The best drink I've ever had (Non absinte related)

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: Topics Archived Thru Feb 2001:The best drink I've ever had (Non absinte related)
By Loucheliver on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Well Donny boy, we crusty old fucks tend to have a likeswise worldview. Bless you for doing what you want to do in life, as I continue to fry chicken wings, tasty though they are,
'cuz I makes 'em wit luv.


The Liver

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Maybe but I no longer care...

Like your posts, though.

By Loucheliver on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 08:35 am: Edit

Wouldn't they use someone with at least a grasp of the venacular grammar? I think he just has a bug up his ass over your venture for some reason. Maybe because he thinks he won't be able to afford something he will really like to have on a regular basis.

The Liver

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 08:25 am: Edit

I'm beginning to believe TimK is a troll for United Distillers and Vintners. When we talk about Big Liquor, that's who we mean, they control 8% of the world alcohol market.

Mostly they buy up smaller distilleries and close them down.

Then they spend a lot of money on adverts to convince everyone the shit they make is scotch. Like Tim's Blue Label -- someothing no self respecting Scot would wash a mangy (English) dog with, even if he were given the bottle free.

By Loucheliver on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 07:33 am: Edit

Don,
After Timk's last post, I think you are taking the correct approach. Why type your words to a gale of self centered huffing, puffing, and spewing.

The Liver

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 03:27 am: Edit

I'll not bandy words with a fool any further.

By Dengar on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 02:38 am: Edit

Oxygenee: "...we don't sell the last two tots in a particular bottle"

If you don't sell them, what do you do with them? ;-)

By Timk on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 02:16 am: Edit

"Absinthe is just an apertitif" - TimK

What else was absinthe ever other than an aperitif and digestif, Don, you claim to know all, please tell me what else is absinthe other than that plain, simple definition of an aperitif?

I have no problem paying for something that has been barrel stored for close to 50 years, half the age of vintage pernod fils, but to compare your absinthe in any way with the finest old malt scotches, you are distilling and bottling the stuff within a very short period, and in my opinion, althjough the analytical research should be very impressive, you will accomplish very little on a commercial scale. Do you think that people would clamour to buy something someone said was an exact replica of a 1946 or 1948 Macallan when the price was prohibitive. If they did, as I have said it will be a one off purchase - they will still drink cheap malt whiskey every day.

Timk

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 12:59 am: Edit

I have no quarrel with Oxygenee, Dengar, or the price of rare old scotch malts. Or antique absinthes for that matter

My gripe is with TimK who believes an absinthe he has never tatsed can't possible be worth $75 a 75 cl bottle (specificatiuons for the sake of argument only.)

My complaint is with his grand dismissal of all absinthe as "just an aperitif".

I call that sheer hypocrisy.

By Loucheliver on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 12:24 am: Edit

As always, an insightful, and well thought out reply Oxygenee. I am a single malt fan, and your knowledge is stellar. Why the BIG F word there has to be so much nasty bitch slapping on this forum is beyond me. Out of all the people in the world w/internet access, there are what? a dozen and a half that post here regularly because of a love of the same thing. Why get bent over a couple minor points? Even if someone here disagrees w/someone else, at least appreciate that this forum is a very, very, very, small portion of the world at large, and we should aknowledge the fact that we all are in love with the same thing: absinthe as we know it personally. Whether that is Pernod Fils 1899, or Serpis Last Month.
Off the soapbox, and back into semi-lurkdom,

The Liver

By Oxygenee on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 10:01 pm: Edit

While not for one minute wishing to interject myself into the middle of a Don/Timk firefight, may I, from the relative safety of my observation bunker, offer a few clarifications on the $90 per tot whisky - as the person actually charging this, I'm of course in a position to do so. I hope you can all hear me above the roar of the flamethrowers and the steady crump of incoming mortar fire...

The Macallan 1946 costs us $1500 wholesale. The reason for the high price is primarily that it is a 50 YEAR OLD WHISKY FROM ARGUABLY THE GREATEST DISTILLERY IN SCOTLAND, available in tiny quantities on a one-off basis - when its sold out (which it is now) there's no more - ever. We charge $90 per tot. A tot here is 25ML (30 to a bottle), NOT 10ml (75 to a bottle). With a rare and slow selling whisky like this, we get only 28 saleable tots per bottle (we don't sell the last two tots in a particular bottle, as they may be very slightly oxidised and so not give the customer the full taste experience he is paying such a high price for. The proprietor and his friends usually drink these.). If Dengar's price was per 10ml tot, its of course much higher - but then again the wholesale price of the whisky may well be much higher in Sweden: our duties here on Scotch are unusually low.

Either way our income per bottle is 28 x $90 = $2520 - a gross profit of around 40% - far less than we would make on a standard scotch or a G&T. In short these very high priced whisky's are essentially promotional loss-leaders for us, as I would guess they are for the distilleries (if you start to think about the relative value of money now and then, and the costs of storing whisky barrels for 50 years, $1500 per bottle seems quite cheap to me).

The customers who pay $90 per tot, are not, in my experience, primarily paying for the taste, superb as it is: they are paying for the thrill of tasting a 50 year old piece of Scottish history.

In short, IMHO the price of these rare whiskies, while possibly relevant if we were discussing the price of ANTIQUE absinthe, is probably not really that relevant to any discussion of the price of MODERN absinthe (or any other newly manufactured drink for that matter).

Hmmm....seems quieter now...has the fighting stopped? Perhaps I should just cautiously raise my head above the bunker.......seems OK....oh no...oh my God...AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Oh, fuck you, you twit. Your statements are never plain, other than being plainly toxic. They are still on the forum for anyone to read. These people can make up their own minds.

"Absinthe is just an aperitif."

And here you are in a thread about malt scotches being sold for $70 a cl (tot). On a forum where The Wiz got deservedly fried for charging $20 a drink of absinthe, and after you argued that what these things are going for for a tot (10 ml, 1/75th of a bottle) was too much to pay for an absinthe you have still never seen.

At that price, the scotch is $5000 a bottle.

Your 'friends' want to pay $70-$90 a tot for a rare malt, good on them.

But don't celebrate that while shitting on absinthe, on the absinthe forum no less, and expect your hypocrisy to go unnoticed.

"Absinthe is just an apertitif" - TimK

By Timk on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Really don, I never dished out poison, you are just a pathetic individual, infact, I really feel sorry for you and your twisted interpretations of plain statements.

Tim

By Don_Walsh on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 07:59 pm: Edit

You can dish it out, Tim, but you can't take it. Can you? You love to dish out poison but cry when someone spits it back in your face.

By Timk on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 02:59 pm: Edit

"So much for the crowd who insist that $75 for 75 cl of our premium absinthe line is too much. Of course the spokesman for that lot drinks"
For fucks sake Don, do you not know when the hell to just drop it - spokesperson - those posts consisted of myself and others all unrelated having a discussion. And I like what I like, if i drink blends then so what. I also like Frapin v.s.o.p. oh my god its not $$$ but then what the hell if it tastes good to me who cares.

Why dont you stop trying to get at me DOM

Tim

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 04:46 am: Edit

Glenmorange is another good malt. The Aberdeen and Dundee lots seem to favor this one.

I am fond of Laphroiag, favoring the island malts (and older Bushmills malt) in general.

Zero experience with the $70-90 a tot stuff.

So much for the crowd who insist that $75 for 75 cl of our premium absinthe line is too much. Of course the spokesman for that lot drinks Blue label (Boo! Hiss! ENGLISHMAN!)

By Petermarc on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 12:57 pm: Edit

no, there was a bar in los gatos that served the 15 year old, along with an incredible selection of other single malts...just a faded memory now, there was a wine shop nearby that had it...i feel very old right now...

By Melinelly on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 11:23 am: Edit

petermarc,

the laphroaig 10yr is available here in calif. and may be what you were thinking of. the 15yr is a bit hard to find.

By Petermarc on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 11:10 am: Edit

i used to be able to get it in california (sf), but haven't seen it here in paris...it didn't think it was that hard to get...now that i'm ready to look for it, it will be impossible to find...or stupidly expensive... sigh

By Dengar on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 09:48 am: Edit

I'm not that sure that Laphroig is a whisky that I'd "recommend if you are starting out"...

I like Laphroig, but it is a bit special.

By Oxygenee on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 09:46 am: Edit

You're right Peter - the 15 year old Laphroig is terrific, but in very limited supply - one can't consistently get it, and its not exported at all to certain markets (including ours - we had to special import a few cases). Is it freely available in France?

Also good and very similar to the 15 year old are the occasional vintage releases - the 1976 was really outstanding. If you see Laphroig 15YO or vintage dated on sale, snap up everything you can afford while its available!

By Petermarc on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 09:10 am: Edit

spend a little more and get the laphroig 15yr...
damn good...

By Oxygenee on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 08:17 am: Edit

Just to second Ian's post, single malt whiskies really are very good value - chiefly because, unlike the case with all premium blended whiskies, and almost all cognacs, with a single malt you are essentially paying only for the whisky itself, and not for fancy packaging, crystal decanters or full page advertising spreads in glossy lifestyle magazines.

If you are new to the field and don't know the distillery names yet, always make certain that the whisky says both "single" and "malt" on the bottle - there are single GRAIN whiskies that are only generally worth drinking for the curiosity value, and VATTED malt whiskies (blends of different malts) that are usually targeted at the corporate gift-giving market.

The 3 single malts I'd recommend if you are starting out:
The Macallan 12 YO: THE classic Speyside malt.
Highland Park 12 YO: The great Orkney malt.
Laphroig 10 YO: The quintessential Islay (pronounced EYE-LUH ) malt.

3 widely available malts I WOULDN'T waste money on:
Cardhu, Glenfiddich, The Singleton
None are bad whiskies, just bland and overpriced (all are owned by huge conglomerates, and marketed mainly at premium blend drinkers, not true malt afficianados.)

By Absinthedrinker on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 05:43 am: Edit

Heiko

Go for a single malt next time. All single malt whiskies are very good value (when compared to the equivalent cognacs or armagnacs). If you ever pass through any of the London airports they have a good selection of 10 to 15 year old malts priced at around £25 for 70 cl. There is often a tasting so you can decide which of the styles you like (highland, lowland, island etc)

By Heiko on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 05:13 am: Edit

I almost don't dare to ask, because you seem to be very much into whisky - so please don't kill me for asking about a special whiskey:
I only knew different standard brands and could fairly make out a difference between them when I once by accident bought a bottle of "Old Forester" at the Denpasar/Bali airport. It wasn't as expensive as the antiques you're talking about ('only' 20 USD for 350 ml - enough for my budget), but this was the first time I encountered a real difference in taste from all other whisk(e)ys I had ever tried. Unfortunately I never ever saw that brand again.
I guess you know it, is it available in Europe, or could you recommend something in that quality range (or even better) but still for a reasonable price?

Heiko

By Oxygenee on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 04:28 am: Edit

The 1946 and 1948 Macallans are completely different - quite remarkably so in fact: probably a result of inconsistent supply chains (for barley, peat and barrels) in the immediate postwar years. Both are extraordinary whiskies, but the 1948 is more obviously a "typical" Macallan, lacking the intense smokey Islay-type character so noticable in the 1946, which would certainly be the one I'd take with me to the proverbial desert island.

$70 per tot is an exceptionally good price for either whisky - we sell it for the equivalent of $90 per tot here. Whether its "worth it" is another matter - I think it depends very much on your field of reference. I'd certainly taste the other 25 and 30 year old Macallans first, and perhaps an old 35 or 40 year old Springbank, together with a 30 year Laphroig or Ardbeg if you can find them. These would give you a good range of points of comparison - even in this very rarified company the 1946 Macallan stands out as something very special.

By Dengar on Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 11:22 am: Edit

Oxygenee: Ok thanks! Think I'll go for the offical bottling, but my valet doesn't agree...

Here's an other one: The same place that I tasted the 30 year old has the 1946 (or the 1948?) as well. They charge about $70 per cl. Do you think it would be worth to try one cl if I'm feeling very rich one day?

By Petermarc on Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 07:13 am: Edit

i think i need to plan my next vacation for
south africa...

By Oxygenee on Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 04:04 am: Edit

Rare and aged whiskies are often available in merchants or bottlers versions, as well as in the standard distillery bottlings. Some of the best independent bottlers are Cadenheads, Signatory, Hart Bros, Gordon & MacPhail and Murray McDavid. These firms buy selected casks from the distilleries and then release them under their own name (with the distillery name and age of the whisky usually in smaller type).

Independent bottlings often give one a chance to taste whiskies from distilleries that no longer exist (the wonderfully named Dallas Dhu comes to mind), or to taste a particular whisky in an older version than any officially released by the distillery itself (older Caol Ila from Hart Bros and very old Mortlach from Gordon & MacPhail are two good examples).

On the other hand, when the distillery does release a particular aged version (or "expression" as it is called), then it will usually be better than a merchants bottling of the same age - the distillery after all has a vastly bigger selection of casks to choose from, while the merchant may only have bought as few as two or three casks. Also, if a distilery intends to release a particular aged version of its whisky, its never going to sell the very best casks in that age category to an independent bottler.

The Macallan 25YO is the flagship product of the distillery, and is just a stupendous whisky. I know the Murray McDavid 25YO independent bottling well - its a 1972 vintage I think. Its very, very fine, but slightly simpler and without the full complexity of the "official" version. If it was me, I'd spring for the extra $50 and buy the distillery bottling.

By Dengar on Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 01:13 am: Edit

Oxygenee: You seem to know you Macallan! I'm thinking of purchasing a bottle of the 25 years old and I wonder if you have a tip for me. I'm choosing from these two:

Macallan 25 (by Murray, McDavid) at $100.
The Macallan 25 (by The Macallan) at $150.

I'd rather go for the second one but as you can see the difference in price is quite big. Is it really worth it? Any comments?

Thanks!

By Dengar on Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 01:05 am: Edit

A bottle of 30 year old Macallan costs about $250 here, something I can't afford. I tasted it in a pub here in Stockholm which has a great range of whiskys.

By Oxygenee on Tuesday, February 06, 2001 - 12:01 am: Edit

Sorry - my jpg is too large for Kallisti's software, and trying to crop it or lower the resolution doesn't seem to help.

By Oxygenee on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 11:46 pm: Edit

A picture of our whiskies...

By Oxygenee on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 11:26 pm: Edit

We have nine different versions of Macallan on sale here at the Cat & Moose Whisky bar at our Hotel (together with about 120 other single malts, 8 cats and a stuffed moose that once belonged to Carmen Miranda - but thats a long story).
We taste them all quite often - strictly in the line of duty of course. Here are some very brief comments:

The Macallan 12YO: Typical Macallan sherry and honey character. Smooth and round. One of the best values in single malts.

The Macallan 1977 & 1980: Both very similar. With a distinct fruitiness and a slight toffee character on the palette. Perhaps a trifle unbalanced.

The Macallan 25YO: I think the greatest of the standard Macallan's. Quite dark and immensely full, with a dry and very long finish. Some of the smokiness that characterises many old Macallans. As much a benchmark in whiskies as a Mouton'45 or Quinta do Noval '31.

The Macallan 30YO: Some of the Macallan "orange skin" character noticable. Quite dry, for my taste just a little too woody. Shorter finish than the 25YO.

The Macallan "The 1874": Made in the style of a bottle from 1874 bought by the directors of Macallan on auction. Lightly peated, with ginger and aniseed (!) notes, together with the typical citrusy character of very old Macallan.

The Macallan Gran Reserva 18YO: Aged entirely in first fill oloroso casks. Almost syrupy (or perhaps marmeladey?). Interesting, but too over-the-top to be a great Macallan.

The Macallan 1946: An astonishing 50 year old whisky - dry and very peaty with a pungent creosote character, quite unlike any other Macallan I have tasted. Tasted blind, you'd think it was an ancient Lagavulin. A tiny, one-off release, and at a (wholesale) cost of $1500 per bottle, not for everyday drinking.

Slainte!
David

By Melinelly on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 06:11 pm: Edit

wow, lucky Dengar =)

the Macallan 25yr runs $240 a bottle where i work, around $300 most other places though. i can't imagine what 30yr runs.

By Marcellin on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 03:52 pm: Edit

I'm an old Scotch hound myself, but the best I can usually afford is 18 year old stuff.

So Dengar, how much is a bottle of The Macallan 30 years old?

p.

By Petermarc on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 01:49 pm: Edit

not surprising,and not cheap, but i bet it costs less than most absinthes good or bad...what about the secondary effects?

By Dengar on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 11:04 am: Edit

This evening I tried The Macallan 30 years old. Unbelievably good, simply the best drink I've ever had!

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation