[denny]

You gotta be kidding me.....a $200K bottle of whisk(e)y

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/20/bottle-of-whisky-sells-for-200000/?&hpt=hp_c2

[dbeechum]

This is an example of the things that make me shake my head at the world and be very very frustrated.

[bluesman]

That's $13.30 a drop.  

Really puts the meaning into "good to the last drop".

I hope he doesn't get drunk and spill it.

[beersk]

Outrageous.  No reason it needs to be that expensive.  None.  It's still whiskey and it still tastes like s***.

[euge]

Evidently there are "wine" and "spirits" banks where one can store their shrewd "investments". It'll never be consumed.

[glastctbrew]

I never understood how something that was meant to be enjoyed through consumption could cost so much but hey, I brew beer, you know, the commoners drink. 

[tygo]

I guess it's like investing in art.  Something to look at and hope it appreciates based on the perception of it's value. 

I could never have a bottle of whisky like that around me though.  The temptation would be too great to see what the big deal was about 

[nicneufeld]

Look at it this way...it's a lot cheaper than your average plate of dinner at a bigwig political fundraiser!

Anyway, with 62 years of aging, it's more like you are paying the distillery back-rent!  

[Joe Sr.]

Evidently there are "wine" and "spirits" banks where one can store their shrewd "investments". It'll never be consumed.

Which means that no one knows what it should taste like. 

With extremely rare and old wines (mostly Bordeaux) , there are recent scandals of people selling bottles that may, or may not, have been refilled with newer wine.

Since no one today can truly say what a bottle from the 40s would taste like, it's hard to know what you're drinking.

The market for rare whiskey's is probably not as robust but how would you know if you're bottle of whiskey really had been aged for 62 years?

I'd rather buy something I could truly enjoy drinking and then go out and get more of it.

[euge]

It's the age pre-bottle that is important. Once the spirit is in the bottle it doesn't matter how old it is or how long it sits since the maturation is finished.  The rarity of this particular whiskey is what makes it so valuable.

[Joe Sr.]

Yes and no. Wine will continue to age in the bottle although spirits will not.

Old bottles of spirits do have value (more so the rarer/older they are). Scotch from the 1850s has sold for nearly 30k, although it is still technically only 12 year old scotch.

My point, however, was how would you know that what you're drinking is really what it is supposed to be?  I doubt anyone would buy two bottles of 200k scotch to compare them. Again, more of an issue with wine where such fraud has been documented.

[phillamb168]

Yeah but it's in an airport duty-free shop. Sorry, but that's just a ripoff/free advertising for the distiller. If super-old whisky is your thing, you can get 70-year-old whisky from Glenlivet, put into barrels in 1940: http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-14040.aspx Paying that much for a bottle of anything is just being stupid with your money and/or trying to show off. I can totally understand putting a few hundred for a bottle of truly exceptional wine and even a few thousand for exceptional whisky, but otherwise... eh. The most money I ever paid for a whisky was for a 1978 Signatory Vintage Ardmore (the older brother of this guy: http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-13532.aspx) and that was because it was 1. on sale and 2. for a buddy's wedding. I bought the bottle back in 2007 and I just finished it two weeks ago. $150 spread over four years comes out to about $38 a year, which is a deal.