Miscellaneous desk
< January 8	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 9

40% ABV

I've been curious about this for a while, but haven't been able to find any info on it. I'm wondering why 40 percent alcohol by volume (80 proof here in the U.S.) seems to be the standard for hard liquors. I know not all the hard stuff is 40 ABV, but it seems most is. Hot Stop 05:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the US in particular, but the UK's Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009 state the minimum is 40% ABV. I'm having difficulty finding anything else definitive, but I was certainly under the impression that most hard liquors were also limited to a maximum of 40% ABV for sale in supermarkets and other non-specialist stores in Europe. Indeed, I read somewhere that some liquors are distilled stronger and then weakened (watered down?) to 40% to comply with regulations. Of course, there is a healthy trade in "export strength" (no article?) liquors at airports - I have a few bottles of 47% liquor bought at various airports. Astronaut (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misremembered about the watering-down: Tesco sells some single malt whiskies that are 46% ABV - e.g. this one. There are concerns about supermarkets and other outlets selling high-alcohol drinks, but I don't think anyone who basically wants to get drunk is going to pay £40 for a bottle of single malt. This would be more their style. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also may have misremembered the term - we do have an article on Cask strength. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a case where it's the standard because it's the standard. People are comfortable with 80-proof liquor because they've developed an intuition about how much a given quantity will affect them. Anyway it's far from universal -- you get the whole gamut from liqueurs like Kahlua (20% alcohol) to 151 rum (75% alcohol), or even Everclear at 95% alcohol. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Astronaut got very close to saying. The 40/80 proof in both countries is the taxation point.[1]. So, it has become the retail standard. Absinthe probable got banned because it was so strong that people got very drunk before they knew it ( the turpenoid issue is a non starter).--Aspro (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is 80 proof a taxation point? The link you provided gives US tax rates for all distilled spirits at $13.50 per proof gallon, stating "A proof gallon is a gallon of liquid that is 100 proof, or 50% alcohol. The tax is adjusted, depending on the percentage of alcohol of the product." The example they give is $2.14 for a 750 ml bottle at 80 proof. $2.14 = 750 ml * 80 proof * $13.50 / (100 proof * 1 US Gal). The tax rate appears to be linear with the proof. -- ToE 12:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whilst the tax is adjustable, the consumer wants to be able to compare prices. The 40/80 proof in both countries gives the distillers an easy common datum to aid the customers choice. It also makes production and accountancy easier when keeping to this tax point standard. Also, at a 100 proof (US), or 50% alcohol, more tax is paid per bottle. This reduces the distiller's profit per bottle. For the government this is a win-win situation. This is why, that although spirit come out of the still at well above 40/80 proof it gets diluted down. Next time you go on holiday, visit some of the 'independent' distillers in Scotland – they will tell you all about excise duties and the tax-man. P.S. Don't forget to sample the Haggis. Even out of their hunting season, the Scott's will all ways have some hidden away in the freezer. It goes down grand with a dram or two of single malt.--Aspro (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"c/o" in snail-mail.

If I send a letter to "Person A c/o Person B at Location C", who is the letter delivered to and who is the final recipient? I always thought that "c/o" stood for "care of" meaning that the letter would be placed into the care of Person B at Location C, who would be responsible for handing it to Person A at some place of mutual convenience. But when I changed jobs recently, my new health care provider sent me new insurance cards to "My boss c/o Me at his business address"....which seems backwards. They clearly intended for my boss to take delivery of them at our business address and to pass them on to me here at our office (which is at a different location).

Is this some peculiar US usage that differs from the UK usage that I grew up with? Did they just get it wrong? Have I misunderstood the intended meaning for all of these years?

SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of c/o is correct, and yes they did get it wrong. --Viennese Waltz 13:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also p.p, where no one is quite sure whether this is supposed to be from X, on behalf of Y, or from X, through the agency of Y. Rojomoke (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I trained as a secretary, I was taught that the only people who should use p.p. are the firm who administers the affairs of companies going bust! Obviously nobody uses it in that context. I note our article is based on a century-old article, and I wonder if things have changed since then. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t train as a secretary but if I received a correspondence signed pp I took as a insult. I would not have let anything go out that had been written by some one else, that I had not read and not signed personally. Reading TammyMoet comment has made me wonder and think. Yes, I think, pp in some cases is useful. I've done it myself sometimes but I always ensured that the client/customer/correspondent knows why (and they often need that little piece of paper to file in order to carry on). Thinking back, TammyMoetis right. If you find your dealing with a company where pp seems the rule, either this sort it out yourself, or memo (in these days it would be e-mail) your supervisor. In my day is was called 'escalating'. If one did not get a satisfactory answer from the department of that firm you were dealing with, you went higher -until you did or did not. If one did not get reasonable explanation, then must stop doing business with them. Which I think, is what TammyMoetis summed up in a short and sweet nut-shell.--Aspro (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invoice

DO invoice always include credit sale or purchase and not the cash one? What is the difference between a cash memo an a receipt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.132.71 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you stated if where in the world you are. This planet has a multitudes of different financial transaction protocols. I take it, you are not in the United States, because over there, their only reason for them being born into this world, is to pay tax, so this is sort of answer is drummed into them at an early age and everybody knows it. It is like a region to them. Some pray - they pay taxes instead.--Aspro (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's IP address geolocates to India. I can't answer the question though. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read invoice, memo and receipt.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]