

 

[TexLaw]

bourbon requires a 50% plus a smidge grain bill. Although many bourbons also include rye in the grain bill, so in fairly high proportion. (Also, malted barley it turns out!) I do not know if there is a minimum percentage requirement of rye to call a whiskey a rye. I suspect most ryes have some corn in them.

With regard to legal definitions in the USA, a "bourbon" mash bill must contain at least 51% corn, and a "rye" mash bill must contain at least 51% rye. What they do with the rest of the mash bill can be all over the place, but it's rare to find a whiskey that goes outside of the typical corn, rye, wheat, barley ingredients. I've come across some that do something exotic (like amaranth or quinoa). Those can be mighty good, but the cost usually relegates them to something of a novelty or limited release.

A lot of ryes have some corn in them, but it's becoming more and more a trend to leave out the corn and increase the rye. Many American ryes, these days, have a very large rye component (80%+), and some are going 100% rye. Many are using more barley instead of corn, too. Doing so both emphasizes the rye and distinguishes them from bourbon. Personally, I like that barley in a rye whiskey. It gives a fullness that rye doesn't have (rye always seems to come across a bit dry to me, even if delicious).

I think of Canadian whiskey as being or at least featuring rye.

It certainly used to if for no other reason than that's pretty much what they grew up in Canada. They still grow plenty of rye, of course, but Canadian agriculture has diversified (and transportation of cheaper corn is easier everywhere). In any case, Canada does not regulate labels in the same way the USA does. One can call your whiskey a "rye" or "Canadian rye" or something along those lines in Canada even if the grain bill contains no rye at all. It's just an old naming convention.

He has some critics and I’ve seen people question how he can taste his claimed 1200 whiskies in 3-4 months.

I tend to rely on Fred Minnick’s picks more that Murray’s.

I left Murray behind a long time ago. His notoriety both fueled and was both created by the bourbon craze that began in the early 2000s, and enough is enough. I already had a low (or waning) opinion of his picks before 2016 for a number of reasons, but all were related to the fact that he seemed much more concerned with making a splash and promoting his own name more than he was concerned about putting out thoughtful reviews. I always see red flags with an "best of" list (because they always are more about creating a stir than anything else), and the 2016 NHR pick was the final nail in the coffin that holds Murray's credibility.

As for that claim about tasting 1200 whiskies in that amount of time, it's just another example of his self-promotion. What's a "taste"? Yeah, anyone can just stick their tongue in 1200 whiskies, and I suppose that's all you need to do to dismiss 80-90% of the candidates for a "best of" list, but who gives a flip?

 

[awk_m4]

I drink my coffee black and prefer Islay

if I am a good indicator, you are spot on.

Thai applies to me as well. I really enjoy the Islay malts. Laphroaig Quarter Cask is absolutely sublime.