20K For 1 Bottle Of Whiskey!

I don’t know anything about whiskey but received this email from a local retailer.

Here it is:

Even more rare than Pappy.

The rarest whisky allocation to ever fall into Ancona’s Hands.

A single bottle allocated to the state of Connecticut.

It could be yours.

Bowmore Islay Single Malt Scotch Whisky Aged 50 Years (1961).

A collector’s item. Investment grade. Rarity at its very pinnacle.

For the guy who literally has everything.

From Bowmore: “Distilled one very cold day in December 1961 and laid down in two ex-bourbon hogshead casks, our Bowmore 50 Years Old has spent half a century maturing in Bowmore’s legendary No. 1 Vaults. Today, just 200 bottles of this truly exceptional single malt remain - 50 of which will be released each year between 2013 and 2016. Bowmore 1961 is a celebration of not just one mastercraft but many, starting with the time-honoured skills of our small distillery team that cold winter’s day on Islay.”

This is the last release folks. 1 bottle available.

First come, first served.

Email Offer: $19,999.99

you haven’t seen some of the macallan offerings which are released at $30,000-$50,000

$20K is not at all extreme in that space. It’s not even the most expensive Bowmore - not by a longshot.

200 Bottles is one barrel of whiskey

$4m, wow, im 50 years old and i aint worth shit !!!

That’s a good deal!

FiDi Wines in NY recently sold a 4-pack of LeNell’s Rye for 175K.

The whisky market gets crazy, particularly with the distilleries using every release as an opportunity to manufacture scarcity and hype, not to mention package what may or may not be great whisky in ridiculous crystal or gold or diamonds. And no one really knows what is out there and what’s not, so judging true rarity isn’t easy. Not even Macallan knows everything they have released in the past, for instance.

The strange things is that most of these old whiskies are just not worth it

Same as older Bdx and burgs become dried up old fossils so do scotches, a Macallan 18 or 25 is the peak of that brand, a 60 year old Macallan while rare is not necessarily going to be that much better than the 18

On what experience are you basing that assertion? I’m not disputing it (not at this point, anyway) but I’d be curious how many top tier 40/50/60 year old scotches you’ve tasted to come to the conclusion they are not worth it.

I had no idea of the prices

1976 AH Hirsch 16 year old bourbon is worth every penny, and it goes now for about $2,000. Amazing stuff. I had a bottle 2 years ago that a guy sold to me for $200 before the market went crazy.

It gets insane, way more so than wine, in my opinion, even when you consider that you can drink a bottle of whisky over the course of years without a lot of deterioration.

When I first started to drink Scotch, I hosted a blind tasting of Macallan 18 and 25 for myself and three others. It was a leisurely tasting so we really had a chance to compare and contrast. It turned out that we all preferred the 18. I know that many will disagree, but there is such a thing as too smooth. Baby’s got to have a little edge.

Drinking Scotch for the past 30 years ive had many older bottlings, 25-40 years old and they almost always disappoint.

Yes they can be smooth but if i want smooth ill drink Baileys Irish Cream, as someone just said you need a little edge.

Sure thing though that the same people who like old wines will like old scotch, they can hunt for teh flavours that used to be there in its prime

Nope. Get back to me after you drink some very old Bowmore. 50’s and 60’s distillate from Bowmore can be fantastic. The Macallan, while better then, isn’t comparable and most often reached its apogee earlier. Springbank, Ardbeg, Brora, and a few others can age very well in cask for a long time.

I asked about 40 - 60, not 25 to 40, but whatever.

You’re taking a subjective preference and stating it like fact. Saying “this whole category of thing isn’t worth it” is a different sort of statement than “I prefer these whiskies younger.” One is not particularly defensible, the other is unassailable. Even the phrase “in its prime” is too subjective to be useful here. No question the flavors were different when the spirit was younger. Whether they were better when they were younger is another matter.

I’ve also had the good fortune to taste 40+ year bottlings from the likes of Bowmore, Brora and Ardbeg, though not so many as Mark. There have been some extraordinary moments, to say the least.

Its a balance between freshness, bite, complexity and smoothness. And also the price which goes up exponentially after 18 years.

I drink most between 12 and 18 year old mark.

I have tasted the 25 year old expressions of Highland Park and Laphroaig but the incremental benefit or difference was minor but the price difference was substantial. I still have a couple of those bottles in the cellar. My oldest bottle in the cellar would be a 40 year old Glenfarclas, apart from Glenfarclas 175 anniversary release which are a blend of 50, 40, 30, 20 and 10 year old whiskies. When I want something smooth with sherry complexity a 25 year old Glenfarclas fits the bill which btw is one of the cheapest 25 year old on the market.

Agree Sanjay and the 21yo Glenfarclas is amazingly good.

Scott- notes from the 16yo Hirsch? Will appreciate them as I just took a bottle out of cellar- considering opening it up for a pinch or two. Thanks in advance.

Hi Vincent, on vacation and can only do this by phone. If you like bourbon this is the best of the best. Looks and smells like it could have a sweet note, but nothing like that on the palate. Super complex and smooth. Incredible stuff. I wish I discovered it a couple years earlier, I would have backed up the truck for $200/bottle.