1959 whisky

by **Iain** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:30 pm

Very true Gate.

And 'tis said that a fool and his money are easily parted

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 8:34 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gate:
On the basis that there's one born every minute, that looks like two minutes' worth...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

C'mon guys - if The Macallan people have accepted two bids, they must be absolutely confident that they can prove the provenance of this product. I mean, offering something for sale when you are unable to substantiate the claims you make for it would be bad enough but actually accepting offers - and presumably money eventually - smacks to me of some sort of illegal behaviour. Which the Macallan people would never do, right?

Hell,they probably even advised the two bidders about the contents of this forum,just to be absolutely sure there could be no misunderstandings.

Cheers

Rudolph

PS Have not seen any thing from Erik lately!

by **Gate** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 8:46 am

Ah, well, of course what there is one of being born every minute is well-informed collectors of rare old whisky of impeccable provenance who are in possession of absolutely all the relevant facts. And "fool" actually stands for Fine Old Original Lover.

by **Iain** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 10:52 am

Macallan 1870 for sale now on Mac website. This is the one bottled by Mr Kemp's Macallan-Glenlivet Talisker Distilleries...

"This auction will close on 31st May 2003. Reserve Price: £8,500"

by **MacAndersson** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 10:55 am

Rudolph
Can you be sure they actually received two bids?
A possibility is that they said they did but then actually kept the bottle themselves licked their wound of having been ripped of and pretends nothing happened. That way they don’t have to come up with any evidence what so ever........just a thought.
I mean have they published the name of the alleged buyer? Or is he or her an "anonymous" collector from Italy......

by **Iain** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 11:05 am

Hey, Macanderson - could that be the same anonymous collector who (with monotonous regularity) bids world-record prices for Macallans at McTears and other auctions?

Macallan must be so happy he's a fan as they get so much free publicity every time. And that helps them convince people to pay big bucks for Macallans as an investment!

I wonder if he is known to the company?

by **MacAndersson** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 11:31 am

Presumably.....

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 4:51 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MacAndersson:
Rudolph
Can you be sure they actually received two bids?
A possibility is that they said they did but then actually kept the bottle themselves licked their wound of having been ripped of and pretends nothing happened. That way they don’t have to come up with any evidence what so ever........just a thought.
I mean have they published the name of the alleged buyer? Or is he or her an "anonymous" collector from Italy......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,MacAndersson, I just got the information from Iain's posting, so I don't know anymore than that BUT I am sure the full details will be published in the Next Issue of Whisky Magazine, so we will soon know who the successful bidder was.

I guess the bidders believed that ( a ) the product was worth whatever they bid ( and good luck to them, it's their money!) and ( b ) was as described. I mean nobody is going to bid that much if they think it is a fake,
are they? ........unless it's a trading standards officer who may have been tipped off about the doubts raised in this forum.

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Iain** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 9:59 pm

"No other distillery has as many whiskies from decades past... No other distillery can offer quite the range that appears in this guide...", Michael Jackson, The Macallan... Definitive Guide, p3

"Every whisky catalogue has an index of the bottles on offer. The Macallan section regularly has the largest list of products and takes up the most space on those pages... The Macallan has the largest range of bottlings that have been and still are available... The latter bottle here is a prime example of the investment potential attached to Macallan..." Martin Green, The Macallan... Definitive Guide, p 13

"we hope to be able to offer further, very rare old Macallan bottles for auction..." David Robertson, The Macallan... Definitive Guide, p23

"...The world's largest malt whisky collection features more bottlings of The Macallan than any other distillery... How this amazing collection continues to grow remains to be seen, but it's certain the total won't decrease..." Ian Wisnieski, The Macallan... Definitive Guide, p68

"Lovely Jubbly," Del Boy Trotter, Imports/Exports, Peckham and Milan.

"If it looks too good to be true, it probably is." (trad)

[This message has been edited by Iain (edited 05 April 2003).]

by **scotspain** » Tue May 06, 2003 9:39 pm

As the years went by......they all forgot!

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Wed May 07, 2003 8:04 am

And that, Scotspain, is precisely what the Macallan is counting on!

Just ignore it and it will go away.

But will it?

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Rudy** » Wed May 07, 2003 7:17 pm

Don't worry, if you hadn't posted, I would have one of these days, to get the thread in the picture again.
And if we didn't post, I'm sure someone else would have!

Rudy.

by **Deactivated Member** » Sun May 11, 2003 8:26 am

Hi,

I find this, and together with some other people from the Macallan too, that nobody ever replied here. Perhaps they think it's the task of The Whisky Magazine here, to inform you!

But I'm positive that they haven't forget this, because behind the screens, it's very busy there. It's still playing.

Right now it's out of my hands, and so as for some other people who are devote their skills to The Macallan. It's in the hands of the PR section now, and I did the best I could to get some for you, without any luck so far, and it's probably got something to do with a strategy, wich I even can not understand, perhaps it's to delicate to reveal something in an early stage, well then I can live with that, if that's going on.

All I can say so far is to keep your eyes open to the Issue of the Whisky Magazine, and I don't mean the upcommig Issue, I believe it's the Issue after that. But only our beloved editor from this Magazine can tell you that.

Even if I knew something, even I wouldn't reveal it here, I just simply gave some one my word for that, and that's worth a lot to me.

A just as curious as you are,

Erik

[This message has been edited by Huurman (edited 11 May 2003).]

by **westcoastboy** » Sun May 11, 2003 9:04 pm

I thought I had given up on this - but I just took a peek - and after this last posting - I know I have !

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:27 am

Boy, now we are really getting somewhere!

Despite Erik's inability to share the inside information he clearly has with us, he did let slip one vital pointer - it is now in the hands of the PR department!

Does that mean they are looking to put the best possible spin on a negative situation?

Cheers

Rudoplh

by **Gate** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:07 am

Just got the latest WM (issue 31), which has a page trailing the possibility of the Mac's definitive answer for issue 32. We shall see, we shall see (as the Stranglers used to say).

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Mon May 12, 2003 2:10 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gate:
Just got the latest WM (issue 31), which has a page trailing the possibility of the Mac's definitive answer for issue 32. We shall see, we shall see (as the Stranglers used to say). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ain't it funny how time slips away?

Brigid's posting on March 14 said - in effect - this is all a bit complex to sort out in time for issue 30, but we hope to have the answer in issue 31. And now Gate reports that issue 31 says we might get an answer in issue 31 - which publishes in what - six weeks time?!

And Huurman says the PR guys are now in charge1

Incidentally, why does the definitive answer have to be published in the magazine anyway? Why can't the Macallan just post the info hers?

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Iain** » Wed May 14, 2003 12:31 pm

Good point Rudolph. The longer something is left to fester, the more it stinks!

Mac have their own website where they give all the info about the "vintages" - that would be an excellent place to post a statement clarifying the situation and reassuring all Mac fans about the integrity of the brand.

by **Deactivated Member** » Thu May 22, 2003 2:22 pm

Hi,

I received a message today from the Macallan, and it says to keep your eyes open on the next issue of the Whisky Magazine. David Cox from the Macallan wrote an article. Just read it, and if there's still any doubts left....then that's up to you.

signing off,

Erik

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Thu May 22, 2003 3:38 pm

If David Cox - or anyone else at the Macallan - had spent one tenth of the time it took him to write an article for Whisky magazine ( which won't be published for what? a month or so ) posting a comment on this forum, we would all have been better-informed weeks ago.

What is it with Macallan and the magazine?
And the Macallan and Huurman? Ever get the feeling there is a very cosy little clique that you are definitely invited to join?

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Iain** » Thu May 22, 2003 3:40 pm

My breath is bated.

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Thu May 22, 2003 3:40 pm

Whoops! I meant NOT invited to join

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Deactivated Member** » Thu May 22, 2003 8:32 pm

Rudolph,

If there was a clique, I wasn't even invited. And could you please hold your comment, til after you have been reading the article, maybe then it will make some sense to you. By the way, I was still an independend guy, who was trying to get things done, and they have done it their way, and I'll respect that, then again it's up to you if you don't respect it. I'll wait first, read the article and then I'll shout. I mean what's the use right now at this point, of saying things like, quote: If David Cox - or anyone else at the Macallan - had spent one tenth of the time it took him to write an article for Whisky magazine ( which won't be published for what? a month or so ) posting a comment on this forum, we would all have been better-informed weeks ago.

Maybe it was, or maybe it wasn't? You tell me...

The work has being done now, all you have to do is sit and wait, how easyer can you get it??

Erik

by **Lawrence** » Thu May 22, 2003 9:49 pm

In response to MacAnderson's original question I researched through the "The Scotch Whisky Industry Record" (by H Charles Craig) extensively and there is NO record of a company called the "Macallan-Glenlivet and Talisker Distilleries Ltd" This book is extensive and very well researched. I went into this with a bias based on David Broom's recent article. However there is a small window that would explain the label. To quote H Charles Craigs research:

"Talisker-aquired by Roderick Kemp + Co in 1880, rebuilt 1880-7, taken over by Alexander Grigor Allan (partner of Kemp)1892" pg 471 Note, no indication of which month.

"Macallan-purchased in 1892 by Roderick Kemp who rebuilt the distillery and renamed it Macallan-Glenlivet" pg 450 Note, no indication of which month.

So if you read the label as follows then it may come together. The whisky was distilled in 1870 (before Kemp) and bottled in 1892 when he owned Macallan. However the sale of Talisker and the purchase of Macallan both occurred in 1892 and they COULD have overlapped, where he was involved with both for a short period. Therefore if you read the label as "Selected by Proprietor R. Kemp" who owns both the "Macallan-Glenlivet and Talisker Distilleries Ltd" then it comes together. However if you are trying to prove that the Macallan-Glenlivet & Talisker Distilleries Ltd" was a legitimate company then I think you have an significant uphill battle as no record exists of this company. I think David Broom said it all when he wrote "Kemp was a businessman. He wouldn't put an illegal company name on his whisky. Neither would he have deviated from the standard business practice and changed the name of his firm willy-nilly" Fellow forum members your thoughts and comments please.

[This message has been edited by Lawrence (edited 23 May 2003).]

by **Iain** » Fri May 23, 2003 8:01 am

Good points Lawrence. And of course we know from Erik that Mr Cox will address them.

In which case Mr C must have found proof of the existence of the limited liability company that Mac claims is the bottler of the various vintage bottlings of Macallan.

Afaik, limited companies in the UK had to be registered under the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1856 and its successor legislation (see http://history.wisc.edu/dunlavy/Corporations/c_laws.htm

for quick guide)

So it will not be difficult to find evidence of the existence of a ltd company at Companies House in London etc.

That is, if it existed as a limited company (which is presumably what it must have been, if it had "ltd" in its title!).

Sorry if this legal malarkey is a bit tedious and confusing (for me too!). It would be simpler and more satisfactory if Mac could just provide a reference from their archives, from the trade press or from official records of the day, to prove the existence of this newly-rediscovered bottler.

Why not post it now, on the Mac website alongside the Vintages offers? Or in the blurb about the relevant bottles and bottlers that already exists at the foot of each page? That would be a simple task, and would put an end to all this speculation and brou-ha-ha.

Latest news of the auction of the 1870 Mac bottle:

"Current Highest Bid: £8900.00"

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Fri May 23, 2003 8:26 am

Erik

As ever we can rely on you to spring to the defense of the Macallan - don't worry, I am sure they will invite to join their clique soon!

You say we must wait until the article is published in June or July and then decide.

But whichever way you cut it, you cannot escape the stark simple facts. The whole point of this forum is this:

Macallan can prove the provenance of the product or Macallan cannot prove the provenance of the product.

This forum started with Macandersson's posting on January 1 2003. If we take your advice we will wait until July, maybe, - over six months! - to get an answer that the Macallan MUST HAVE KNOWN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

3 simple questions for you Erik -

1. Do you agree that if they did not have cast-iron 100% knowledge that the product was genuine, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE OFFERED IT FOR SALE?

2. So let's assume they did have that knowledge. In which case, they could - and should - have answered the question immediately, way back in January, shouldn't they?

3. Why would they need to do so much work - taking six months or so - to find out whatever they are going to publish in the next issue of the magazine when they must have already known the answer BEFORE they offered the product for sale?

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Deactivated Member** » Fri May 23, 2003 3:46 pm

Lawrence is thingking in the right direction, that's all I can say right now.

Erik

by **Deactivated Member** » Fri May 23, 2003 4:01 pm

Answers for Rudolph,

Q1/A1, I agree, that if they didn't know or let me refrase that, that if they wheren't so sure about the provanance, that they shouldn't offer the bottles for sale in the first place. But that's only speculating here.

Q2/A2, Why they never answered, doesn't mean that they didn't know what was happening here, I believe Rudolph, that a good reasearch, takes a lot of time, and then you have the deadline for the publishers aswell, and they have done a wise thing, by not telling it here on the site, because see for your self here what happend, because in January or February they say it's A, but after a research they say it's B. Then you get a lot of confusion here(wich it is allready).

Q3/A3, well I allready gave an answer to that one in Q2/A2.

Rudolph, put your self in their possition, with a good name at stake, would you go thru a lot of risks by publish something to early??

Erik

P.S. I am away for a while, so it might take some time before any answer will appear, so my apology for that.

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:16 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Huurman:
Answers for Rudolph,

Q1/A1, I agree, that if they didn't know or let me refrase that, that if they wheren't so sure about the provanance, that they shouldn't offer the bottles for sale in the first place. But that's only speculating here.

Q2/A2, Why they never answered, doesn't mean that they didn't know what was happening here, I believe Rudolph, that a good reasearch, takes a lot of time, and then you have the deadline for the publishers aswell, and they have done a wise thing, by not telling it here on the site, because see for your self here what happend, because in January or February they say it's A, but after a research they say it's B. Then you get a lot of confusion here(wich it is allready).

Q3/A3, well I allready gave an answer to that one in Q2/A2.

Rudolph, put your self in their possition, with a good name at stake, would you go thru a lot of risks by publish something to early??

Erik

P.S. I am away for a while, so it might take some time before any answer will appear, so my apology for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Erik

So you agree - if they could not prove the provenance beforehand they should not have offered the product for sale.

But then you say - the reason they have not given any answer here, is that their answer in January might be different from the answer they would give now after research!!

How could that be? What they had to know in January was that they could prove it. Leaving aside the crucial question of why on earth they should have to do any research AFTER they had offered the product for sale, and ignoring the red herring of how long it takes to get something published - they could post a reply on this forum in a few moments - How could the answer they would give now possibly be different?

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Iain** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 8:13 am

News from The Macallan website.

The auction for the mysterious 1870 The Macallan-Glenlivet and Talisker Distilleries bottling has closed. The news is:

"The Auction is now closed. We received 3 bids over the reserve price."

The next auction is for another of the plethora of Macallan bottlings by the equally mysterious John McWilliam, an 1884 this time. The reserve price is £7,500 so the "current highest bid" recorded on the site, of 2p, is from a cheeky monkey who is clearly not taking the auction seriously.

You have until 31 July to bid for this latest treasure.

by **Deactivated Member** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 1:53 pm

Hi Rudolph,

I have recently learned from the Macallan, that they used several persons for their search to the provenance of their bottles, last year, to investigate their bottles, and to prove its provenance. I know it's very confusing from time to time. But to be absolutely sure, they re-investigate the whole case again(after they have been reading Issue 28), for them the provenance was allready clear, for us collectors and consumers not. I suggest that you wait until you have been reading Issue 32, there you'll find a piece written by David Cox from The Macallan, and the rest will follow...

Cheers,

Erik

by **Iain** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:31 pm

Erik, according to the WM piece by Dominic,

"The Macallan is investing time and money in chemical analysis of its antique whiskies "

Does that mean they have taken samples from all the old bottles in their collection, and what are the chemical analysis tests they intend to conduct?

It would be cheaper to pop along to Elgin Library and prove the existence of those mysterious bottlers, but hey, maybe Mr Cox has a lot of money still to spend on the marketing budget...

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 11:58 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Iain:
Erik, according to the WM piece by Dominic,

"The Macallan is investing time and money in chemical analysis of its antique whiskies "

Does that mean they have taken samples from all the old bottles in their collection, and what are the chemical analysis tests they intend to conduct?

It would be cheaper to pop along to Elgin Library and prove the existence of those mysterious bottlers, but hey, maybe Mr Cox has a lot of money still to spend on the marketing budget...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erik/Iain

Shouldn't The Macallan have invested time and money in chemical analysis of its antique
whiskies BEFORE they offered them for sale?

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Deactivated Member** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:11 pm

Hi Iain,

The fact that they drawn some samples from 19th century bottles, was to use this information for the replica bottles.

No, it wouldn't be cheaper at all, by just pop in to the Elgin Liberary, because they have used several people to investigate if the bottle is real or not, and besides they still have their own archives, and another thing is that they want to be absolutely shure about this case.

Slainte,

Erik

by **Deactivated Member** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:18 pm

Hi Rudolph,

They did, spend a lot of time and money before they offered these bottles for sale. But since mr Dave Broome was so kind enough to say that the R.Kemp bottles are fakes, they had to do the whole investigation all over again, just to prove to you people that the bottles are genuine. Please Rudolph, wait for Issue 32, and read the article written by David Cox, and if there are still any questions, just contact David him self, you'll find the details in the article....

Slainte,

Erik