Yes, I guess it boils down to how much of a couch potato any particular muse was.
The above explains much of the difference in price between alcoholic drinks and non-alcoholic drinks, and 7 year-old whiskey vs. 20 year-old. It doesn’t explain why one bottle of 7 year-old whiskey costs twice as much as the one next to it on the shelf.
Likely:
- Differences in aging costs (location, type of barrel used, etc.)
- Transportation costs (i.e., is it coming from Scotland, or produced locally)
- Branding (i.e., premium brand, mid-tier, bottom-shelf brand)
Italics/bolding mine. Also why Coke costs more than store-brand cola.
Let us not forget:
Blending/Proof
Sourcing
Trendiness
Just marketing BS and brand positioning. The cost of something has virtually no relationship to the actual price that’s charged for it.
Look at Weller bourbon. Used to be a bargain brand as recently as a decade ago, but is now sold for ridiculous prices because of buyer perception and brand positioning. It’s not really anything special or any kind of dark horse/sleeper either, IMO.
Simple supply and demand suffices to explain why, e.g., a grand vin would cost more than something mass-produced. In a really extreme case, like the 1992 Château d’Yquem, no amount of money will help you since none at all was produced.
It’s seldom completely straightforward to compute the true “cost” of something from first principles. If somebody sells a bottle of something for $50, how do you know the real fair price? He is not selling it for $20 so you have to pay $50.
If you want to test if there is a group of people who can truly taste the difference between things like Coke and Pepsi, I’d limit test subjects to those who will only drink one and never the other.
I’m in that group and can absolutely and consistently tell whether I’m drinking regular Coke or not. I can’t discern between types of diet cola, such as Coke Zero and Diet Coke (because I don’t like either enough to get used to them), but will happily let a waiter know when they’ve brought me what is not a regular Coke. I’ve also been to establishments who just bring a Pepsi when I’ve asked for a Coke, instead of mentioning that they are a Pepsi shop, and I can always tell the difference. Without exception.
Oddly enough I know the owner and we were in kindergarten together! Met up with him and a few others a few years ago when he was back in town.
Old Weller Antique 107 used to be my “sleeper” bourbon. You could get a bottle retail around here for under $20, and it’s the same base stock that goes into Pappy. So 90% of Pappy for 10% of the cost.
Those days, however, are long gone. Weller figured out that once people knew that fact, they could sell Weller for 5X the price.
(As a side note to people who like that sort of stuff, Stitzel-Weller has a line of “orphan barrel” whiskies that are…interesting.)
No, but that wasn’t the question in the OP.
It seems simplistic to just claim branding (yes, it’s part of it but not all of it). Whiskey, for one, is a spirit that can have very different flavors. So, for example, one 7 year bourbon may be far smoother than another - one can go down quite nice while sipping neat while another makes your throat burn like it’s on fire going down.
Please note that my post, of which Folacin quoted part of, listed “branding” as one of three reasons, off the top of my head. In other words, I agree with you.
I wasn’t blaming you, because I saw you had 3 reasons. I think the additions that @silenus noted should be added as well (though Trendiness and Branding are somewhat related IMO).
I’d say Branding lets you know the general flavor profile* while Trendiness tells you how much you are about to get jacked for something that today costs twice what it did last year.**
*- For example, if the label says Wild Turkey on it you know the mash bill is going to be rye-forward.
**- One of the reasons^ I switched from cognac to armagnac as an “afters” sipper when dining out. Rappers, clubbers and LA trust fund douchebags have driven the cost of a decent cognac through the roof. Not to mention that now waiters have to ask you how you’d like it served, because the aforementioned assholes commit atrocities like serving it on the rocks! Or with soda!!
^- The other reason is that armagnac is just better all around. Flying under the radar means you can still afford it even at restaurant mark-up.
All sorts of distilleries do that sort of thing, actually. Lots of their whiskey products are exactly the same going into the barrels- in fact, when they barrel them, they have no idea what any given barrel will end up being- it’s all dependent on what they’re making, where and how long the barrel was aged, and so on.
So your regular old Evan Williams is the same exact thing as Elijah Craig 21, but aged less in effect. Same thing with Weller & Pappy, OGD and Basil Hayden’s, Knob Creek, Old Crow, Bookers, Baker’s and Jim Beam (white and black).
It’s all in the marketing; we’ve all seen the vodka tasting results where Smirnoff holds its own vs. Grey Goose and Absolut, but people are willing to pay more for the latter two because of image considerations.
Price and cost are nearly totally unrelated. In fact, the “holy grail” would be to have something that’s very cheap sold for a lot of $$$.
Like bottled water.
What the people at Beam can do with blending, aging, etc. is amazing. For that matter consider all the “boutique” brands out there that are nothing but MGP distillate aged and blended by the buyers and bottled under their own name.
Yep, and I’d be willing to bet that any price differences in water that’s not some kind of frou-frou European mineral water are solely due to branding and marketing.
I mean, Ozarka shouldn’t cost more than Wal-Mart, Nestle, Poland Spring, etc… but it does.
None of it should exist, it comes out of taps in our homes.
It stretches the definition of “drink”, but there are some really expensive vinegars.