The value of whisky (in Ontario)

[Smithford]

apologies in advance for the long-winded post

Quite a lot of the discussion here in the MLL tends to revolve around the price we pay for our booze relative to our American neighbors and those in the UK. These are useful discussions, and do help us to peg the value of particular bottles against an international standard. We even have our very own ratio calculation, thanks to Mr. Zunak, which I’m sure has influenced many buying decisions for members of this board. The ZR and comparisons to PA & NY pricing help us put an absolute value on the commodity item.

I think it’s also useful, when considering what to buy, to determine a subjective value – something along the lines of a quality/price ratio. It's impossible to quote this value in absolute terms, since tastes vary so widely.

Yes, it costs more to drink here. We have to accept that, and only compare what’s readily available to us. There’s no point in talking about value, and then discussing what you can get on sale at Binny’s. This has to be an “apples to apples” view.

I use a fairly simple benchmark that helps my decision making, and often prevents me from getting carried away by the newest flashy release of some rarity. It’s also possible that it has prevented me from buying some great whisky, but I’m OK with that. It’s worth noting that I buy whisky purely for consumption. I’m not a collector (despite the fact that I do have a modest bunker). When I find that I own something that I’ve lost interest in drinking, I get rid of it and replace it with something else. If you are a “buy and hold” whisky consumer, then my approach may not resonate for you.
_____________________________________

Whether or not you’re a fan of peaty Islay whiskies, you have to respect Lagavulin 16. It’s a magnificent example of all the great things that whisky can be. It’s perfectly balanced – a skillful mingling of every element of whisky character – a solid malt base, mature smoke, sweet sherry, deft peating – clearly present but not heavy-handed, and just a hint of salty sea. It’s possibly the finest example of terroir in the entire food and beverage world. Lagavulin 16 is a whisky that sits firmly and deservedly on many people’s favourites list, and one that has received acclaim across the board of whisky reviewers and connoisseurs. Even if it’s not your cup of Lapsang Souchong, you have to give it its due. It is unquestionably a benchmark whisky.

All that for $110.

I remember when I first started dipping my toe into the single malt ocean. I relied heavily on Michael Jackson’s Malt Whisky Companion’s tasting notes and scoring. Lagavulin always stood out as a whisky I had to try. At the time it was one of only two that Jackson deemed to be deserving of a 95 point rating (the other being the eternally unattainable Macallan 25). But the Lag had always hovered around $90 at the LCBO – too rich for me at that point in my life. I had been content to drink more than my share of DoubleWood and Bowmore Legend. Under $50 at the time, both represented good “premium” value to me. Then, one day I got a Christmas bonus or something, and decided to take the plunge on the Lag. And I brought it home and opened it and sipped it. And I understood. And then everything changed. I don’t think I’ve bought Balvenie ever since.

As I’ve ridden this wild whisky trail, Lag16 has always been there. It has maybe not always been in the cupboard, but there’s comfort knowing it’s always available. It’s been bought and received as a gift numerous times. It’s the dram at the bar that I can always rely on when there’s nothing new or interesting. A trusted friend. And always for about 100 bucks a bottle.

Every new whisky that arrives at the LCBO, in my mind, has to sit next to Lagavulin and be measured up. If it costs around the same amount, it had better be damn good. If it costs significantly less, some slack can be cut. If it costs a lot more, then I’m heavily skeptical. Because while there have been plenty of whiskies that are priced twice as much as Lagavulin 16, nothing has ever been twice as good. Ever. Rarely is anything much better at all. Yes, sometimes there’s a whisky with some character (usually unbalanced, but an interesting pour), and sometimes there’s a bottle with a great story. And sometimes I just really want to try something new, so I pay the premium. But whenever I see a bottle on the shelf for north of $150, up pops the inevitable question: “If I can get a (near) perfect whisky for $110, why would I pay that much more for this?”

For example:
Auchentoshan Vanlinch at $64? A low risk proposition. Buy and try.
Laphroaig Triple Wood at $90? Sounds like a pretty good deal (ZR notwithstanding).
Highland Park Thor at $250? There’s no way it’s twice as good. No way.

As an aside – I know I said this is about Ontario pricing, but the Lagavulin benchmark (for me) works the world over. When I’m in the UK, £45 is my benchmark, in the US it's about $70, depending on which state.

I’m not putting this forward as a new rule or anything, nor am I looking to have a ratio named after me. I’m just throwing it out there for discussion and debate. I know there are plenty of people here who regularly and happily pay a lot more than $109.95 for a bottle. Tell me - are you generally OK with that? Do you agree or disagree with me? I can count on my fingers the number of times I’ve spent more than $110 on a bottle. And I can count on one hand the number of times I thought that was money well spent. As I said, if you are a collector, then this isn’t really relevant to you. But if you’re a drinker, even one who doesn’t love the Lag, I’d like to hear your thoughts.

[mfurman]

Great post and I agree about many points, especially Lagavulin 16YO (and Michael Jackson's book).
You said: "If you are a “buy and hold” whisky consumer, then my approach may not resonate for you."
This is exactly where I am. I have quite a few unopened bottles and I do not really expect them to blow my whisky mind. There was one whisky that changed things for me - Laphroaig 30YO. I first got it cheap but the next bottle, I bought, was much more expensive. I have enough whisky for a few years (multiple bottles in my "collection") so if I buy anything these days, it is expensive and not for drinking till I retire

[portwood]

Very well written, Smithford - I agree with most of what you have said.

A few comments:

- I don't mind paying more for alcohol than in other parts of the world - that's a social policy issue I can live with. What bothers me is that certain brands are out of whack price-wise here in Ontario (Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Laphroaig, Macallan, are among the biggest culprits). This is where the ZR is usefull.

- Like you, I find it hart to pay >$100 for a bottle. To date I have done that for the Springbank 18yo ($120 bought in Europe), Glenfarclas 21yo ($120), Glenfarclas 25yo ($160), Highland Park 25yo ($197 in New Brunswick), and a "mid-life crisis" bottle of 1965 Lochside/Adelphi ($400).

- I'm relatively new to this "malt madness", so I've been trying as many different expressions as I can get my hands on. As a result, I have bought "inferior" bottles and paid more than "fair value" but I chalk this up to a gain in experience. As I figure out what I like, I will narrow my purchasing. It is likely that quality will become a higher priority but the price/bottle ratio will also likely increase. As mfurman stated, I also have enough bottles in my bunker to last me 2-3 years, so I'm starting to realize that future purchases may have to be more targeted (i.e. fewer, better, but likely more expensive bottles).

- The problem with quality/price ratio is that it rarely follows a linear pattern, and "quality" means different things to different people. So, above a certain price point (probably ~$100 in our market), small increases in "quality" normally mean ever increasing prices. Therefore, if you are not content with drinking the "perfect malt" (for you) all the time and want to experience different drinks you will have to spend more than the standard you have set - even if you end up drinking something that isn't (much) better than that standard.

[Nabil]

[quote="Smithford"]apologies in advance for the long-winded post

...and just a hint of salty sea. It’s possibly the finest example of terroir in the entire food and beverage world.

All that for $110.

You do realize that Lagavulin new make is carted off by tanker ship to the mainland where it matures for 16 years....hardly that salty maritime terroir they advertise on the label!

[mfurman]

You do realize that Lagavulin new make is carted off by tanker ship to the mainland where it matures for 16 years....hardly that salty maritime terroir they advertise on the label!

I strongly (for those who do not have it) recommend the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Peat-Smoke-Spirit ... 683&sr=1-1

It is unfortunately not available (amazon.ca has an used copy).

[Smithford]

The problem with quality/price ratio is that it rarely follows a linear pattern, and "quality" means different things to different people. So, above a certain price point (probably ~$100 in our market), small increases in "quality" normally mean ever increasing prices.

This is true. The price/quality curve steepens sharply above $100. I can accept that. What I won't do (but understand that others do) is pay for "rarity." Or perceived rarity.

Laphroaig 30YO

An excellent case in point. I've never tasted Laphroaig 30, but based on reviews there's no question that it's a whisky that is potentially as good as or better than Lagavulin 16. But how much better? I don't know how much you paid for your second bottle, but is it 5 times better? 10 times? You may also have an emotional connection to a particular whisky that's hard to put a price on. At least you plan to drink it when you retire, and not sell it to fund your retirement.

Lagavulin new make is carted off by tanker ship to the mainland where it matures for 16 years

There is only a slight hint of truth in that assertion. Lagavulin is variously matured at Lagavulin (on Islay), at Caol Ila (on Islay), and on the mainland. Not that any of that is germane to this particular conversation ...

[Nabil]

The problem with quality/price ratio is that it rarely follows a linear pattern, and "quality" means different things to different people. So, above a certain price point (probably ~$100 in our market), small increases in "quality" normally mean ever increasing prices.

This is true. The price/quality curve steepens sharply above $100. I can accept that. What I won't do (but understand that others do) is pay for "rarity." Or perceived rarity.

Laphroaig 30YO

An excellent case in point. I've never tasted Laphroaig 30, but based on reviews there's no question that it's a whisky that is potentially as good as or better than Lagavulin 16. But how much better? I don't know how much you paid for your second bottle, but is it 5 times better? 10 times? You may also have an emotional connection to a particular whisky that's hard to put a price on. At least you plan to drink it when you retire, and not sell it to fund your retirement.

Lagavulin new make is carted off by tanker ship to the mainland where it matures for 16 years

There is only a slight hint of truth in that assertion. Lagavulin is variously matured at Lagavulin (on Islay), at Caol Ila (on Islay), and on the mainland. Not that any of that is germane to this particular conversation ...

I'm afraid that even Whisky Mag and Dr. Balvenie are willing to publish this fact. The vast minority of Laga whisky is actually matured on Islay. And it is of value to the discussion as we are trying to assess the "value" of the whisky. Part of its value seems to stem from so-called terroir, which in actuality doesn't exist.

[Nabil]

I think in general, you make a good point about finding YOUR benchmark, because everyone will have a different preference. However, over the years, these benchmark bottles have drifted. 12 years ago, Lagavulin 16 was a different animal. More sherry, more smoke, more peat. It was richer, and more pungent. Today, it is really a shadow of it's former self. 12 years ago, I would have held it up as the 90$ standard. Today, not a chance. I buy it in NY for 71$+ tax. And even then, feel I'm getting ripped off since the bottling has changed so much.

I find that the bourbon matured 12 yo CS bottling to be better, and better value ABV-wise.

The same applies to the Macallan. It is NOWHERE as good as it used to be in the 1990s. So what should your benchmark whisky be from the standpoint of taste? I don't know, since tastes change and so does the product they are putting out there.

I don't think it will ever be so black and white. I think you have to constantly be trying new things, finding new benchmark malts every year. Sampling and sharing as much as possible. I still remember trying the Glendronach 15 yo new bottling blind, and being blown away...way better than the Macallan line up. In terms of value though, price can't be omitted. It has to be a "blend" of taste and price to determine if you want to buy.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

I agree with much of what you say, Nabil, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of "a vast minority".

[mfurman]

I think in general, you make a good point about finding YOUR benchmark, because everyone will have a different preference. However, over the years, these benchmark bottles have drifted. 12 years ago, Lagavulin 16 was a different animal. More sherry, more smoke, more peat. It was richer, and more pungent. Today, it is really a shadow of it's former self. 12 years ago, I would have held it up as the 90$ standard. Today, not a chance. I buy it in NY for 71$+ tax. And even then, feel I'm getting ripped off since the bottling has changed so much.

I find that the bourbon matured 12 yo CS bottling to be better, and better value ABV-wise.

The same applies to the Macallan. It is NOWHERE as good as it used to be in the 1990s. So what should your benchmark whisky be from the standpoint of taste? I don't know, since tastes change and so does the product they are putting out there.

I don't think it will ever be so black and white. I think you have to constantly be trying new things, finding new benchmark malts every year. Sampling and sharing as much as possible. I still remember trying the Glendronach 15 yo new bottling blind, and being blown away...way better than the Macallan line up. In terms of value though, price can't be omitted. It has to be a "blend" of taste and price to determine if you want to buy.

I also strongly believe that everyone should develop his(her?) own benchmark but I am not sure if it should be a moving target. I am not much interested in new whisky. As you said, Lagavulin 16YO used to be better but could be us who changed? By the way, I MUCH prefer Lagavulin 16YO over 12YO. The bottle of Lagavulin 12YO from 2009, I have, is almost full.
As I said, I have multiple bottles of my favourite whiskies and I stopped experimenting. I am only trying to buy some old Laphroaig, Ardbeg and Karuizawa. I am still coming back to Lagavulin though. I know that I will be buying more Rye whiskey (Thomas H. Handy in particular) and bourbon. In my mind American whiskey is more "stable" and authentic.

[Kyle]

I don't like the idea of having one whisky be the gold standard by which others are judged. As people have pointed out, quality changes over time. I think having an average of your top 3 tasted over the last 5 years as a benchmark might be more practical and accurate long term.

Very interesting points smithford.

[Card Player]

I like whiskies in the $50 range...much like the first 4 listed in your "favourites" on your profile smithford. I will sometimes go higher for nadurra, booker's and next time at the duty free...ballantines17 (my favourite blend).

[Yello to Mello]

I agree that Lagavulin 16 a good reference point and I have used it. I stopped using it after it went from $100 to $125 and didnt go back to it when it went down to $110.

[Lawrence]

[There is only a slight hint of truth in that assertion. Lagavulin is variously matured at Lagavulin (on Islay), at Caol Ila (on Islay), and on the mainland. Not that any of that is germane to this particular conversation ...

I think some is matured in the ware houses at Port Ellen too but I have not been to Islay for a while so I'm not sure if they are still standing.

[mfurman]

[There is only a slight hint of truth in that assertion. Lagavulin is variously matured at Lagavulin (on Islay), at Caol Ila (on Islay), and on the mainland. Not that any of that is germane to this particular conversation ...

I think some is matured in the ware houses at Port Ellen too but I have not been to Islay for a while so I'm not sure if they are still standing.

This may have changed but according to the source, I quoted, 7000 casks are stored in Lagavulin, 7000 casks at Port Ellen and 2000 casks (and rising) at Caol Ila. 50% of Lagavulin is matured entirely on Islay. Caol Ila stores fewer at fewer its own casks in their warehouses

[Smithford]

As is the fate of many of our threads here in the lounge, this one is in danger of suffering some serious topic drift. Despite that, I do want to address some of Nabil's points with which I respectfully disagree.

Part of its value seems to stem from so-called terroir, which in actuality doesn't exist.

Lagavulin's water flows through the streams and lochs of Islay. It's barley is malted at Port Ellen on Islay, dried with Islay peat. It's distilled on Islay. This is the very essence of terroir. Are you suggesting that because a portion of it is aged at Blackgrange, that it no longer qualifies as an Islay malt? That's preposterous.

12 years ago, Lagavulin 16 was a different animal. More sherry, more smoke, more peat. It was richer, and more pungent. Today, it is really a shadow of it's former self.

I don't think that's accurate. Lagavulin has, in fact, not changed all that much. However, the whisky world around it has changed significantly. A new breed of Malt drinkers has emerged demanding extremes. 12 years ago was the era before Ardbeg Very Young. Before the phenol wars. At that time, Lagavulin was revered as pungent, because no other distillery was really delivering on those traits. Over time, there has been a deluge of sherry monsters and peat monsters which have all been very tasty and amusing, but ultimately not very challenging. Lagavulin has remained pretty consistent throughout that time (while many other distillers have been chasing the market). It's not that hard to create a sherry monster, or a peat monster - you only need to concentrate on one element - and many have done it well. But what is truly impressive (and increasingly rare) in a single malt whisky is balance - when all of the elements are presented in harmony. And there's still nobody delivering that as deftly and consistently as Lagavulin.

So what should your benchmark whisky be from the standpoint of taste? I don't know, since tastes change and so does the product they are putting out there.

I don't think it will ever be so black and white. I think you have to constantly be trying new things, finding new benchmark malts every year. Sampling and sharing as much as possible. I still remember trying the Glendronach 15 yo new bottling blind, and being blown away...way better than the Macallan line up. In terms of value though, price can't be omitted. It has to be a "blend" of taste and price to determine if you want to buy.

So, getting back to the debate at hand. I actually agree with this point. I used to really like Bowmore. At one point, I might have held up the 12 or the Darkest as a price/quality benchmark. But no more.

I think Zunak (for one) would offer up Glendronach as a benchmark of how whisky should not taste. I don't think he would pay $5 for a bottle. I, on the other hand, quite like it. I think it comes in at about 80%-90% of Lagavulin 16's price, which is just about right. But if you want to talk about malts that have changed in the past decade, you need look no further than Glendronach.

The crux of what I'm trying to get at is ... what is a good price benchmark? For me, and my taste buds, and my experience, $110 is where the scales tip. More than that, a whisky has to be superb, or I consider it disappointing. Less than that, it can be judged on its merits vs. price. What's your magic number?

[Smithford]

I like whiskies in the $50 range...much like the first 4 listed in your "favourites" on your profile smithford.

I suppose I should have pointed out that Lagavulin is my single malt benchmark. $110 doesn't work for American Whiskey. Those are all over the map. It's really hard to nail down a solid quality/price benchmark for Americans. In my mind, easily the best quality/price balance currently at the LCBO is Rittenhouse BIB, and it's one of the cheapest American Whiskeys available. I've consistently found that paying more for Bourbon definitely does not guarantee a better pour.

[Zunak]

An excellent choice using Lagavulin as your benchmark. I frequently tell people that Lagavulin 16 is the one that all others should be measured by. It is a near perfect whisky with amazing balance. Only a week ago,I told a fellow forumite who explained to me that his cap for whisky purchases was $100, only to go north of this mark to purchase one whisky... Lagavulin 16. I personally set my dollar cap at $100 also and only own two whisky's in the $100 to $150 range. (I know it doesnt look that way in my collection but my $150+ whisky's are sourced from the US and other provinces.) It takes a special whisky to make me go beyond that. I WILL purchase whisky because of it's rarity if I know ahead of time that it is something really special. Case in point, Octomore Orpheus, St Magnus, Ardbeg Supernova 2009, but only because they are fleeting and as you can see I actually loved the St Magnus and Supernova and purchased second bottles. With regards to your benchmark and these whisky's ... is the Octomore twice as good as The Laga? In my opinion... yes.. it is so remarkably unique that it justifies being almost double the price. The Supernova also outperforms the Lagavulin in spectacular fasion. The St Magnus is markedly better (different) for me and worth the extra $70. I guess what I am trying to say is that a person really can't apply a "if it's twice as much money is it twice as good" yardstick to whisky purchases as by doing so they will, (as you stated) miss out on some amazing whisky's. By the way excellent thought provoking post. I too cut my teeth on Mariner and Doublewood... funny.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

Part of its value seems to stem from so-called terroir, which in actuality doesn't exist.

Lagavulin's water flows through the streams and lochs of Islay. It's barley is malted at Port Ellen on Islay, dried with Islay peat. It's distilled on Islay. This is the very essence of terroir. Are you suggesting that because a portion of it is aged at Blackgrange, that it no longer qualifies as an Islay malt? That's preposterous.

I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. He's saying the concept of terroir in whisky is a false one, and in the main I agree with him. The barley comes from wherever they can get it, the importance of the source of water is grossly overstated, and the whole sea-air-and-seaweed thing is just nonsense. The one presumed element of Islay terroir I can get on board with is the peat used in malting at Port Ellen.

Now, are you suggesting that because its malt comes from the mainland, Octomore doesn't qualify as an Islay malt?

Lagavulin was the first whisky that clicked for me. I'd been to Scotland a couple of times already, and had smelled the tang of peat fires in the chill damp October air on the Isle of Lewis and elsewhere. Sticking my nose into a glass of Lagavulin brought me right back there. There has been a lot of water over the dram, er, dam, since then, and a lot of different favorite whiskies. Like many, I was infatuated with the Islays for some years. Not so much now. Everything changes, not least us. Having your favorites is fine, of course, but holding up one bottle and saying "This is the benchmark" strikes me as a bit simplistic. A benchmark whisky makes no more sense to me than a benchmark dessert or a benchmark t-shirt. There's a whole universe of whisky out there, Smithford, and I think when you've seen a little more of it, you'll realize that Lagavulin, a very popular single malt made by a very large drinks company, is not at the center of it. No one whisky is. If Lagavulin is your North Star, helping you to orient yourself as you set out to explore that universe, I have no quibble with that. Just keep in mind that it's only useful as long as you're earthbound.

[Zunak]

Part of its value seems to stem from so-called terroir, which in actuality doesn't exist.

Lagavulin's water flows through the streams and lochs of Islay. It's barley is malted at Port Ellen on Islay, dried with Islay peat. It's distilled on Islay. This is the very essence of terroir. Are you suggesting that because a portion of it is aged at Blackgrange, that it no longer qualifies as an Islay malt? That's preposterous.

I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. He's saying the concept of terroir in whisky is a false one, and in the main I agree with him. The barley comes from wherever they can get it, the importance of the source of water is grossly overstated, and the whole sea-air-and-seaweed thing is just nonsense. The one presumed element of Islay terroir I can get on board with is the peat used in malting at Port Ellen.

Now, are you suggesting that because its malt comes from the mainland, Octomore doesn't qualify as an Islay malt?

Lagavulin was the first whisky that clicked for me. I'd been to Scotland a couple of times already, and had smelled the tang of peat fires in the chill damp October air on the Isle of Lewis and elsewhere. Sticking my nose into a glass of Lagavulin brought me right back there. There has been a lot of water over the dram, er, dam, since then, and a lot of different favorite whiskies. Like many, I was infatuated with the Islays for some years. Not so much now. Everything changes, not least us. Having your favorites is fine, of course, but holding up one bottle and saying "This is the benchmark" strikes me as a bit simplistic. A benchmark whisky makes no more sense to me than a benchmark dessert or a benchmark t-shirt. There's a whole universe of whisky out there, Smithford, and I think when you've seen a little more of it, you'll realize that Lagavulin, a very popular single malt made by a very large drinks company, is not at the center of it. No one whisky is. If Lagavulin is your North Star, helping you to orient yourself as you set out to explore that universe, I have no quibble with that. Just keep in mind that it's only useful as long as you're earthbound.

Well stated Tattie. Experiencing all of the treasures the Whisky World has to offer should not be compromised by self imposed constraints. IMHO.

[Kyle]

Part of its value seems to stem from so-called terroir, which in actuality doesn't exist.

Lagavulin's water flows through the streams and lochs of Islay. It's barley is malted at Port Ellen on Islay, dried with Islay peat. It's distilled on Islay. This is the very essence of terroir. Are you suggesting that because a portion of it is aged at Blackgrange, that it no longer qualifies as an Islay malt? That's preposterous.

I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. He's saying the concept of terroir in whisky is a false one, and in the main I agree with him. The barley comes from wherever they can get it, the importance of the source of water is grossly overstated, and the whole sea-air-and-seaweed thing is just nonsense. The one presumed element of Islay terroir I can get on board with is the peat used in malting at Port Ellen.

I think you are dismissing terroir far too quickly Tattie.

I think terroir tends to get over-hyped, but it does exist. I think the most important part of terroir comes from maturation conditions. There is a substantial difference between whisky that has been housed in Dunnage compared to whisky held in more modern, concrete, environmentally controlled wearhouses. It would also be unfair to dismiss the whole "sea-air-and-seaweed" thing out of hand. Maturation pulls outside air from the environment into the cask. You can't tell me that has no effect.

[Nabil]

I agree with much of what you say, Nabil, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of "a vast minority".

Yeah, I wrote that one with you in mind!

Now back to hijacking the thread to sort out where Lagavulin is matured...I love a good discussion that can be supported by numbers...

Terroir is determined by where a product is produced. Wines from France cannot be matured in Spain. So an 'islay" whisky should NOT be matured on the mainland, IMHO. Here's what Dr. Whisky said while reviewing Jefford's book:

"We must remember that Diageo owns Islay distilleries Lagavulin, Port Ellen(closed) and Caol Ila and very little Caol Ila is matured on Islay, most of it is carted off to the mainland to mature. 7000 casks of Lagavulin mature at their 3 warehouses, 7000 down at the dunnage warehouses at Port Ellen, 2000 at Caol Ila(more that Caol Ila itself), but the vast majority of Lagavulin casks have not been aged on Islay. Find this provocative and troubling? Read Jeffords' book for more."

Now, lets look at some numbers. Are we proposing that the total inventory of casks from Lagavulin is approximately twice the numbers quoted above? So they house a total of 32000 casks. Now, remember that they produce 2.5 million OLAs, which translates into more than 10000 casks per annum. This means that they sell a third of their stock every year...no way. It takes 16 yrs of production to get to one bottling of Lagavulin, but even if they sell some to blenders, lets say they have 10 yrs of inventory of lagavulin. So that means they have 10 x 10000 casks sitting somewhere. Consequently, if only 16000 casks are on Islay, that means that 84000 of them are somewhere else. BTW, Glenmorangie has over 100000 casks maturing as well, so this is not out of line. Now, if you can find me some numbers to the contrary, I'd be happily edified. However, it would seem that the notion of terroir for Lagavulin is in some part a fiction (perhaps I was too severe by saying it didn't exist, I'll give you that).

[Mr Tattie Heid]

It would also be unfair to dismiss the whole "sea-air-and-seaweed" thing out of hand. Maturation pulls outside air from the environment into the cask. You can't tell me that has no effect.

It has no effect. (That was easy.)

Temperature and humidity, and variation thereof, of course play an important role. Salt and seaweed do not migrate into the cask from the surrounding atmosphere. Period.

If this phenomenon actually existed, all of Gordon & MacPhail's offerings, matured in their warehouses nestled amongst the roundabouts of Elgin, would nose of truck exhaust.

[Smithford]

Now, are you suggesting that because its malt comes from the mainland, Octomore doesn't qualify as an Islay malt?

Nope. But I would never nominate Octomore as one of the finest examples of terroir. It's a novelty product, riding a trend toward extreme (unbalanced) flavors in whisky. It's delicious, and fascinating. But it's a fad.

Terroir is determined by where a product is produced. Wines from France cannot be matured in Spain. So an 'islay" whisky should NOT be matured on the mainland, IMHO.

Wines from France continue to mature in their bottles all over the world, which does not take away one iota of their terroir. Terroir as a concept (as you say) is about where a product is produced, not where it is matured. So all of your subsequent maths are, while very interesting, ultimately irrelevant.

Salt and seaweed do not migrate into the cask from the surrounding atmosphere. Period.
If this phenomenon actually existed, all of Gordon & MacPhail's offerings, matured in their warehouses nestled amongst the roundabouts of Elgin, would nose of truck exhaust.

And while Tattie appears to be agreeing with Nabil here, his entertaining metaphors actually support the terroir theory as I present it.

And BTW Tattie - what's with the unnecessary personal slight?

There's a whole universe of whisky out there, Smithford, and I think when you've seen a little more of it, you'll realize that Lagavulin, a very popular single malt made by a very large drinks company, is not at the center of it.

I've travelled the whisky universe and come back again, and I have the scars on my liver to prove it. I know exactly what Lagavulin is, as do the scores of reviewers who have bestowed years of praise on it.

This thread was not meant to be a debate on the relative greatness of one whisky. It was really meant to be about dollars and cents. How do we assign a value to a bottle, and decide whether it's worth buying? I set out my benchmarking method, and some agreed that it was good. For all the petty bickering about Lagavulin, no one has yet suggested an alternate.

Nabil & Tattie - how do you decide whether it's worth it to shell out a large sum on a particular bottle? What's your breaking point, and how did you arrive at it?

[Smithford]

saying "This is the benchmark" strikes me as a bit simplistic. A benchmark whisky makes no more sense to me than a benchmark dessert or a benchmark t-shirt.

It certainly does make sense. We all do it, all the time. But mostly without conscious analysis.

Tell me - are you going to pay $12 for the Semifreddo at a fancy Italian restaurant when you know that you could easily stop at Ben & Jerry's on the way home and get something very similar for $3.79? Some will and some won't. But everybody will weigh their desire against a personal value judgement on the dessert.

When you see a T-shirt in a store, you evaluate its quality and decide on its value. You might look at one and think "Hmm ... this is a synthetic blend. I bought a much nicer, 100% cotton shirt at The Gap last week for less than this." You've set a benchmark in order to help you derive a perceived value.

You do it with everything you buy (unless it's your first time buying some unique item). The only difference is you probably don't subsequently go home and discuss it on a web forum.