1959 whisky

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:45 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Iain:
Hi WCB.

In answer to "answers please"...

The only person who can change the subject is the moderator, should she wish to remove "Fake Macallan" from the topics list.

But if you're fed up and find posts on this subject a bore, there are lots of other subjects you can look at instead. It is indeed a broad and tolerant happy-clappy church at WM.com :-)

ps: is the Macallan website auction going ahead, anyone?

and pps - there are two Kemps I think - weren't they both in Spandau Ballet ;-?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iain,

If I remember correctly, Spandau Ballet had a big hit with a song called True - pretty appropriate for this topic, don't you think?

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Iain** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:27 pm

Rudolph:

Also "To cut a long story short" (Macallan hasn't managed that!)

And "Confused" (I certainly am :-)

.

Come on Macallan - put us out of our misery! WCB is getting impatient with all this waiting for answers!

by **westcoastboy** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:08 pm

Right first time - not boring factoids, not 80s has-been pop-stars, and I don't want the topic killed, but do expect some serious answers to some serious questions (yours included Iain), instead of all this meandering - meanwhile, as I loose confidence in the veracity of malts and whiskies that seem to want to invent their past in order to boost their present, I may have to move on to the apple vodka!

by **Deactivated Member** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:32 pm

Hi guys,

I think that this is getting us no where here on this forum. The intellect here is dropping below sea level. Some allready call you baby, even the 80's pop group Spandau Ballet is getting involved.

All I can say is that the Macallan is getting to the bottom of this strange R.Kemp case(and Sherlock is digging around at the moment). This isn't a matter wich is solved in a few days, it may take some weeks or even some months to reveal the truth.

And westcoastboy, if this is loosing your confidence in the single malt producers, then so be it. Then I would suggest to you: stop drinking the stuff, and have cognac or two.

But please, just bare with them, for a while, and if it then looses your confidence after what you have heard, then you still can say: "I'll stop buying or drinking The Macallan", because we feel that they have been fooling us. But until then, the fact that the R.Kemp bottles are a fake, hasn't been proven yet. So nobody(including myself) can say nothing about it, because you have to prove it first, and not only by the fact: "he didn't owned the two distilleries simultaneously" You simply don't know what happend back then(1870's), because you wheren't there at the time....

Cheers,

Erik

[This message has been edited by Huurman (edited 17 January 2003).]

by **Iain** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:15 am

Well said Erik. And while your colleagues are digging up details of the mysterious Kemp company, maybe they can tell us when the equally mysterious Mr McWilliam had a shop in Craigellachie.

No one has been able to find any record of the existence his shop in the 19th century. So when did he get round to bottling that 1856, and the other bottles?

All it takes is a record from a trade directory, a decennial census, a valuation roll, or an entry in something from the company archives such as a warehouse or finance ledger that mentions McWilliam and/or his business or shop. That will not be hard to do for the period in which McWilliam owned a shop in Craigellachie, as the Macallan distillery archives are with the company and the local government records and local trade directories are all held in the library in Elgin.

And as soon as Macallan have proved our fears are unfounded we can all go off sheepishly, and be grumpy somewhere else.

by **Deactivated Member** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:41 pm

Hi Iain,

It's living its own life now, but I'm not working at Macallan, people usually think you do, because you are a: quite close to them and b: you know quite a lot of them.

Thanks Iain for your kind words. As for the Mc William??, I think that one will led to another, when you start digging.

Slainte,

Erik

by **Iain** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:27 pm

Aye, I'd love to see some evidence that it's a vintage Rolls Royce, and not a re-sprayed Fiat Uno.

by **Iain** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 9:59 am

Still no reply. Will we ever get evidence to prove or even suggest the existence of those bottlers in 19th c Speyside?

In the meantime, this topic seems to have died through lack of interest. In answer to Mac's original question re "Fake Macallan",

"Which one is out on deep water Dave or Macallan?"

The answer appears to be (in the absence of any response from Mac) that it's the latter. Not waving...

by **lexkraai** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 11:17 am

Iain, not lack of interest (or at least not from my side). Simply waiting to hear from Macallan and curious to see whether they can come up with some evidence to show these bottlers really existed ... ball's in their court!

Cheers, Lex

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 11:56 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Iain:
Still no reply. Will we ever get evidence to prove or even suggest the existence of those bottlers in 19th c Speyside?

In the meantime, this topic seems to have died through lack of interest. In answer to Mac's original question re "Fake Macallan",

"Which one is out on deep water Dave or Macallan?"

The answer appears to be (in the absence of any response from Mac) that it's the latter. Not waving...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iain,

Come on, it's early days yet.

Remember how long they took to reply to the questions about colouring in the Macallan?

I think it was around 3 months, so don't despair yet,especially as this seems to me to be an even more important subject. I am sure they will eventually produce all the evidence you need.

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Iain** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:03 pm

Don't mean to sound impatient chaps (even if I am :-)

But the Macallan website auction (which apparently includes some of the bottles mentioned on this thread) is slated to start in January. It's now the 27th. Surely Mac has an ethical if not a legal duty to check the provenance and authenticity of the bottles before selling them!

by **Iain** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:11 pm

Good news for all McWilliam 1856 Macallan spotters!

You can see another one on p 57 of the Definitive Guide to Buying Vintage Macallan with its owner, Norman Shelley, who lives in Turkey. This can't be the one that's up for auction, as Shelley bought his bottles "from The Macallan's very own extraordinary whisky cellar" a few years ago for nearly £250,000, writes Jim Murray.

Extraordinary indeed. But the good news is that he has left his collection on display at the distillery, so there will be at least one left there after the auction.

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:23 pm

Iain

I have been waiting with bated breath for the official Macallan response which surprise, surprise has still not happened.

Does this mean that the folks at the Macallan

a) don't know about this web site
b) don't care about the opinions of people who use this website
c) think it is beneath them to have to explain themselves to the sort of people who use this website
d) are still trying to think of an answer

Cheers

Rudolph

by **blackkeno** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 4:36 am

This forum is not the most important vehicle of communication in the Whisky industry. Postings that imply WE (rather than people contemplating actually making the purchase) are entitled to a response may very likely motivate silence because no one likes to be pushed. Macallan is a quality company. I'm sure they will review the matter and provide appropriate clarification at the time and in the venue of their own choosing.

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 10:17 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by blackkeno:
This forum is not the most important vehicle of communication in the Whisky industry. Postings that imply WE (rather than people contemplating actually making the purchase) are entitled to a response may very likely motivate silence because no one likes to be pushed. Macallan is a quality company. I'm sure they will review the matter and provide appropriate clarification at the time and in the venue of their own choosing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Blackkeno,

I guess that means you go with the c choice
then

Cheers

Rudolph

by **westcoastboy** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:56 pm

OK guys - so who will turn up at Whisky Live (sic) and ask the big question ?

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:24 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by westcoastboy:
OK guys - so who will turn up at Whisky Live (sic) and ask the big question ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even more interesting, who will turn up and ANSWER the big question?

Cheers

Rudolph

by **Iain** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:28 am

I can't make it to Whisky Live. But if someone will undertake to ask the Big Question there, I'll try to get the views of the Scotch Whisky Association re the sale of "old" whisky bottles with scanty and/or challenged provenance via the web.

I have contacted various persons at Macallan by e-mail, but they have chosen not to provide any answers to my questions re the provenance of some bottles that are advertised for sale by auction on their website. Of course they are perfectly entitled to ignore questions from the public - and I am perfectly entitled to keep asking elsewhere!

eg: Was McWilliam's shop opened after, not before, WW1? At what age did he bottle all those 1856 Macallans? And why so coy at Mac today? They bought the stuff for a lot of money and and now they're offering some of it for sale to the public - surely it would have been prudent to make some checks on provenance!

by **westcoastboy** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:43 pm

Well guys, I won't be there either. Maybe Whisky Magazine could ask the question on your/our/their behalf ? What say you, Brigid, Marcin & Co ?

by **westcoastboy** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:48 pm

Oh yes - and this has been going on for so long, with so much tedious detail but no definitive answers, that I have forgotten something. Where did the Mac boys get thir old bottles from - discovered in the corner of an old warehouse etc. etc., or purchased on the open market ? Does anyone know ?

by **Iain** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:07 pm

I guess Macallan must know.

But so far, they ain't telling!

by **Iain** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 1:36 am

and it would only take someone from Macallan 10 minutes to post a message to prove that all those 1856 McWilliam Macallans from Italy and ... (err...) Italy are not forgeries...

What happened at the auction? Did anyone bid?

by **Deactivated Member** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:40 pm

Hi guys,

The are still working on the WM's Fake Macallan, all I ask is just to be patient, and bare with them, they are very busy with it, such things cost a lot of time, it doesn't go with a blink of an eye you know!

Slainte,

Erik

by **westcoastboy** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 11:36 pm

Who blinked ?

by **MacAndersson** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:20 am

Probably every one a couple of million times by now....

by **Deactivated Member** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:30 pm

You know what I mean guys...

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:14 pm

The way I see it is that Macallan, being a multinational company with a brand name to look after, should know what it is they are selling. When they offer a product that rare for sale claming to be of Macallan origin it ought to be so. The chance of they missing something so obvious as the wrong company name is to me almost out of the question. On the other hand I have no reason to doubt Dave Broom either. I am sure he has done a thorough investigating before he wrote the article.
Which leaves me right back where I started.
The only party who can sort this out is Macallan. They should be able to explain what is what and also if they have read the article they should be eager to do so. It can not be good having people questioning their credibility.

I am looking forward to see who is right. This could potentially have great repercussion on Macallan. Imagine the headlines if the bottle proves to be a fake. But let’s not jump into conclusions.

by **Deactivated Member** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:01 pm

Hi Rudolph,

I doubt if they have a quick answer, they first check there own info, before they make any anouncements you see!

Erik

by **Iain** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:34 pm

Erik, You say you DOUBT they have a quick answer!

By golly, there was one fellow waiting with bated breath who expired several months ago!

by **Deactivated Member** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:33 pm

I'm sorry to see you like this Iain, just a little more patience my dear friend.
Don't forget, that Dave's article made a lot of bells ringing, and The Macallan, is still doing research, to close this topic for once and for all. These things takes a lot of time(believe me in this one), because before you make an official statement, YOU HAVE TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE of what you are doing.
You mustn't forget, that the article was an attack towards The Macallan, and they have the full right to defend them selfs. I'm waiting too, but I'm very very patient in this one, perhaps simply because I understand how it is to do a full research..
I hope this helps you a little...

Slainte,

Erik

[This message has been edited by Huurman (edited 10 March 2003).]

by **Iain** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:23 pm

Oh behave!

It wasn't an attack on Macallan at all! It was an attack on suspected but unidentified fraudsters who may or may not have forged a "vintage" bottle of Macallan.

And it's hardly asking too much to expect a prudent business person to investigate the provenance of a bottle BEFORE, (not many months after) buying it and offering it for sale for thousands of pounds to whisky lovers.

Goodness me!

I'm going back to sleep for a few more months. Wake me up if the online auction ever starts

by **Deactivated Member** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 9:32 pm

I know Iain you wasnt attacking, I wasn't meaning you. I used the word you a few times, but not referring to you Iain. I was thinking in Dutch, while I was translating, so it makes a mixture of grammar, wich makes you think that I was meaning you Iain, but I wasn't, we use the word you very much in a very common way of speaking you see!

But you are right on the last thing you wrote....

Erik,

I'll wake you up when the auction starts, as a matter of fact it allready started.

by **westcoastboy** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:00 pm

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yes - the auction's already started (I've had all the e-mails like most of you too. But they are still not sure about the bottle ?

Shurely shome mishtake - or are they happy to auction suspect goods ?

WCB

Oh - and by the way - how come this burning topic doesn't make it into the hallowed pages of Whisky Magazine ?

by **Iain** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:55 pm

Erik, I'm more bemused than ever! I didn't think and didn't suggest you were attacking me.

I read your complaint regarding what you thought of as an attack on Macallan. I merely suggested that you were wrong to see the Dave B article in WM as an attack on Macallan, when it is surely an expose of and an attack on forgery and fraud in the "vintage" whisky market. Which jolly well needs exposed and attacked, say I.

Good heavens man. As the Mouthpiece of Macallan, you ain't half confusing matters!

by **Deactivated Member** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:34 pm

Good point Iain. DB's article was to expose the fraud section of the world of whisky. But in a way it shows disregards toward the Macallan, because of the originals are most of the time that The Macallan Distillery is behind all of that, and it's their good name wich is at steak. Ofcourse some bottles of old Macallan are being sold by independent specialists, but then again, an article such DB wrote, makes a lot of collectors thinking, that the Macallans they have bought are possible fakes, so they make the link back to the Macallan, while Dave has only substancial evidence, I mean he can't prove, that they are real fakes can he? Well I can't find it in the article anyway, only some guidelines, and that's about it. Very strange don't you think? But there's more behind all of this, and soon we'll get the answer about where this all starts with the person: RODERICK KEMP.

Slainte,

Erik

P.S. We can debate about this subject forever, but wouldn't it be more wise to wait for the answers???

[This message has been edited by Huurman (edited 12 March 2003).]