I’ve found that a good rule of thumb is everything in moderation, especially when it comes to vices. That’s why when you give in to vice, you might as well go all out. This helps for two reasons… the first is that you are more likely to enjoy yourself… the second is that you most likely can’t afford to do it a lot, thus avoiding the pitfall of “too much” vice.

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve enjoyed a handful of cigars - notably the Arturo Fuente Hemingway Signature and the CAO Mx2 (double Maduro). I enjoyed both - the Hemingway burned a little hot at the end, but I was drawing a bit too aggressively. I also think a Maduro Hemingway would be a good catch.

As for scotch… this is where the real fun began. The list consisted of a number of unique and fun malts:
Balvenie Vintage 1972
Duncan Taylor Bowmore 40
Black Adder Blaire Athol
Black Adder Highland Park
Glenfarclas 25
Balvenie 17 Rum Cask
Glenfiddich 21 Gran Reserva
Scotts Selection Royal Brackla
and for good measure, some quality aged tequila.

There were a couple other single malts in there - but the standouts were the Balvenies and the Glenfarclas. I may have to create a dedicated tasting notes section for this site, but I have posted some thoughts over at the whiskymag forum.

Edmunds has released this analysis explaining their approach on determining the cost of Cash for Clunkers.

Their approach differed from mine, but provides insight into one of the assumptions. I had assumed that 50% of the assumed gross margin derived from the Cash for Clunkers units were “marginal.” Edmunds’ PhD’s have corrected that, stating that they believe 125,000 units were marginal, which is only 18% of the 690,114 units traded in. This is a big variance that hurts the marginal return to taxpayers on their investment in the auto manufacturers.

Their approach takes the nearly $3 billion in claims filed and divides it by the 125,000 marginal units. The implied statement is that the other 565,114 units were unnecessarily subsidized by the government. Those costs, therefore, become attributable to the necessarily subsidized units, or the 125,000.

While the targeted endpoint isn’t different from my analysis, by discussing this research I realized I left out a consideration, and that is government overhead. This is something that Edmunds shares with me - neither of us considered the cost of administration. This is a material omission, as the claims were not processed and paid at no expense.

In short, by assuming only 18% of the sales were marginal, and by considering marginal costs of administration, the -34% return for taxpayers that I originally calculated is significantly understated, with the real return being much, much worse.

Thanks to Tom, I now am the proud owner of a 2008 Gary Fisher Superfly.

Building will commence this winter. The question will be how to ensure clyde-durability in a light weight racing hardtail.