I Feel Like Jay is $54,000 Poorer Today

[mikethompson]

I just get the sneaking suspicion that our own Jay, @mawnansmiff , is a little poorer today.

72-year-old Scotch whisky fetches over US$54,000 in auction

A 72-year-old bottle of Glen Grant single malt whisky from Scotland fetched more than US$54,000 in an auction in Hong Kong on Friday.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[anotherbob]

I just get the sneaking suspicion that our own Jay, @mawnansmiff , is a little poorer today.

72-year-old Scotch whisky fetches over US$54,000 in auction

A 72-year-old bottle of Glen Grant single malt whisky from Scotland fetched more than US$54,000 in an auction in Hong Kong on Friday.

www.ctvnews.ca

no but when you see the mark up after who ever bought it sells it to Jay you'll probably have heart palpitations.

 

[mikethompson]

no but when you see the mark up after who ever bought it sells it to Jay you'll probably have heart palpitations.

He will say it was good, but not as good as his 75 year old scotch.

 

[anotherbob]

He will say it was good, but not as good as his 75 year old scotch.

he's actually a teetotaler. He just sniffs the content of the bottle. Which economically makes more sense. More hours of enjoyment. Or at least that's what I will assume until I actually see him sipping on whiskey.

 

[workman]

He's obviously gulped it down and won't notice this thread until tomorrow

 

[Casual]

“Investment whisky”? These jerks aren’t even going to drink it.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Speculators will speculate!

 

[mikethompson]

“Investment whisky”? These jerks aren’t even going to drink it.

Same idea as collectors of classic cars who just park them.

I wonder how much money per shot that bottle would be.

 

[mawnansmiff]

Mike, if only I could afford that Scotch. Actually, over the last year or so my tastes have shifted more towards bourbon/rye than Scotch.

Seriously though, that is a jaw dropping price for a bottle of the good stuff. I've heard Pappy Van Winkle can fetch high prices but $54K is just taking the urine.

Regards,

Jay.?

 

[mikethompson]

taking the urine.

That is a colourful British term I've never heard before.

 

[smudgersmissingleg]

"Last October, a single bottle of scotch shattered the record for most expensive wine or spirit ever sold at auction. The Macallan Fine and Rare 60-Year-Old fetched a staggering $1.9 million USD. Why so much? Well, the 1926 vintage malt was drawn from a legendary barrel, prized by collectors for its near-mystical characteristics. Just a year earlier, liquid matured in that same oak sold for $1.2 million at a London auction house. Since 2018, no less than six examples of that 1926 spirit have cleared the million dollar threshold."

And here's a picture of some guy in a monocle examining a bottle of this mega expensive whiskey.
Don't drop it mate?.

 

[mawnansmiff]

Is that a Picasso on the label Chris?

Regards,

Jay.?

 

[mso489]

We bought a bottle of single malt whiskey as a birthday gift for a friend. He was kind enough to share. It was about $90, and decidedly worth it. But I think I'll quit at that price point.

 

[mawnansmiff]

There is sadly much snobbery in the Scotch whisky world. So called 'single malt' is much revered by so called purists and those same 'purists' tend to look down on blended Scotch as though it was an inferior product which it is not.

What a lot of these guys don't realise is that single malt IS a blended whisky, it's just blended with other barrels from the same distillery. Blended Scotch is just the same though the producers use single malts from two or more distilleries.

In my years I have tasted some fantastic blended Scotch whiskies and some pretty mediocre single malts. Make of that what you will.

Regards,

Jay.?

 

[smudgersmissingleg]

Is that a Picasso on the label Chris?

Regards,

Jay.?

The article didn't say and I'm no art expert. It does have a Picasso vibe though, doesn't it?

 

[OzPiper]

Is that a Picasso on the label Chris?

Regards,

Jay.?

For the price it'd want to be a limited edition Picasso print

 

[mikethompson]

For the price they should include a monocle and pair of gloves as well.

 

[shanez]

"Last October, a single bottle of scotch shattered the record for most expensive wine or spirit ever sold at auction. The Macallan Fine and Rare 60-Year-Old fetched a staggering $1.9 million USD. Why so much? Well, the 1926 vintage malt was drawn from a legendary barrel, prized by collectors for its near-mystical characteristics. Just a year earlier, liquid matured in that same oak sold for $1.2 million at a London auction house. Since 2018, no less than six examples of that 1926 spirit have cleared the million dollar threshold."

And here's a picture of some guy in a monocle examining a bottle of this mega expensive whiskey.
Don't drop it mate?.

View attachment 64177

Is that a Picasso on the label Chris?

Regards,

Jay.?

If that is the bottle I'm thinking of it is an ultra rare bottle of Macallan that the producer commissioned 2 artists to create the labels for, half by one and half by the other. I think it was 8 bottles per artist. So not only are they old and rare but they are also works of art. Of all bottles produced, one is known to have been drank, one was destroyed in an earthquake, and the rest are owned by undisclosed private collectors.

 

[alaskanpiper]

Some people are rich. Some people like scotch. Some people are rich AND like scotch.

If there is one thing that running a company has taught me (other than the fact that I am far less talented and far less smart than I once perceived) it's that your brain just thinks differently when you're dealing with higher numbers. It's all relative.

It's hard for us proletariats to see such things and not imagine how many African children could be fed for that sum, but the guy who bought that bottle has probably donated more to charitable causes this year than I've ever made in my life.

Everything seems to scale up and down as required by the holder. Up to and including scotch budgets, apparently.

 

[mawnansmiff]

"but the guy who bought that bottle has probably donated more to charitable causes this year than I've ever made in my life."

The use of the word 'probably' in that sentence has me scratching my head. Upon what evidence, no matter how small, did you come to that conclusion? 'Possibly' might have been more appropriate though still without evidence.

Regards,

Jay.?