The story of Tobias and the Angel comes from The Book of Tobit foond in the Deuterocanonical books that is found in Roman Catholic Bibles but not Protestant Bibles. The name “Tobias” means “God is good.” I’ve got 2 seminary degrees but this wasn’t required reading as they were Protestant. It’s an odd story and worth reading.
Not sure where the rant was. Here's my rant though. Whisky that passes as "a steal" which costs £380 sterling. "You don't have to break the ba.." Oh, really? It's all relative, etc, and I've heard that chestnut so many times. So I'm going to have a rant about whisky that costs $800 bucks. It's a tad expensive for most of us. There's an old whisky reviewer who we all know and love who would think you were stark, raving, bonkers for paying £380 for a bottle of whisky without some sort of historical backdrop. I'd spend that on a special bottle that went unopened when the conditions of surrender were settled for WWII. That sort of thing. Other than that, it's just some expensive tasty liquid and deep pockets. Agree with you both about points for marking but I think points need to have a rethink anyway. I completely agree with Roy, Whisky Lock and a host of others, that points most take into consideration the price and value of a whisky. When I score a Port Charlotte 10 I have to score it for what it is: A £50 peated whisky. As such it rates extremely high because it does what it's meant to do very well. How can I rate Talisker 18 or Glendronach 18 the same way today as I did five years ago? The modern price has moved the goalposts. If they scored 88 points when they cost £85 how can we rate them the same at £180? If it costs more it has to taste better. Serge Valentine's 2021 review of Springbank 10 rated it at 91 points because it fulfils the criteria I set above. His 2021 review of Springbank 25 scored the same 91 points. Both great whiskies for different reasons. The way the whisky landscape is today means we are all going to have to recalibrate our palates and expectations. Some of us were fortunate to enjoy the Whisky Loch but that kind of whisky was a historical aberration. Very old whisky is a freak really. It's younger whisky or $800 bucks and that's the cheap stuff. Thanks for a thought provoking podcast guys. WT
Sign of the times. A few years ago I picked up a Balvenie Tun 1401 Batch 8 at auction for the same price £380. I know which I would go for. But the Tun 1401's are almost triple the price now. I think prices will correct over the next fews years as the cost of living starts to bite. We are nowhere near the bottom of that trough.
Value for us is determined regardless of how expensive something is. A $300,000 house 10 years ago might have been a good buy, but the same house today at $1,000,000 might also be a good buy if every similar house in the entire city is $1.3M. Yeah, 1.3M is a tad expensive for most of us, but why shit on a real estate agent for posting it for sale? Or saying the 1M house is a good buy?
@@SippersSocialClub I don't think value should be determined like that though. At least not in whisky terms. When a whisky tastes great for £50 and another whisky is a tiny bit better at £200, if at all, what are we to make of point systems? I like the 100 point system but we need to establish some form of protocol. I'm not alone in thinking price/quality should be the way we go forward and that is increasingly so as the offer of whisky is changing so radically today. Points should match the profile. Bruichladdich Islay Barley is great for £60. Is Macallann 18 great for £350? It's 2023 and we are were we are. WT
@@welshtoro3256 When we score on the podcast we do not account value into the score, whereas when I do formal reviews on my channel I add or subtract points based on what I personally paid for the bottle. Essentially what you are saying is that you want a 1967 Samaroli Laphroaig to be scored the same as a Port Charlotte 10 because one costs £50,000 at auction and the other is £50??
@@SippersSocialClub That is what I'm saying. Samaroli Laphroaig could be bought for a song in 1967 (if you could get your hands on it). I'm being a tad pedantic, I know, but is any whisky going to result in orgasm? Very good whisky and something a bit better is just a point or two difference. It's a drink, not fine art. We can spend our money on what we want but 800 bucks for a drink? Seriously?
Nice review and conversation guys! I love that you are inserting "bang-4-buck" valuations into the metric. This is critical IMO for the Scotch fan to discuss and be aware of. I love this Tobias bottle you have reviewed---one of my favs (92 points for me). But the Flaming Heart 2012 is not far off (91 points for me) and costs around 50% less. So, the Flaming Heart 2012 produces an even higher bang. Another example would be getting an Ardbeg Uigeadail 2003 Velier import at auction. You can get one of those for about the same price as this Tobias bottle. I score this Ardbeg Oogy at 93 points, which is 1 point higher than the Tobias, so an even better value. 93 points is the same score I give a number of bottles I own that I paid 2,000+usd for so they are not as good of value. So relative value of that Oogy is smashing in the big-boy score world. Then you can get an Ardbeg Provenance 1st release for ~ 4,000+usd with a smashing score of 94-96 points (depending on a number of factors), but the value per cost for that extra 3 points isn't so impressive, and instead it's a rarity and museum bottling premium being paid. The best value out there right now IMO for a 94-96 point score is the Brora 30 2003 release which can be had for about 2,000usd. An amazing value for a museum bottling that contains a good bit of maybe the best vintage of Scotch ever bottled (1972 Brora). Smashing value bottling even though it's still 2,000usd. Then on the flip side I can get a good batch of the Ardbeg 10 for 60-70usd that can score as high as 90 points and equal to the best bang-4-buck on the planet. An even more smashing value . . . . . and on and on. There are some really great gems that can be had in this bang-4-buck conversation--especially when UK/EU auctions can create nice availability for a wide range of expressions. Nice work here guys.
Sure, but that's a personal perspective and it's different for everyone. I don't watch UA-cam reviews on Rolex's and tell the reviewer they should only talk about Timex.
@@SippersSocialClub That's a little unfair. I did say it was a thought provoking rant and I'm very happy to watch reviews of expensive whisky, rubbish whisky and all manner of whisky. I hope I didn't give the impression I was telling you what to review. If I did it was certainly not my intention.
I think you may have missed the point. Quality is quality and needs to be acknowledged. If price is reflected in the scoring then high quality whisky gets adverse marks as the price rises beyond reach/reasonableness. Perhaps the scores for the quality need to set alongside the purchase price with value for money stated as a separate opinion/score?
The story of Tobias and the Angel comes from The Book of Tobit foond in the Deuterocanonical books that is found in Roman Catholic Bibles but not Protestant Bibles. The name “Tobias” means “God is good.” I’ve got 2 seminary degrees but this wasn’t required reading as they were Protestant. It’s an odd story and worth reading.
Never tried Tobias but 3 yr old deluxe is my fave CB ever. Great video!
Not sure where the rant was. Here's my rant though. Whisky that passes as "a steal" which costs £380 sterling. "You don't have to break the ba.." Oh, really? It's all relative, etc, and I've heard that chestnut so many times. So I'm going to have a rant about whisky that costs $800 bucks. It's a tad expensive for most of us. There's an old whisky reviewer who we all know and love who would think you were stark, raving, bonkers for paying £380 for a bottle of whisky without some sort of historical backdrop. I'd spend that on a special bottle that went unopened when the conditions of surrender were settled for WWII. That sort of thing. Other than that, it's just some expensive tasty liquid and deep pockets.
Agree with you both about points for marking but I think points need to have a rethink anyway. I completely agree with Roy, Whisky Lock and a host of others, that points most take into consideration the price and value of a whisky. When I score a Port Charlotte 10 I have to score it for what it is: A £50 peated whisky. As such it rates extremely high because it does what it's meant to do very well. How can I rate Talisker 18 or Glendronach 18 the same way today as I did five years ago? The modern price has moved the goalposts. If they scored 88 points when they cost £85 how can we rate them the same at £180? If it costs more it has to taste better. Serge Valentine's 2021 review of Springbank 10 rated it at 91 points because it fulfils the criteria I set above. His 2021 review of Springbank 25 scored the same 91 points. Both great whiskies for different reasons.
The way the whisky landscape is today means we are all going to have to recalibrate our palates and expectations. Some of us were fortunate to enjoy the Whisky Loch but that kind of whisky was a historical aberration. Very old whisky is a freak really. It's younger whisky or $800 bucks and that's the cheap stuff. Thanks for a thought provoking podcast guys. WT
Sign of the times. A few years ago I picked up a Balvenie Tun 1401 Batch 8 at auction for the same price £380. I know which I would go for. But the Tun 1401's are almost triple the price now. I think prices will correct over the next fews years as the cost of living starts to bite. We are nowhere near the bottom of that trough.
Value for us is determined regardless of how expensive something is. A $300,000 house 10 years ago might have been a good buy, but the same house today at $1,000,000 might also be a good buy if every similar house in the entire city is $1.3M. Yeah, 1.3M is a tad expensive for most of us, but why shit on a real estate agent for posting it for sale? Or saying the 1M house is a good buy?
@@SippersSocialClub I don't think value should be determined like that though. At least not in whisky terms. When a whisky tastes great for £50 and another whisky is a tiny bit better at £200, if at all, what are we to make of point systems? I like the 100 point system but we need to establish some form of protocol. I'm not alone in thinking price/quality should be the way we go forward and that is increasingly so as the offer of whisky is changing so radically today. Points should match the profile. Bruichladdich Islay Barley is great for £60. Is Macallann 18 great for £350? It's 2023 and we are were we are. WT
@@welshtoro3256 When we score on the podcast we do not account value into the score, whereas when I do formal reviews on my channel I add or subtract points based on what I personally paid for the bottle. Essentially what you are saying is that you want a 1967 Samaroli Laphroaig to be scored the same as a Port Charlotte 10 because one costs £50,000 at auction and the other is £50??
@@SippersSocialClub That is what I'm saying. Samaroli Laphroaig could be bought for a song in 1967 (if you could get your hands on it). I'm being a tad pedantic, I know, but is any whisky going to result in orgasm? Very good whisky and something a bit better is just a point or two difference. It's a drink, not fine art. We can spend our money on what we want but 800 bucks for a drink? Seriously?
Nice review and conversation guys! I love that you are inserting "bang-4-buck" valuations into the metric. This is critical IMO for the Scotch fan to discuss and be aware of. I love this Tobias bottle you have reviewed---one of my favs (92 points for me). But the Flaming Heart 2012 is not far off (91 points for me) and costs around 50% less. So, the Flaming Heart 2012 produces an even higher bang. Another example would be getting an Ardbeg Uigeadail 2003 Velier import at auction. You can get one of those for about the same price as this Tobias bottle. I score this Ardbeg Oogy at 93 points, which is 1 point higher than the Tobias, so an even better value. 93 points is the same score I give a number of bottles I own that I paid 2,000+usd for so they are not as good of value. So relative value of that Oogy is smashing in the big-boy score world. Then you can get an Ardbeg Provenance 1st release for ~ 4,000+usd with a smashing score of 94-96 points (depending on a number of factors), but the value per cost for that extra 3 points isn't so impressive, and instead it's a rarity and museum bottling premium being paid. The best value out there right now IMO for a 94-96 point score is the Brora 30 2003 release which can be had for about 2,000usd. An amazing value for a museum bottling that contains a good bit of maybe the best vintage of Scotch ever bottled (1972 Brora). Smashing value bottling even though it's still 2,000usd. Then on the flip side I can get a good batch of the Ardbeg 10 for 60-70usd that can score as high as 90 points and equal to the best bang-4-buck on the planet. An even more smashing value . . . . . and on and on. There are some really great gems that can be had in this bang-4-buck conversation--especially when UK/EU auctions can create nice availability for a wide range of expressions. Nice work here guys.
That bottle sounds amazing. Old Clynelish and Caol Ila never fails. My favorite Compass Box would have to be the 2015 Flaming Heart. So good.
We review a few Flaming Hearts in the next episode :)
Well said Welsh Toro. Affordability varies and there is a price which makes it too expensive to buy, to open, to enjoy.
Sure, but that's a personal perspective and it's different for everyone. I don't watch UA-cam reviews on Rolex's and tell the reviewer they should only talk about Timex.
@@SippersSocialClub That's a little unfair. I did say it was a thought provoking rant and I'm very happy to watch reviews of expensive whisky, rubbish whisky and all manner of whisky. I hope I didn't give the impression I was telling you what to review. If I did it was certainly not my intention.
I think you may have missed the point. Quality is quality and needs to be acknowledged. If price is reflected in the scoring then high quality whisky gets adverse marks as the price rises beyond reach/reasonableness. Perhaps the scores for the quality need to set alongside the purchase price with value for money stated as a separate opinion/score?
Thanks, Guys! Do think this blended whiskey is worth picking up for USD 800?
😁