/ck/ - Food & Cooking

It's all about tolerance to the shit parts, when your brains get used to that it focuses on the good parts. True for all foods

>It's expensive so it's good
Brainlet take

>>17692448
Cool epiphany that everyone here probably had already around 20 to 30 years ago, OP-kun.

It annoys me that when you're a teenager you inevitably drink shit tier stuff, that turned me off alcohol even up to now

>>17692448
>I don’t like pickles. Only gross grownups like pickles! >:(
Okay Brayden.

>>17692448
>if it didn't get them drunk they would never touch it again
I've never understood this "argument". Yeah, of fucking course people drink because it gets them drunk. They also like the taste. You can't separate the two. I also like the coke drip and the effects of caffeine when enjoying my morning coffee. Stop being retarded.

>>17692448
all liquor tastes like shit. the only alcoholic drink that tastes good is homebrew cider

>>17692685
I dno all it did for me is make me never want to drink £2 bottles of 2 litre battery acid cider ever again. I still like to drink.

For me it is about how eager I am to get a buzz. When I was younger I'd tolerate anything to get drunk because I couldn't afford or access anything better I took what I could get. As I got older and I had access to booze and a budget I would make the best choices available to me, but getting drunk was still so desirable that I'd choose anything if I had to. As I got older still I reached a point where I'd rather stay sober than drink something wretched. Older still and I generally only drink if I'm looking forward to something delicious. I don't see the point in wasting the poor health choices and calories on something shitty that I'm not looking forward to consuming. The buzz is the icing on the cake. Without the buzz I'd not drink either, but like another anon said it is unnecessary and impossible to separate out the two. You'd likely not eat either except for the occasional pleasure of delicious things if it wasn't required to sustain life and didn't induce satiety and with that in mind you choose the best things you can access depending on your circumstances and need.

>>17692448
0.7l bottle of V.S. cognac is like 20ish euros and grocery stores have them, you must have been buying shit alcohol OP.

>>17692972
especially true when you consider that certain methods of fermentation produce flavors that you can't get any other way

>>17692448
Advantages of expensive liquor:
>generally smoother
>generally less of a hangover if you have a few too many
>good for older men who make more money and have stress in their lives since they can go pour a drink and relax and not have it taste like shit (generally speaking)
>rare/cool to bottle collect
Disadvantages of expensive liquor
>expensive
>makes you look like a snob to people who don't understand the difference between a 20 and 80$ bottle of bourbon

Advantages to cheap booze
>cheap
>can drink more
>mix with other stuff like coke
>can buy more quantity

Disadvantages to cheap booze:
>bad hangovers
>look like a low class/partying college kid loser who drinks Busch Lite and Popov Vodka for example
>drink the same shit literal alcoholics do
>not smooth, doesn't taste as good

There are pros and cons to both. Liquor itself just doesn't taste good for the most part until you acquire the taste like me with bourbon, or when I first got into beer all those years ago. But you definitely can tell the difference between cheap and expensive stuff.

The key is finding the best bang for your buck.

All gin tastes amazing.

>>17694159
>>17692448
Okay so what is the mark for "expensive" booze. For example, I can get a bottle of Maker's Mark for around $23. That isn't hangover inducing, it is "smooth," and doesn't taste bad (It doesn't have a complex taste, though, like more expensive whiskey should.)
For all that to be true you must be talking about the truly bottom shelf stuff. I hear that running it through a brita filter helps with the hangovers and smoothness, but I can't really confirm

>>17694728
OP here, I'm talking about triple digit bottles. Try this stuff, it's really good, and as previously stated I don't even like most spirits. Called clase azul

>>17694881
>$100+
>meme bottle
>chemical additives

>>17694897
Yeah I don't care, tastes good. God forbid you have a nice bottle sitting on your altar of sin

>>17692448
>getting used to the taste doesn't mean you like it
...so you only "like" foods you liked as a child? as a baby? where does it end OP

>>17694918
All of my bottles are nice bottles, fag. What you like is artificial flavors, artificial colors, low proof, and spending too much money.
It's okay to admit that.

>>17694944
>artificial flavors, artificial colors
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>17694159
>hangover correlates to expensiveness
do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>17694952
Yes. Tequila and mezcal makers can add up to 1% by volume in flavorants and additives before they have to legally define it as 'licor' or 'crema.' In the industry, this is understood to be common practice in the manufacture of celebrity tie-in and gimmick spirits. Clase Azul is a gimmick spirit.

>>17694987
You're still assuming they do, you don't actually know. But either way, it tastes good.

>>17694993
Here's a video of an annoying YouTube personality running a fairly simple additive test on the bottle you spent $100+ on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Oj0VOslxU
This test can be replicated on any tequila. I recommend Arete, Fortaleza, or Tequila Ocho, all three being brands whose manufacturers have denied the use of additives under penalty of perjury.

>>17695012
I will try them. But what is wrong with additives in the first place? If it makes it taste better I don't really see a problem.

>>17695020
Nothing wrong with additives in concept, I just think companies that use them in secret shouldn't falsely advertise a chemically perfected laboratory spirit as all-natural and just the result of distilling skill.

>>17692448
I've heard that putting cheap liquor through a Brita water filter gets out the impurities and improves the taste.
Has anyone tried this? Results?

>>17694974
When it costs more you drink less. Drink less get less hangover. That's it.

>>17694974
23 years of drinking experience

>>17695947
I think its also finding a spirit your body tolerates well too. A really good rum has less of a hangover effect than a really good whiskey for me.

Granted you can find bottles of decent tasting spirits starting around 20+ bucks a fif. Though of course the higher dollar gives you the smoother taste etc (its not always true for the individual. Again its about finding what tickles your tongue specifically.)

>>17694159
>expensive alcohol makes you drunker than cheap
Are you unironically retarded? Do you think there is some magic alcohol that makes you less drunk because it's more expensive?

I tend to think of it in terms of diminishing returns. A $200 bottle of whiskey is significantly better than a $40 bottle, but a $1000+ bottle isn't going to have the same quality gap.
That being said I can tolerate cheap shit just fine but if I want to just have a glass an enjoy a glass or two I'll reach for the pricier bottles I have.

>>17697268
a $1000 bottle will generally have some gimmick attached to it like it was made in some special wood thing or some bullshit

>>17692448
I wonder how pic rel tastes but prices are too high and most reviews tell me its just overpriced and some like to cope by saying its actually good

>>17692448
Yea but if you're good at mixing it doesn't matter, why drop 100+ for a smooth drink when you can spend 20 and have a smooth drink.

>>17697435
Drinking decent whiskey neat is better than any cocktail IMO.
Doesn’t have to be expensive just decent, like WT101, or Old Forester 100

>>17697413
why the fuck would you drink old barrel water if it doesnt even get you drunk

>>17692448
If you drink alcohol for the "taste", you're either a woman or a really huge pussy. The whole point is to get drunk. This is like their people who claim weed "tastes good", when the point of smoking it is to get high.

>>17694123
>V.S. cognac
which VS cognac

Tequila tastes pleasant to me

define "really expensive" Any Bottle above 50$ is a scam to trick retards.

>>17692448
Ehhh I don’t really agree with that. People say the same shit about coffee but i would still drink it black if it didn’t have caffeine, caffeine is just an added bonus.

>>17697604

>>17697515
You're either a tar battered chimp, or underage. In either case, kill yourself and remove yourself from this board and world, you EBT using monkey.

>>17692448
You're a genius.

>>17692448
Wait, are you saying that top shelf liqour tastes better than bottom shelf liqour? Fuck man, have you gone to the press with this? This needs to get out

>>17697325
Exactly. At a certain point you stop paying for what's in the bottle and start paying for what's on the bottle.

People like strong, distinct flavor is even if they aren’t good. That’s why people like IPAs

>>17695534
Well, a BRITA filter is a relatively simple charcoal block filter, a lot of mid-shelf vodka is charcoal-filtered, and a lot of piss-cheap bottom shelf vodka isn't properly filtered or is fortified with glycol.
This trick does work, but it reduces the filter lifetime by months at a time.

>>17692448
You've never tried 7-star Metaxa I take it.

>>17692448
i dont drink spirits

Okay /ck/, since there is no Whiskey thread up right now, I'll ask here. I need a new bourbon or rye suggestion.
I am a big fan of High West American Prairie Bourbon and Double Rye. Also enjoy Buffalo Trace, Eagle Rare was pretty good for a gift bottle. Rittenhouse Rye was pretty good too. Didn't care for Bullit.
I am not a rich man, but I am open to anything above 50 dollars but below 100.
Any suggestions?

>>17701970
>bourbon or rye
fucking [YAWN] DUDE. try an american single malt for once in your life.

>>17694974
Cheaper booze doesn't refine the distillate as much, which means more fusel alcohols, methanol, and other hangover inducing junk.

Essentially they get greedy and don't cut as much of the heads and tails of their distilling runs where all the bad stuff is.

>>17702013
Then recommend one, fuckface.

>>17697413
>Alcohol-free vodka
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH GET FUUUUUUCKED

>>17702055
>Essentially they get greedy and don't cut as much of the heads and tails of their distilling runs where all the bad stuff is.

>implying cheap distillers use pot stills

70IQ take right there. Cheap distillers use the far more cost-effective Coffey stills which don't produce 'heads or tails'.

>>17702013
>try an american single malt
Assuming their 'single malts' are the same as their beers, why would anyone want a peanut-butter-raspberry-chocolate-caramel-mocha-choc-cinnamon-creme-brulee-apple-turnover whiskey?

>>17692448
>if it didn't get them drunk they would never touch it again in their lives.

No shit, you think I'm buying cheap swill for the taste? Cheap swill is to get drunk on, expensive booze is to savour. Brilliant observation retardo.

>>17697413
The funniest thing about alcohol free shit is it's the same fucking price as the alcohol. It's like selling a car without an engine for the same price as a regular car.

>>17702172
>bro complexity is like gay and shit
why would something made using hops be the same as something using barely?
>their
figures it's a Europoor whining about about the US again

>>17701970
Woodford, Bookers, Colonel Taylor, Basil Hayden Toast, Angels Envy, Four Roses Double Barrelled, Penelope, TX double, Jefferson’s ocean, Knob Creek 9 year, Blantons, Bakers

>>17703401
Thanks bud.
I forgot, I did enjoy Basil Hayden's too. But I'll check these all out. Much appreciated friendo.

>>17692448
20 year old scotch is (generally) much better than 12 year old scotch, but if you didn't like something about the 12, you probably wouldn't like the 21. Bar rail stuff's generally meant for cocktails and masochism anyway.

>>17692448
>if it didn't get them drunk they would never touch it again in their lives.

Wow did you realize that all on your own dumbass lmao

>>17692448
>The only liquor that actually tastes pleasant
amaretto
amiright?
I am.

>>17707263
I can't give you zero points for the answer, but it is a liqueur.

>>17692448
True, I just picked up a bottle of local vodka...one of my faves, but I also love my aged whiskey, and fine cocktails. But each is diff for the occasion. Im sitting alone browsing the web. That will be differnt than if im eating dinner, or out for a oncwe a year party. Then again I am just a bumpkin canadian, my dad/most of the down to earth old timers in my life (no mid life crisis) has all the money in the world and the just drink canadian club and coke. Every summer for as long as ive known him its that or crown and coke if its around but colas fine. and desu I love it just as much as any top dollar shit.

Its like you say, if it didnt have the sex appeal or intoxicating effect, you would feel the same way about 500 dollar scotch or tequila (and up) your just minimising the taste then after awhile you get addicted and appreciate the subtle differences of cocktails. However its in the same boat man. Both the people drinking cheap ass shit saying "its just as good" and those sayin "they dont appreciate the good stuff/cant afford it" are both coping in their own way

>>17707345
To further this, im not an alcy, but both the high rollers and low ballers are in their own way. You can call yourself an aficionado, but its really just an excuse OR if you one of the privileged a unique way to indulge in your addiction. Your not any better than the guy buying a 26 twice a week just cause you spend 200 bucks more....My buddys step dad was a big shot at some natural rescource company. drank every night, the good shit. Hes still a boozer.

>>17707359
To cap it, after reading the thread a bit I understand the debate on TASTE. Booze has a certain quality above sugary drinks. But almost in the same way water is leagues above both in the right time. the right question is, would liqour LOSE its unique qualities if there was NO intoxicating affects? I would say it does, as somone who works with his body, I prefer milk in almost all situations over a cocktail or sugary drink when it comes to pairing wityh a meal. Maybe im just young and havnt fucked with wines enough, cause I guess there is some situations that other older (than me) folks have brought me onto, that I really enjoyed....Certain coctails with certain foods, cigars after...and malt scotch with ice....IDK anyone wanna elaborate

>>17693016
How many dicks have you sucked?

>>17707345
The expensive stuff's a treat for me. I'll share a $200-ish bottle of tequila or $400-ish bottle of scotch with friends once or maybe twice a year, depending on the year and the friends, but the rest of the year is Goslings, Smirnoff and Jack, but mostly the occasional beer. Sobriety or a mild buzz off the cheap stuff just suits me better than getting lubed on liquid gold 99% of the time.
>t. small town Canuck

>>17707377
I drink non-alcoholic beer and wine from time to time when I want a drink but don't want TO drink. I've been toying with the idea of grabbing some non-alcoholic liquor, but I can't quite get a mental projection of the flavour.

>>17692448
I don't believe you. My brother is a heart surgeon and gives me hyper expensive snob booze all the time and it tastes no different from shit+1 stuff that is a step up from bum booze. It's just designer handbag tier consumer cattle trickery

>>17707450
*I love my brother though, he just does it to give his low grade functional alcoholism a veneer of class and that's fine

>>17707450
Aging in oak does smooth out liquor, and will add some different "notes" depending on the age, char, and even the ambient temp and humidity (over the course of years). Some of the pricing is absolutely a cash grab - which we justify by saying "We had to hold onto it for twice as long, so it should cost five times as much!" That seems to be the mentality across the board, but making brandy in this area of the world kind of allows us to price it as we wish.
>I prefer our 6 year XO to our 10, but 12<15<20<25

Some natives make super cheap 100 proof vodka in BC, plastic bottle it, and it's super tasty, I prefer it to most vodkas, a real full mouth sweet flavor that works well mixed with anything.

>>17692653

>>17707747
double dubs

spidey thread confirmed

>>17707754

>>17707754

>>17707759

>>17707761

>>17701931
Based felllow Metaxa drinker

>>17707763

>>17707765

>>17707770

>>17692653
>>17707747
>>17707754
>>17707759
>>17707761
>>17707763
>>17707764
>>17707769
>>17707770

>>17707773
yes

>>17707775

>>17707773
>>17707773
>>17707773

>>17707777
quads

>>17707777
QUADS OF TRUTH

>>17707786

>>17707786

>>17707785
As ordained by God himself.

>>17707786

>>17707791

>>17707798

Belvedere and Grey goose taste pretty average, while still smooth. But vodkas like Mishka that are $70 less a bottle are still as smooth. Cheaper doesn't mean worse, like paying a fistful for shit China shoes that have an expensive brand name doesn't mean they're better than the cheap China ones. Just that you're a consumer whore.

>>17707808

>>17707810

>>17707810

>>17707810

>>17692448
I like the liquor of your moms vagina and thats cheap as hell desu

>>17707830

I've drunk mouthwash before

>>17692448
This only applies to american whiskeys and scotch, which have both been memed so hard that anything decent has been artificially inflated by hipsters. Jameson and bushmills are both dirt cheap and they're not the most popular irish whiskeys for nothing. Buying expensive irish whiskey makes you a victim, not a connoisseur. Same with rum, gin, vodka, etc.

>>17694159
Look everyone, a walking talking stereotype

>>17707969
I literally said generally speaking. Obviously you can find strawmen arguments all day.

$30-$100 is pretty good. I have never had good experiences with anything cheaper than $25 or so

>>17692662
>>It's expensive so it's good
He never said this you fucking cock. He said high priced spirits ARE good, not that high prices MAKE spirits good.

>>17692448
I don't think any alcohol tastes good. There is a huge market in the alcoholic beverage industry that have been trying to make bitch beers and other alcoholic drinks taste good for decades and they always fail. I think the best you're ever gonna get is "drinkable but still clearly ingesting poison" and in my book that will never be synonymous with "tastes good".

>Cabinet is full of $80-120 single malt, cask strength paint thinners that get drank maybe twice before becoming overpriced dining room decorations
>They are all considerably less pleasant to drink than a $22 bottle of Wild Turkey 101 Kentucky Rye
Alcoholism truly is a rich man's hobby

>>17692448
Rate my haul 1/5

>>17709739
2/5

>>17709749
3/5

>>17709756
4/5

>>17709763
5/5

>>17701970
One called Daddy Rack just appeared in the UK. Something of a cut above the other stuff in the supermarket.

More expensive IS better often, but $60 bourbon isn't twice as good as $30 bourbon, so diminishing returns kick in

>>17709749
>>17709756
>>17709763
>>17709768
wow, what a load of trash

>>17710167
>bookers
>KC 9
>Colonel Taylor
>Kentucky Owl
>Jefferson’s
>Penelope

….
>trash

>>17710781
drink em all rn ya cunt

>>17709739
Tater/10

>>17710781
tater or foid either way ur a bona fide faggot

>>17711557
>>17711044
I just only drink bourbon on the rocks and beer also nice pic on &44 those are some nice bottles

>>17711591
That doesn’t change anything

>>17711600
Believe it or not, some guy on 4chans opinion isn’t valuable to me. But glad to see all that bourbon didn’t make you a pretentious asshole who talks down to others on the internet. Have a nice day and be nice to others please

>>17711710
>comes and asks for a rating on his hoarding
>he doesn’t like what they have to say and pretends he never cared

>>17692448
We already had this stupid fucking thread yesterday. Exact same OP image and everything.

>>17709739
>>17709749
>>17709756
>>17709763
>>17709768
Did you literally just buy 1 of everything from the bourbon section of your liquer store?

>>17711728 calling people taters is the gayest shit bourbon drinkers do.

>>17711739
No, I only bought the Costco brand the first and only time I’ve seen it at Costco. EH Taylor and Eagle Rare when I was at the BT Dis in Kentucky, I bought the Owl, Jeffersons, and KB9 at a liquor store 2.5 hours away. I bought 6 bottles of Bookers because it’s my favorite and I loaded up during the pandemic and all the others were bought for me or afterthoughts I think. Usually people ask me what I want and I say something I’ve never had before.

>>17711745
Being a tater is the gayest thing that bourbon drinkers do.

>>17707450
What are examples of “snob booze”?

Wow this whiskey general fucking sucks

>>17692448
You can blend the shit spirits with other stuff to make it taste better. Punch and all that jazz.

But I do agree, the mid-tier and high-tier expensive stuff tastes better for spirits. Especially whiskey, you have to buy the real expensive shit for that to taste good. Rum at least you can shell out a twenty or two and get some good stuff above the low tier shit.

>>17712207
they been kinda lacking since this time last year.

>>17692448
I've never had any alcohol that I would have drunk just for the taste. My friend buys really expensive whisky and every one that I have tasted were just meh to me. I just drink to get wasted.

>>17712344
Rum gets exceptionally better too, not always that expensive better either

>>17709524
>He said high priced spirits ARE good
Generally speaking, they are not significantly better than cheap spirits. Retard

>>17712856
No it doesnt. In fact, good rum tends to be phenomenally cheap and expensive rum tends to be swill in a fancy bottle

>>17712835
B A S T E

>>17714212
>Generally speaking, they are not significantly better than cheap spirits.
Okay good, that's an opinion/argument you're allowed to have. You we're initially strawmanning the OP.
Again, he never said that "spirits are expensive so they're good," he said "expensive spirits are better" and I would wager that he means to say "expensive spirits are GENERALLY better"
Whether they actually are better or not isn't my place to say. I don't drink much alcohol, so I don't have a horse in this race.

>>17714257
I'm not that guy. Op said only expensive liquor is good, its right there if you wanna read it. The implication being that price generally correlates with quality, which is wrong even on some kind of quantifiable level where you examine the distilling process between different price ranges. There are some severely dirt cheap whiskeys which this does apply to, and I mean cheaper than cheap. But I severely doubt op is thinking of some no-name corn whiskey in a plastic jug.