Monday, May 14, 2012


The Curmudgeon mentioned equivalence in a recent Post when comparing his consumption of whisky versus wine. The equivalence argument is always wheeled out by spirits manufacturers at times of excise increases or anti-alcohol lobbyists attacks on the drinks industry. usually we all ignore them as we believe that they are just bleating whinging bastards looking for ways to further their sales and profits. Well, they are but ....I sometimes can see their point.
I don't drink much in the way of spirits or beer. My alcoholic drink of choice is wine and , when in funds, good wine. The problem is that good wine is expensive. Fortunately those bastard supermarkets deep-cut good wines regularly in a non-sensical effort to gain market share from their only rival (who deep-cuts back so we have a see-saw share situation resulting in status quo); on-line discounters have bin-end sales; and panicking wineries dump a lot of their top-end wines prior to new vintage releases. This is good for wines to drink at home but doesn't help the on-premise drinking.
When we go out to enjoy a tapas or two and a couple of glasses of wine, to get a decent drink costs between $14 and $20 a glass. I think that I will apply the equivalence principle which is if a cognac or whisky is 40% alc/vol which is about three times that of a wine, then I can afford a pour of a top shelf one up to $20 a glass instead of a wine. This way too I can experiment with brands and styles that I haven't tried before.

1 comment:

Richard (of RBB) said...

So, did this post have a point? Even Comeinyourpants does better posts.