<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huurman:
Forget about the carbondating, it was onle an option, wich is probably not entirely water proof. And as Lex suggested that it has to be an organic material(in wich he's right), to use this on, well I have seen somewhere that they where using non organic materials, but if they had any succes? I'm not sure about this.
The Issue here is a Macallan 1872 bottled by R.Kemp under the name of Macallan Glenlivet and Taliskers Distilleries Ltd.
Well some say he didn't bottle it under this name, because he couldn't owned two distilleries at the same time, so it was proven to be a fake. And others say well why not , maybe there's a possibility that could own two distilleries at the same time, and bottle this Macallan under that name. While some say we stay as neutral as possible, because we can't prove a thing, and lets wait for the out come....
You are right 5 minutes is absolutely nothing, but what would you want them to say here: that it is a genuine bottle? or: that it was a fake, and there was clever forger at work? Right now Rudolph they can't say anything at all, because this is a very delicate matter, with a lot at steak, so they are very very careful. Although and I hope you agree with me it would be nice if they said some words like: we are still working on it, or something else like that.
Well this is as far as I go, and start to verify some answers I found. I'll stop replying now, unless there's something news to report here....
Come on Erik - I do admire your loyalty and
defence of The Macallan, but even you must admit that there is something not quite right about all this.
You say < Right now they can't say anything at all because this is such a very delicate matter > If they are absolutely sure of the provenance of this product ( which they should have been before offering it for sale, don't you agree? ), why is it a very delicate matter they can't say anything about? All they have to do is say WE CAN PROVE IT - HERE IS THE EVIDENCE.
So again I say it's really very simple -
Either the provenance of this product can be validated or it cannot be validated. If it can, The Macallan is perfectly justified in offering it for sale. If it cannot, The Macallan should never have offered it for sale, and if they did not find out until after they had offered it for sale that it could not be validated, The Macallan would have no option - being the honourable people they are - but to announce they were withdrawing the product from sale.
Isn't it really as straight forward and simple as that - or am I missing something?