Well, thank goodness it wasn’t 27,000.
That would be way too much!
I’ll wait for the * price tag… And a winning lottery ticket.
But seriously, a Scotch barreled in 1948? I didn’t know they aged anything that long.
Remy Martin’s Louis XIII is a blend of cognacs all aged between 40 and 100 years.
I’ve been lucky enough to try some, truly a flavour worth experiencing at least once if you can and like cognac. I still babble about it happily to strangers all the time…
Strictly speaking it’s “only” aged 51 years, these were released in 1999
What currency is that?
My guess is that it’s at a Costco in Kirkland (based on the Kirkland Signature Bakery in the background), so I’d say the currency is USD.
Kirkland Signature is Costco’s store brand.
None of the Anglosphere currencies would make this anything other than the price of a car anyway. This is absolutely just a collector’s item for those with more money than sense, never expected to be actually drunk
There’s a bar in Chicago, Lady Gregory’s, that has a whiskey bible. They will sell you 40yo Scottish single-malt whiskey–they have multiple choices, including from distilleries that have been out of business longer than I’ve been alive–by the dram, at up to about $250 per dram (as of the last time I was there, in 2016). Assuming that they’re using the American standard dram measurement of 4ml/dram, that works out to up to $46,000 for an entire bottle.
I assume you’ve tripped up on your measurements somewhere, because 4 ml would be a very sad dram. A spirit measure in the UK is 25 ml, so you get 28 of those out of a 700 ml bottle for $7,000 at that bar.
Edit: upon looking it up, apparently a dram actually is 4 ml in America? In Scotland that’s just the word for a glass of whisky, assumed to be an approximate “one drink” rather than an actual specification of volume. If you offered someone a dram and poured them 4 ml here, they’d think you were the stingiest person since Ebenezer Scrooge
However bars mark drinks up like mad, and they will absolutely do so on extremely premium drinks because the only people buying those are people who do not care how much it costs. If you take $3 for a shot of a basic vodka, that’s $84 for the bottle, and there’s absolutely no way you’d pay $84 for that same bottle in a supermarket.
You definitely could spend seven grand on a 40 year old bottle of whisky if you went looking for one. This specific bottle is 51 years, but it’s commanding this price because it’s a very rare special edition from a big and popular distillery
The Kirkland branding is everywhere. I see it at the Australian stores.
Ok thanks for the clarification, I was quickly trying to find info about that online, but all I found was pointing to Seattle.
I doubt this is in the US. The key indicator for me is the Napa valley wine beside it. Unless Costco does things very differently, imported bottles are always grouped into the same aisle. Given that I’d guess its outside the US.
There’s also a Kirkland near Montreal, so it could be Canada. But as it’s already been mentioned, it has nothing to do with location in this case.
I don’t think it can be Canada because the liquor part is separate from the main store.
Google Maps only showed results in Seattle for “Kirkland Signature Bakery” 🤷♂️
The I’ve run out of diversity in my portfolio one
Well for 750 mega liters that seems like a reasonable price. About 28 m³ per unit of money! Buy buy buy!
For context 28 CBM is about the volume of a 20’ container.
Or a stacked pallet is about 1.8 CBM so about 15 standard height pallets.
Proof that Americans will use literally anything but metric:
And there’s starving homeless in this world but 30k for a bottle ? Fuuuuuuuuuuu
They should start selling $30k bottles of booze.
I know everyone’s general focus is on the cost of the thing and how ridiculous it seems, completely ignoring that it’s a Scotch that was aged longer than the overwhelming majority of us—me included—have been alive, and that there are some people for whom that taste is very much worth it.
Me, I’ve wrangled with exactly how you’re meant to pay for the thing and walk out the door with it. Am I bringing $27K—plus tax—worth of cash—three straps of hundos?—to Costco and having the cashier count it? Do I get pulled into the manager’s office instead? Or, do I put this on my Costco Citi Visa? Will they decline it, even if I have the credit limit? Can I sub in another Visa, since that’s all they take? Do I get walked out the door, or do I get a receipt for the checker to sharpie a line through?
If you have to ask you can’t afford it.
People buying 30k bottles of wine are generally the kinds of people that don’t have a “credit limit” like we’re used to. They probably also have people that go get that wine for them, and likely pay by credit card or check.
Oh, I acknowledge that.
However, there are two things I get hung up on. One, can’t pay by check—Costco doesn’t accept checks. And, two, the traditional no-limits cards are generally Amex, which they don’t accept—only Visa.
So, yes, while nothing else you said was wrong per se, I’m still left to ponder just how the transaction would go down.
I assume they accept debit cards right?
You know, I don’t actually know. Have been conditioned to avoid using them that I don’t even think about them.
They also seem unlikely to shop at Costco
The very wealthy do shop at warehouse clubs, Walmart, etc. You won’t see them being walking advertisements for clothing lines, either. They do buy quality clothing, but they aren’t overtly branded, unless they’re casual, work or sports clothing. They may drive nice cars, many will own a regular 90s model Pontiac or something. They also don’t plan their money for years, rather in centuries. There’s a difference in behavior and attitude between old money and nuveau riche, as well.
They like to push this narrative but based on the global yacht and luxury real estate I am not buying it.
Sure there are some high netwoth individuals who live like this esp under 100m type. But people over that live lavishly and they don’t hide it really.
And they all seem to go to diddy and Epstein parties on top of it …
I think there are kind of two different groups that get conflated, actually: the wealthy, and the “professionally wealthy.” The wealthy are often discrete and not showy, but the “professional wealthy” are those whose wealth or fame itself is central to their empire, even if not as directly as the influencer wealthy. But these are the Kardashians and the socialites and tech bros, all of those who serve as sort of aspirational versions of wealth. There is no shortage of them, no doubt, and I’m sure even the quietly wealthy have a lavish indulgence or two (a yacht being very likely), but based on my experience I really think there are sort two clear and distinct communities of wealth.
Regime whores are deff more flashy but it ain’t like “titans of the industry” don’t party with them.
I guess there is definitely a differences there tho since celebs went to p diddy’s party’s while the owner political class went to Epstein parties. So there is clearly two camps.
Yeah to be clear, if it sounded like anything I said was meant as absolution, it was not. Regardless of which camp they fall into or how they display their wealth, it is impossible, to the best of my reasoned understanding, to acquire mass wealth ethically. I assume all of the ultra-wealthy are morally compromised in some capacity or another until proven otherwise.
The very wealthy are also petulant little pigs who clad themselves in designer clothing, diamonds, and gold. Who literally clutch pearls and hiss at minorities. Who support genocides and drive drunk on public roads after their racist little evening gatherings.
Let’s stop pretending these ghouls are valid human beings. Entire Royal families have been terminated for having less relative wealth to the workers than todays ruling class.
They are human beings, these are human behaviors, and it’s not “no true human would…” Of course they would, and easily, too. My only point was to highlight differences in our concepts of wealth, and theirs.
Entire Royal families have been terminated for having less relative wealth to the workers than todays ruling class.
Indeed.
People that shop at Costco skew far wealthier than the average American. Given that only a few Costcos, in very wealthy areas, are going to have even a single bottle of $28,000 whiskey, it’s entirely reasonable to expect that they’re going to be able to sell it.
Sure, but in those stats we’re talking households making $100-$150K a year, who are not going to drop $27K on a bottle of whiskey lol
There’s a subset of drinkers that would aspire to it though - some ppl’s passion is booze, and will spend the same price as a nice car on it and sip it over a decade. Whether or not it’s sane is up to you though lol
I’ve known some disgusting rich people (born and raised in the wealthiest county in the entire country) - for some reason they love Costco. They don’t even do their own shopping but they insist on Costco. Unless they’re aggressively right-wing.
Maybe they have financing plans.
Doesn’t mean it’s worth 30k. There are whiskies just as old and better that aren’t sold at that price.
This item is not sold 30k because its old, or even rare. It’s sold at that price because there’s always a rich sucker who wants something expensive.
there are some people for whom that taste is very much worth it.
That’s just not true, though.
- Things rich people buy are often about scarcity/vanity, not how good they are
- Diminishing returns for increasing quality
- You can overpay for anything and people/companies are ready to profit off that
Supposed expert “connoisseurs” haven’t been able to tell famous high-priced wines apart in controlled taste tests.
there are some people for whom that taste is very much worth it.
You are correct, but to be clear, it’s not so much that tasting this scotch is a life changing experience; it’s more that to these people, 27k is just chump change.
Also, stuff like this is often purchased not to drink, but as an investment.
What a deal! I’ll probably never taste it.
27 Grand and the bottle just sits on the shelf?
- Pick up at register
Ah, thanks. Wasn’t wearing my glasses. :)
