Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

klystron1837 t1_j1vo9g8 wrote

Reply to comment by NoMalarkyZone in $44,999 50 year Balvenie Scotch whisky by Android9765

I'm not sure how my comment is trolling? I will tell you this, anyone who uses 'LOL' or 'LMAO' or any other lazy ass short-cuts to make a point or tell me when to laugh, I immediately disregard.

−2

Nde_japu t1_j1wio1b wrote

It shows you have zero understanding of alcohol consumption. A $150 bottle of scotch, whiskey, tequila or bourbon is leaps and bounds better than a slim jim and everclear. Much of it involves the aging process, which is why 20 year old scotch costs more than than a 12 year scotch, which costs more than no aged everclear

0

klystron1837 t1_j1ygsju wrote

No, it doesn't. Aged anything is an upsell tactic that marketers use to bait the ignorant public in to thinking they're better than the hobo with a bottle of Two Buck Chuck (that won best wine in 2007 in a blind tasting). It's like comedy snobs that tell you Andy Kauffman was a comedy genius when all he ever did was yank people's chains.

1

Nde_japu t1_j1zzr0j wrote

So you're saying there's little to no difference from a well drink vs a 20 year aged scotch? Just marketing? There's nothing snobbish about that, it's just common sense that a $20 bottle isn't going to be as good as a $150 bottle.

I agree with your sentiment that it becomes mostly a status thing to pay for a $1000 bottle or 10,000 bottle. After you get much over $100-200 there is a law of diminishing returns.

1