is it worth spending more?

[Marvin]

You get some really nice 12 year old single malts, is it worth the often significant extra for an older whisky? For example, HP12 is a damn fine malt, is it worth paying pretty much double the price for the 18?

[Frodo]

Very excellent question!

[Badmonkey]

Where I live the HP 18 is only about 50% more than the HP 12. I love both, but in my view the 18 is worth every penny extra. I would not say the same thing about certain other malts, such Glenmorangie 18 when compared to the 10. This is just a matter of personal taste and budgetary constraints, of course. Sometimes the younger, cheaper malts kick the crap out of older, pricier expressions.

Cheers

[EdipisReks]

where i live, HP 18 is more than twice the price of the 12 ($80 vs. $32). i think the 18 is better (deeper, more complex, a little smoother) than the 12yo, but i invariably buy the 12 due to the price difference.

[Deactivated Member]

It matters as much what you think of the money involved as of the whisky.

[Marvin]

It matters as much what you think of the money involved as of the whisky.

Good answer I suppose. If you're rich then it wont bother you spending more. If you're on a tight budget it probably seems crazy money.

[Reggaeblues]

Yes, Mr TH - good answer! I believe one must balance economics and indulgence...

To expand...since my nmusic, "Bleggae" is a fun but not overly fruitful livelihood, I enjoy seeking out bargain prices on quality whiskies. Recent "triumphs" include:

Aberlour 10 -£17 Tesco's
G'morangie Portwood -£20 - Tesco's
Aberlour A'bunadh £25 - Waitrose
2 litres of Ardbeg 10 for £45 -Heathrow airport Duty Free
Glenfiddich solera Reserve 15 YO £15.99(Daily Mail offer, now defunct!)


...but once in a while, I splash out. I just HAD to have an Ardbeg '77, and having tried it, I have to say it's REALLY special...but the bottle is still not empty a year on. So I drink the 10 and "pretend!!" Ditto Macallan 18.

It's nice to have special drams you can't afford to visit too often. So that must apply to the HP 18(BTW I picked up a mini for £5)

That said, I have posted previously on finding an HP 18 for ...£19!!! 2 years ago Safeways had HP 12 "on offer" at that price, and my local happened to have three HP 18s in mouldy boxes on the same shelf..but no price. So they HAD to let me have one for the same price as the 12!

Should have bought all 3...by the time I returned they'd sussed it! It was then £47.

VERY nice dram.[/list]

[Elagabalus]

If you can afford it, it is never a waste to throw extra cash in, for a scotch aged an extra say 6 years. Here's a hint, reduce the amount of tips freely given to incompetent servers at the bars you frequent and use that extra cash to tip yourself a bottle of HP 18 yo.

[irishwhiskeychaser]

Hi Marvin, great question and a good reply by Mr T-H.

I personally have been very dissappointed by the price value ratio, in a lot of the older versions in ways, as I am very price consious. Thsi is because single malts can be an expensive habit in little old Ireland.

HP12(45.00Euro) wins over HP18 (80.00Euro) but I bought a single cask half bottle version for 50.00 and won hands down over both above. I love all 3 but 18 is just too expensive for me for not a whole pile more.

Jameson 12 (35.00Euro) wins over Jameson 18 (100.00Euro) no contest. Again both are great but the gap between is just to small to justify the extra spend.

However it is nice to treat yourself every so often with a good bottle. Any bottle that I buy over 100.00 Euro is to be savoured and I like to be sure that I'm getting a great whiskey not just a good one.

Maybe I'm just a scrouge

[Drrich1965]

If you can afford it, it is never a waste to throw extra cash in, for a scotch aged an extra say 6 years. Here's a hint, reduce the amount of tips freely given to incompetent servers at the bars you frequent and use that extra cash to tip yourself a bottle of HP 18 yo.

Not true in my book...The Caol Ila 12 and 18, while different, are about the same in my book, with the 12 being much cheaper. Bowmore 12 is almost as good as 17 (depending upon the batch), and I like the Laddie 10 as much as the 15 or 17..Also, have you compared the Dalmore 12 verses the 21? One third the price, and a better malt.

[TheLaddie]

If you can afford it, it is never a waste to throw extra cash in, for a scotch aged an extra say 6 years.

I'd certainly disagree with the never in this statement (statements containing an absolute are never true ) though for the most part for those extra few years and extra few pounds you will get a better malt.

Whether it is worth those extra pounds though is multifactorial. Certainly a lot depends on how much that money means to you as Mr T points out.

A lot also depends on your personal palate. 1) It doesn't matter a jot if the older expression is "better". Complexity is important but if the flavours and aromas you get from the older expression are less pleasant to you as an individual than those of the younger whisky then it is worth no more money to you. 2) It also depends on the sophistication of your palate. If you are educated/practiced enough to appreciate the finer nuances of the older expression over the younger then it is worth the cash (if you have it). It will also vary for different distilleries. Some people would much prefer a 15yo Laphraoig over the 10yo but not a 15yo Glenfiddich over the 12yo wheras the next guy/gal would think the complete opposite.

Of course it also depends on how much extra money it is. Take a Bruichladdich 10yo at less than £30 and upgrade it to a 15yo at £45 and you will (in opinion of my palate) have spent your extra money wisely. On the converse take an Ardbeg 10 and upgrade it to a 17 at the moment and will have had to pay silly money to have done it because rarity comes into it more than quality.

If you could measure the ratio between quality and price as a surrogate of value for money you would find that value will almost inevitably diminish as the whisky ages. Take Bruichladdich again:

10 £25
12 £28
15 £45
20 £70
40 £1000

The 15 year old may be a good 50% better than the 10 and just about worth the extra, the 20 year old would have to be nearly three times as good to be the equivalent value to the 10 and the 40 year old would have to be 40 times as good. If you look at Michael Jackson's scores for Ardbeg the scores do, for the most part, climb as the whisky ages but only by a point at a time. The cost certainly doesn't go up in such small increments.

I'm sure I had thought of another point when I started typing this. But it seems to have escaped me. (Everyone sighs with relief... )

[Elagabalus]

Oh please you are being argumentative and dismissive. I am not your wife. Please show me a bit more respect!!
I'm a southern gentleman after all.

[Deactivated Member]

You have funny ideas of "southern" and "gentleman". I doubt he'd be so argumentative and dismissive of his wife--I'm sure he respects her. I imagine she deserves it.

[TheLaddie]

Oh please you are being argumentative and dismissive.

No I'm not. I won't hear another word on the matter.

You have funny ideas of "southern" and "gentleman". I doubt he'd be so argumentative and dismissive of his wife--I'm sure he respects her. I imagine she deserves it.

And funny ideas of argumentative and dismissive...

Though my partner and I are not married she does indeed deserve a great deal of respect and gets it in spades. Gin drinker mind...

So back to the argumentativeness: Are you saying then that it is always worth the extra money for the older whisky?

[Elagabalus]

Absolutely, to argue otherwise goes against all principles of value.

[Paul A Jellis]

'Value' to me is just a four-letter word, that's had one to many!

[TheLaddie]

Absolutely, to argue otherwise goes against all principles of value.

On that sir, we must agree to disagree.

[Lawrence]

Is 'argumentativeness' a new bottling of peated BenRiach 30? I hope so.

[Deactivated Member]

I think that one's the Spurius.