The Bar Towel

Beer'n'gin wrote:I refuse to pay $100 for a 10 year old Ardbeg that costs half that stateside.

The exact reason I don't buy this. A friend brought me a bottle from England that came with samples of Corryvreckan and Uigeadail, the latter was my favourite of the three.

I bought the QC once, I enjoyed it, but not enough to purchase again.

I do think I'm going to pass on this for now as I just bought a bottle of Eagle Rare and I do have some whiskey to go through before I buy any more.

In terms of the Glen Dronach, though - I was down at Summerhill today and they were had the port cask 15 yo at the tasting counter and I gotta say, I think I like the 12 a lot better. I thought a port aged scotch would be smooth and sweet, but I found it rather brash rough - although I didn't let it settle and a little water might have gone a long way with that.

I'm way more into whisky than I am into beer (78 bottles in my collection; 35 open), and the Laphroaig QC at $60 is a great value in Ontario. There aren't many bourbons or single malts readily available at a lower price in Ontario that I'd rather drink (maybe Four Roses Single Barrel? Rittenhouse Rye is great but even at $10 less it's not a better buy than the QC).

I'm a huge Ardbeg fan, so take this with a grain of salt but I don't get the Ardbeg 10 comments here; it's as good or better than any other scotch priced below $100 in Ontario (I'd put the Aberlour A'bunadh even with it, although it has a very different sherry profile). While the Oogie is my favourite pour and it's expensive in Ontario, I still make a point of having at least one open and one closed in my bunker, even at $170 from the LCBO when I can get it for $90 in New York.

While looking stateside to find values is always helpful, I think the right attitude to take with whisky in Ontario is on a relative LCBO basis, unless you travel frequently.

Edit: Currently drinking side-by-side drams of Lagavulin 12 y/o and Laphroaig Cairdeas Origins. Both cask strength, purchased from the LCBO for less than $100, and huge islay peat bombs. Really tough to pick a favourite; I think the Laphroaig takes it on the nose (probably because the peat is more aggressive at a younger age) but the Laga is better on the palate with more bandages and rubber, and less tropical fruits than the Laphroaig.

Automatic wrote:Currently drinking side-by-side drams of Lagavulin 12 y/o and Laphroaig Cairdeas Origins.

I've been wanting to get the Lagavulin 12 y/o but noticed it's not at the LCBO anymore.

Kish84 wrote:

Automatic wrote:Currently drinking side-by-side drams of Lagavulin 12 y/o and Laphroaig Cairdeas Origins.

I've been wanting to get the Lagavulin 12 y/o but noticed it's not at the LCBO anymore.

Yeah it shows up once a year but there hasn't been a huge allocation to Ontario in recent years. When it's in stock grab a bottle. It's really nice to taste Lagavulin at a reasonable strength. I think the 16 is woefully underpowered at 43%. Also, the 12 doesn't have any sherry casks in the mix.

Automatic wrote:I'm way more into whisky than I am into beer (78 bottles in my collection; 35 open), and the Laphroaig QC at $60 is a great value in Ontario. There aren't many bourbons or single malts readily available at a lower price in Ontario that I'd rather drink (maybe Four Roses Single Barrel? Rittenhouse Rye is great but even at $10 less it's not a better buy than the QC).

I'm a huge Ardbeg fan, so take this with a grain of salt but I don't get the Ardbeg 10 comments here; it's as good or better than any other scotch priced below $100 in Ontario (I'd put the Aberlour A'bunadh even with it, although it has a very different sherry profile). While the Oogie is my favourite pour and it's expensive in Ontario, I still make a point of having at least one open and one closed in my bunker, even at $170 from the LCBO when I can get it for $90 in New York.

While looking stateside to find values is always helpful, I think the right attitude to take with whisky in Ontario is on a relative LCBO basis, unless you travel frequently..

Even if it is a favourite whisky of mine I'm not so ignorant as to plonk down $100 because LCBO pricing is completely out-of-whack. How does the limited, near scarce CS Bowmore Laimrig and even Tempest get priced below $100 at LCBO and the ever ubiquitous Ardbeg 10 gets priced the same. Whatever the market will bear, I guess. Yes, A'bunadh is priced too high, and batches vary but save for 'Farclas 105 try finding another sherried CS for that price in NW NY. I really like Rittenhouse too but when the price spiked on that I decided that it's no longer a repeat buy. And it's all relative because, well, they're the only game in town and they know that while many Ontario residents live near the border, most aren't whisky tourists.

Beer'n'gin wrote:Even if it is a favourite whisky of mine I'm not so ignorant as to plonk down $100 because LCBO pricing is completely out-of-whack. How does the limited, near scarce CS Bowmore Laimrig and even Tempest get priced below $100 at LCBO and the ever ubiquitous Ardbeg 10 gets priced the same (?)...

I think it has to do with their following the path of least resistance. The better-known, higher-volume product will sell for whatever ignorant price they put on it (as you say 'what the market will bear'.) These make all the money. The lesser-known/scarce ones they just want to sell quickly, and they care less about the margin of those than just getting them out of the system, hence the attractive pricing. Those two strategies combined come out with higher overall profit for less effort. It's not oriented to retail or service at all but to the retailer and yield.

(^ A frustrating truism concerning a lot of LC product and pricing issues, I am inclined to believe.)

Belgian wrote:

Beer'n'gin wrote:Even if it is a favourite whisky of mine I'm not so ignorant as to plonk down $100 because LCBO pricing is completely out-of-whack. How does the limited, near scarce CS Bowmore Laimrig and even Tempest get priced below $100 at LCBO and the ever ubiquitous Ardbeg 10 gets priced the same (?)...

I think it has to do with their following the path of least resistance. The better-known, higher-volume product will sell for whatever ignorant price they put on it (as you say 'what the market will bear'.) These make all the money. The lesser-known/scarce ones they just want to sell quickly, and they care less about the margin of those than just getting them out of the system, hence the attractive pricing. Those two strategies combined come out with higher overall profit for less effort. It's not oriented to retail or service at all but to the retailer and yield.

(^ A frustrating truism concerning a lot of LC product and pricing issues, I am inclined to believe.)

Keep in mind though, the LCBO charges a standard markup on this stuff. So if anyone is manipulating the prices like that it's the suppliers, not the LCBO.

Craig wrote:
Keep in mind though, the LCBO charges a standard markup on this stuff. So if anyone is manipulating the prices like that it's the suppliers, not the LCBO.

The Auditor General, Toronto Star columnist Martin Regg Cohn and dozens other critics might see it differently. From the TO Star:
Here’s how the bizarre policy works: The LCBO sets a price range for a particular class of wine. Suppliers bid with a proposed retail price, then work backwards from the LCBO’s fixed markup to arrive at a pre-determined wholesale price.
Absurdly, if a supplier’s suggested retail price (and therefore his wholesale price) is deemed too low, the LCBO goes back to the supplier and offers to pay a higher wholesale price so as to bump up the final selling price.

Beer'n'gin wrote:

Craig wrote:
Keep in mind though, the LCBO charges a standard markup on this stuff. So if anyone is manipulating the prices like that it's the suppliers, not the LCBO.

The Auditor General, Toronto Star columnist Martin Regg Cohn and dozens other critics might see it differently. From the TO Star:
Here’s how the bizarre policy works: The LCBO sets a price range for a particular class of wine. Suppliers bid with a proposed retail price, then work backwards from the LCBO’s fixed markup to arrive at a pre-determined wholesale price.
Absurdly, if a supplier’s suggested retail price (and therefore his wholesale price) is deemed too low, the LCBO goes back to the supplier and offers to pay a higher wholesale price so as to bump up the final selling price.

They stopped doing that in 2012, probably because of the auditor general's report.

This thread has inspired me to jump back into my whisky collection, which I've been ignoring lately in favour of whiskey (bourbon and rye). Speaking of peat and iodine, I'm enjoying a Dun Bheagan 2000 right now. (It is not chill filtered but silent as to added colour). I find this quite powerful with all the usual Islay flavours, but I wonder if you guys with more experience would like to comment on how it compares to the QC and others you've been discussing. FYI, Dun Bheagan 2005 is on the LCBO web site for $51.90. Strikes me as good value but would enjoy comments.

Beer'n'gin wrote:The LCBO sets a price range for a particular class of wine.

LOL I wonder what does that even mean - inventing 'classes' of wine each with contrived, manipulated price ranges. Yes, they better not have any Châteauneuf-du-Pape wines under 35-40 bucks, they need to invent a phony price class system, to prevent a better & cheaper product making a bunch of others look like a calculated rip off. It's not enough there's no retail competition - the products themselves must not push down prices or raise buyers' standards for quality and value.

Sounds hideously manipulative.

Belgian wrote:

Beer'n'gin wrote:The LCBO sets a price range for a particular class of wine.

LOL I wonder what does that even mean - inventing 'classes' of wine each with contrived, manipulated price ranges. Yes, they better not have any Châteauneuf-du-Pape wines under 35-40 bucks, they need to invent a phony price class system, to prevent a better & cheaper product making a bunch of others look like a calculated rip off. It's not enough there's no retail competition - the products themselves must not push down prices or raise buyers' standards for quality and value.

Sounds hideously manipulative.

It was and it was incredibly stupid to boot. They were price fixing to have products in every tier of prices, but continued to charge their set markup. They were quite literally having suppliers come in with a quote, then if they thought it was too low they just told the supplier to mark their product up, rather than doing it themselves. They were price fixing but not keeping the profits.

Craig wrote:It was and it was incredibly stupid to boot. They were price fixing to have products in every tier of prices, but continued to charge their set markup. They were quite literally having suppliers come in with a quote, then if they thought it was too low they just told the supplier to mark their product up, rather than doing it themselves. They were price fixing but not keeping the profits.

So they were/are in effect preventing value and quality from influencing the Ontario market - therefore, not acting from a Social Responsibility mandate but operating from iron-fisted monopoly profit tactics that don't serve the Ontario consumer at all (and in fact undermine our most reasonable basic interests.) Wow!

Belgian wrote:

Craig wrote:It was and it was incredibly stupid to boot. They were price fixing to have products in every tier of prices, but continued to charge their set markup. They were quite literally having suppliers come in with a quote, then if they thought it was too low they just told the supplier to mark their product up, rather than doing it themselves. They were price fixing but not keeping the profits.

So they were/are in effect preventing value and quality from influencing the Ontario market - therefore, not acting from a Social Responsibility mandate but operating from iron-fisted monopoly profit tactics that don't serve the Ontario consumer at all (and in fact undermine our most reasonable basic interests.) Wow!

Yeah, except they didn't manage the profit part of the profit tactics. They passed the profits on to the suppliers.