Fake Macallan Continued....

[Rudolph Hucker]

Matt

I suggest that you should review the whole of this thread before plunging in to defend someone who, according to you, may not even be associated with WM. ( Two Dominic Roskrows? Both writing about whisky? Sounds reasonable )

You will see that back in September from around page 14 of this thread comments were posted by others suggesting that the Dominic Roskrow who edits WM had written an article that seemed to them to support the claims made by Macallan. You will also see that I posted my thoughts which defended your Dominic Roskrow, and that I was thanked for my support by Marcin Miller, who was then publishing Director of WM. I completely agree that it is the proper role of WM to hold the ring in these circumstances.

But the fact remains that some people questioned the comments your Dominic Roskrow had made. So although you might not be abl to see it, at least in some peoples eyes the possibility existed that there was a relationship between the Macallan and WM.

Personally, as I said at that time, I don't think that WM is at fault, but the beauty of forums like this is that they give everyone who is interested the opportunity to post a point of view - and everyone else can post opposite views if they disagree.

Several contributors to this thread have posted details of links that
they feel may possibly be of interest to followers of the Fake Macallan saga, which is all I have done with the link about a piece written by someone called Dominic Roskrow writing about old Macallan whisky.

If you read my posting again, you will see that I merely point out that the article exists, which in the light of the widespread interest in this thread, does not seem to be an unreasonable thing to do.
I made no comment about the contents of the ''article'', nor did I make any comment about the writer.

Naturally, if , as you suggest, there is another Dominic Roskrow writing about whisky - I notice that there are also articles on the internet by a Dominic Roskrow writing about music, so perhaps there is - then I have made a mistake, and apologise to all concerned.

But, as with my posting about this article, readers can, of course, go to the website in question and decide for themselves.

Of course, if you will categorically state that I
have confused your Dominic Roskrow with another writer of the same name, and that he was not the author of the piece in question, then I shall post a full apology to your Dominic Roskrow.

Cheers

Rudolph

[lexkraai]

The results of the chemical tests on the 19th century whiskies were promised by Macallan for September. That is September 2003. We're now April 2004 and still nothing. Does this mean that the results of the tests aren't in yet? Or that the results are in but didn't show what Macallan wanted?

Would it be possible for someone at WM to check with Macallan what the situation is? I'm sure WM has more chance of getting a reply than someone from the public.

Cheers, Lex

[Matt2]

Matt
If you read my posting again, you will see that I merely point out that the article exists

So why start your post with "A possible further insight into the Macallan / WM relationship? " when the post in reality has nothing to do with WM, except the author may have the same name as our editor . The article says nothing new, simply states what Macallan are doing with their replica range. Anyway, lets not get into it here, trying hard to keep this on-topic and I hope everyone found the article useful. Thanks for posting the link to it...

Lex - I know at least 3 people from Macallan keep an eye on this topic. I will chat with Dominic tomorrow to see if we can push to get a statement from one of them. I know their input would be greatly appreciated by all and it would be nice to resolve topic.

[Lawrence]

Let's not forget that it was a WM article about fake whiskies that started the interest in this subject. In an earlier post, Rudolph seemed to imply that WM was somehow bending the truth because it did not want to lose The Macallan advertising revenue. I suspect that if that had been true WM would have never published the original article.

I am glad to read the The Macallan is keeping an eye on this thread, perhaps they could answer some questions and put the whole issue to bed once and for all.

[Rudolph Hucker]

Lawrence

Re-reading my ps to the following quote, I cannot see how anyone could see that this has the implication you suggest.

I am a supporter of WM

Cheers

Rudolph

Iain

Please reconsider - your contributions to this thread have been enormously important and tremendously helpful in getting us to this stage in this thread.

I know that it has been a long and frustrating path, but if we give up now the Dark Side will succeed in evading any final reckoning for their behaviour which can only be described as an arrogant and contemptuous dismissal of entirely reasonable
requests for them to stand behind their claims. The mind truly boggles that in this day and age when all the business schools teach that the customer is king ( except in Japan, where the customer is God ) and companies allocate huge amounts of their marketing budgets to generate and sustain good customer relations, David Cox, in effect, sticks two fingers up and says p*ss off!

But not even David Cox can string out for ever the evasion - sooner or later the truth will out, but only if people like you stick with the thread. Surely nothing would suit the Macallan better than for this thread to fizzle out.

And sooner rather than later. if the Macallan do not come up with firm evidence, supported by unarguable facts, someone is going to open this subject up to a much wider public - and possibly much more damaging publcity for the Macallan.

Stay with us - the best is yet to come!

Cheers

Rudolph

PS My point about Dominic was that he is not an investigative journalist and we cannot expect Whisky Magazine to go to war with the Macallan over this. The magazine is playing its part by providing the platform on which this little drama can be played out.

[Lawrence]

Rudolph from your Post: Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:07 pm Read down to the very bottom:

"Erik

You say < by asking them questions, they have to reply on this matter > and you end by saying < Just give the Macallan a chance >

1. People have been asking them questions on this forum since January - and they most certainly have not answered.

2. The Macallan has had dozens of chances to put this right.

As for the article in Whisky Magazine, get real! Ask yourself how much advertising they get from the Macallan and then ask yourself if they are willingly going to criticise the Macallan

Cheers

Rudolph"

[Iain]

Matt wrote

"Lex - I know at least 3 people from Macallan keep an eye on this topic"

Wouldn't it be nice if Mac could "down-size" the staff employed on WM-gazing duties, and direct one or two of these interested observers to cast their eyes over the warehouse ledgers for a few minutes instead? That seems to be where many of the answers lie, according to David Cox.

I notice that this topic has attracted more than 3,000 page hits since WM introduced a counter about 6 months back - I would guess the total for the 16 months this has dragged on (and on....) is surely over 4,500. And then there were the "Fake Mac" articles in the Sunday Mail and other newspapers, which seem to have reached a wide audience in Scotland. Of course Mac could end it all right now, by simply making public the records which Mr Cox says are contained in the company archives.

Btw Matt - you don't intend to imply there's a fake Dominic Roskow in circulation, I trust

[Matt2]

I've done some chemical testing on Dominic and I can confirm he is the original.

Whisky Magazine Issue 39 (published today 23/04/04)
Page 7

Macallan wait is almost over

The Macallan says that it expects to have the results of scientific analysis at any time, following a year-long wait that has left collectors frustrated and suspicious.

Critics have viewed The Macallan’s delays as stalling tactics following a feature by Dave Broom in Whisky Magazine, which at the start of 2003 identified a growing trade in faked antique whisky.

Since then The Macallan has declined to comment on the issue pending analysis of some of its antique collection by Britain’s top laboratory.

But a growing number of Macallan enthusiasts have questioned the time the tests have taken.

Commenting on the delays, David Cox, director, fine and rare whiskies at Macallan said: “The laboratory in Oxford is considered the best at this type of analysis, and they are inundated with samples and requests from any number of different parties. This process has been made longer for us because we wanted to ensure that the applied methodology would give us a good steer on the approximate age of the whisky age (is it ‘old’ or ‘modern’), even if it will not be accurate enough to give us the actual year or even decade.

“For that reason we submitted samples of our Macallan whiskies of known age, as control samples, to validate the methodology. These samples joined the queue for analysis at the laboratory and were duly analysed; on the basis of the findings, which gave us the degree of comfort we were looking for, we then selected a cross section of 19th century bottlings and have since submitted these for analysis.

“We are committed to this whole process to enable us to fully determine the authenticity of all the components of these bottlings. We are fully committed to get to the heart of the matter and re-assure all our customers around the world that we have taken all feasible steps to investigate the authenticity of these bottles.”

The statement, made at the beginning of March, predicted that the results were expected “in a couple of month’ – that is, early May. Any developments will be posted on the Whisky Magazine website.

[lexkraai]

The crucial question is of course whether Macallan has actually submitted samples of any of the 'suspiciously-labelled' bottles for analysis. I sincerely hope that Macallan will make the full results of the analyses available to all interested. And with full results I mean all data on exactly what kind of tests were done, which bottles were tested and what the test results were of each of those. Anything less than full exclosure will of course simply raise suspicion again.

This really is the opportunity for Macallan to show they have nothing to hide and put the whole sorry issue to rest. I hope they take this opportunity and eagerly await the full report in a few weeks time. Easiest way for Macallan to make the full report available is to announce the main results in WM and allow downloading of the full report in pdf-format from their own web-site.


Cheers, Lex

[Lawrence]

And there still is the issue of labels with incorrect historical information on them as raised by the origial article in WM.

[lexkraai]

Agree, Lawrence, but the way I see it is that IF the whisky in the bottles with historically incorrect labels is proven to be old rather then recent the balance shifts more towards historical sources being incomplete. It seems to me to be pretty far-fetched that a forger would go to the trouble and expense of actually sourcing old whisky to fill his/her fake bottles. Sort of beats the purpose.

I do wish Macallan would simply make the photo public which they claim proves that McWilliam had a shop in Craigellachie in those early days. Likewise for the warehouse records. As Iain has repeatedly said, what would be easier than that? But it appears that both the photo and the records are considered sensitive or confidential information. Why this would be so is completely beyond me ....

Cheers, Lex

[Iain]

In the pages of WM, Mac have claimed to have

1. photographic proof of the existence of McWilliam's shop at a significant date (they won't say when)

2. old warehouse ledgers with the names of customers who had casks filled and delivered.

3. recent reports from independent experts re the "authenticity" of some of their old labels and bottles (although they won't reveal which ones).

Why not make the information public?

To advertise the existence of all this evidence, but to keep it concealed, simply provides more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists and fosters daft notions of cover-ups and (incompetent) corporate spin.

(But not from me of course!).

[Jeroen Kloppenburg]

The big word is out guys:

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=553442004

Small snippet:

After a year-long investigation by the Macallan board, during which sample bottles were sent to Oxford University for carbon-dating testing, it emerged that the liquid content inside the bottles is "modern", in some cases as young as ten years old.

David Cox, the director of fine and rare whiskies for Macallan, yesterday described the findings as a "huge disappointment" and said the revelation had ramifications "not just for the market in antique bottles of Scotch but for the drinks industry as a whole".

Bad news for the Macallan, but I recon this going to wake up some people ...

[Iain]

Another quote, from the company: "If we can gather sufficient evidence against the perpetrators of this scam then we would consider bringing criminal proceedings, but it is going to be extremely difficult to find sufficiently hard evidence to be able to bring criminal proceedings against them."

I believe that Macallan were warned in correspondence and in many, many messages posted here for over two years that several bottles they offered for sale by auction on the firm's website might be forgeries.

I think it is quite shocking that Macallan chose to ignore what was offered as sincere, friendly and helpful advice and proceeded to sell those bottles of whisky to customers who were not made aware of doubts over the provenance of the contents (and the packaging itself).

The implications are wide-ranging. For example, were the replicants based on forgeries? Have people been paying £100 and more for bottles of whisky that are simply the recreation of a modern 10 year old that costs £20 in the shops?

And what on earth is going on at a certain Glasgow auction house?

[Lawrence]

From the Scotsman Newspaper May 15th,2004:

Macallan duped by Italians in vintage dram scam

WILLIAM LYONS


IT IS regarded as one of the finest collections of antique whisky in the world. The centrepiece of Macallan’s whisky museum in Craigellachie, on Speyside, which has been valued in excess of £500,000, draws whisky enthusiasts from around the world.

However, it could now be attracting visitors for another reason - as an example of one of the largest whisky forgeries in the history of the industry.

The Scotsman has learned that far from being some of the oldest whisky in the world, the liquid inside the bottles is not Victorian at all but dates from the late 1980s.

After a year-long investigation by the Macallan board, during which sample bottles were sent to Oxford University for carbon-dating testing, it emerged that the liquid content inside the bottles is "modern", in some cases as young as ten years old.

David Cox, the director of fine and rare whiskies for Macallan, yesterday described the findings as a "huge disappointment" and said the revelation had ramifications "not just for the market in antique bottles of Scotch but for the drinks industry as a whole".

Mr Cox said: "Those perpetrating this fraud doubtless sought to cash in on the growth in appreciation of fine, single-malt whiskies. The fraud involved them acquiring genuine old empty bottles at antique markets and re-filling them to be passed off as the complete genuine article."

The Scotsman understands that most of the bottles were bought from Italy from private collectors and auctions. It is not known how much Macallan paid for the collection but industry sources believe it would be considerably more than the present value of the collection which, after the revelations, is as little as £10,000.

Mr Cox added: "I am confident that the people we bought them from are not in the refilling business, they are respectable people.

"Somewhere along the line, they have acquired bottles either through another party or directly through the people who refilled them.

"If we can gather sufficient evidence against the perpetrators of this scam then we would consider bringing criminal proceedings, but it is going to be extremely difficult to find sufficiently hard evidence to be able to bring criminal proceedings against them."

Antique bottles of whisky started to appear at auction in greater numbers around the mid-1990s. It was a trend that caused a lot of collectors to pause for thought, according to Charles Maclean, a whisky consultant for Bonhams auction house and author of Scotch Whisky: A Liquid History.

Mr Maclean said: "Many people inside the industry were surprised at the time that while in the past there may have been an occasional bottle appearing at auction, there suddenly appeared to be a constant stream of old and obscure bottles which nobody had seen before.

"If you wanted to forge whisky, Macallan is the one you would go for, because it is by far and away the most collected whisky.

"The finger generally points to Italy; it may be terribly unkind to say that, but the Italians are master forgers. From classical times with major pieces of artwork there is a long and heroic history of forgery. But this is very bad luck, as a good forgery is almost impossible to detect, especially if the forger is using original bottles and refilling."

Macallan says the antique collection - totalling approximately 100 bottles - will continue to be displayed at the distillery and there are no plans to investigate the possibility of criminal proceedings against the perpetrators.

A spokesman for the Scotch Whisky Association said: "Scotch’s worldwide success means that, from time to time, unscrupulous traders seek to take unfair advantage of its reputation for quality. The industry therefore devotes considerable resources each year to protect Scotch whisky from lookalike and counterfeit products. Distillers have well established authenticity testing procedures, as Macallan has demonstrated."

[Rudolph Hucker]

It is only natural to feel sympathy for David Cox in this most unfortunate outcome to the Fake Macallan saga, and for the Macallan for the damage sustained to its reputation.

But why did the Macallan ever get themselves into this mess? Surely there was a duty on their part to ensure that what they were selling was genuine. Is it really acceptable to plead that they were victims of a criminal scam and bear no responsibility for the outcome?

Sadly, the fact remains that despite the very substantial doubts raised in this forum as to the provenance of the whisky, the Macallan ignored suggestions that the sales should at least be delayed, and left a perception of arrogance which disappointed many of its friends.


Not many cheers today

Rudolph

[hpulley]

I scoffed at the price of the 'replicas' before and now I laugh even harder. Macallan was duped but more duped were the people who paid so much for replicas of fakes which are really 7yo whiskies (youngest in the '1841' for example) for a lot of money. Even if they'd been real, they are just someone's idea of the closest taste and a commemorative bottle, definitely not worth the price.

Harry

[Jeroen Kloppenburg]

(excuse my bad monday morning typing)

Well.. I've read some good tastaing notes on those replica's. At least the forgers used some good malts then!

Ina ll seriousness, this reflects (very) bad towards the Macallan, but I feel really sorry for those who spend a lot of money on any f the products involved, wether it be a replica, or by that time thought to be a genuine antique Macallan expression.

I wonder if Macallan could be held responsible by those who bought bottles during auctions after serious doubts have been raised on this forum, the magazine and other places?

Anyone knows if similar cases (in other area's maybe such as winery or fine-art) have been happened in the past, and if any cases were brought before a judge to decide?

Like many said already, the best the Macallan could have done is at least hold off on the auctions till the tests were completed...

[Matt2]

Here is the news from Whisky Magazine .... http://www.whiskymag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1389

[Xavier]

Hi Jeroen,

Just for your information, here is a famous case of fraud in the wine industry (some years ago), with many similarities to the Mac-case.


PARIS, March 25 (AFP) - Belgian wine merchant Khaled Rouabah was given a year's suspended prison sentence and fined EUR 300,000 (USD 364,000) Thursday after being convicted in a Paris court of substituting century-old classic Bordeaux vintages with inferior wine from the 1960s.

Rouabah, 45, was found guilty of counterfeiting and fraud for trying to sell 360 bottles of 1900 Chateau Margaux and Chateau Lafite which he said he had found by chance in a wine-cellar he had acquired in Belgium.

Scientific evidence showed that the bottles - some of which went at auction for EUR 3,000 each - had in fact been filled with wine produced more than 60 years later.

At the hearing in February Rouabah told the court that all he had done was "re-condition" the bottles with small amounts of later vintages - a practice he said is current in the chateaux of the Bordeaux wine-producing region of southwest France.

[lexkraai]

I'm curious as to whether Macallan will do the decent thing with regard to the potentially fake bottles which have already been auctioned off. Clearly, those couldn't be tested, so I wonder whether Macallan will offer to test the whisky in those bottles and refund those people who were duped into buying fake bottles.

Cheers, Lex

[KenBeau]

Don't hold your breath

BTB, I'm looking forward to your latest whisky writings in Rhiannon's site.

Ken

[lexkraai]

Hi Ken, I'm not holding my breath, that's for sure!

As to the next contribution to "Celtic Spirit" on Riannon's web-site: I'm tasting my way through a bunch of eastern European whiskies for an article on what the new EU countries can offer us whisky-wise. Article will be published in about 2 weeks time.

Cheers, Lex

[Iain]

From the Sunday Mail, 23 May.



WHISKY STING DUPES MACALLAN


A WHISKY collection's value has been slashed from £500,000 to £10,000 after experts confirmed a fraud.

Bosses at the Macallan Whisky Museum on Speyside have admitted some of the bottles they thought contained rare Victorian whiskies date from the 1980s.

The Sunday Mail revealed last year that the Macallan distillery feared they had been fooled by a Mafia-run trade in fake vintage whisky.

Large quantities of alleged Victorian Macallan were appearing especially in Italy. Bosses called in Oxford University scientists and they confirmed the scam.

Macallan director David Cox said: 'The fraud involved acquiring empty bottles at antique markets and refilling them.'

Whisky expert Charles Maclean said: 'If you wanted to forge whisky, Macallan is the one because it is by far and away the most collected.'

[Iain]

From Mac press release, 16 Nov 2000

"Norman [Shelley] has purchased a much coveted collection of 76 bottles which includes many old, rare and unusual malts from The Macallan - some of them dating as far back as 1856, 1861, 1874, 1897, 1926, 1928 and 1940 (to name but a few!). The purchase represents what is quite possibly the finest privately owned vintage collection of The Macallan in the world.

With the value of the purchase set in excess of a staggering £200,000, Norman is buying the whisky because of his great love of The Macallan. He will be taking some of the bottles back home to Turkey to celebrate his purchase, but will leave many of the older bottles in the safe custody of The Macallan to be admired by visitors to the distillery.

Norman explained: "I am extremely excited to have the opportunity to purchase such wonderfully rare examples of The Macallan's art. For me, The Macallan is unquestionably the finest whisky in the world. Of course, being a businessman I look forward to seeing investment growth of my collection in future years and anticipate it outperforming the growth in fine wines in the recent past." "

- Did Norman REALLY pay £200,000 for his collection of Macallan?
- Has he submitted any of his bottles for testing to ensure that they are not fakes?
- Has his investment (if it was made in cash) outperformed the market in fine wines?
- Was this story just a pr stunt to "stimulate" the market in "vintage" Macs?
- Should there be a financial health warning attached to press releases such as this one, which recommend the purchase of whisky as a financial investment?

[Iain]

From the Mac website:

"The auctions for 2003 are now finished, the new auctions will commence in the Autumn 2004."

I think the next round of "vintage" auctions were originally due to commence in June.

[Jonas]

No mention of this on the Macallan website (news section). Is anybody surprised?

[Rudolph Hucker]

Yes,, Jonas, I for one am totally amazed that the Macallan website doesn't mention this.

After all, the open, frank and completely above board way in which they have behaved throughout this whole matter - not to mention their obvious concern for their customers - clearly indicates the way The Macallan operates.

No-one who has witnessed the steps they have taken to ensure that everyone interested is kept fully informed could possibly accuse them of having anythiong to hide.

Could they?

Cheers

Rudolph

[Iain]

Has anyone read the recent report in Malt Advocate, "Macallan Shocked by Fraud"?

Of course we know that Mac wouldn't have been shocked if anyone at the company had paid any attention to what folks were trying to tell them for 18 months here (and many months prior to that, in private correspondence)

The report makes some gobsmacking claims on behalf of Mac.

[Lawrence]

There's an editorial in Whisky Magazine also in issue 40 along with comments from all involved. I found it curious that the Malt Advocate made no mention of Whisky Magazine and it's article by Dave Broom that started the whole ball rolling.

[Admiral]

Not all that surprising....why would Malt Advocate give a plug and a compliment to its competitor?

[Iain]

This ad can be found from the Mac website shop htttp://shop.themacallan.com/items/special.html) today (26th July):

"The Macallan 1841 Replica
Filling whisky into glass was still uncommon in the 1850s, and the Macallan 1841 is one of the oldest surviving whisky bottles in existence. This bottling is an exact replica of the bottle and the whisky inside.
Comes in a stylish presentation box."


Check out the precise wording of the sentence "this bottling is an exact replica of the bottle and the whisky inside".

What sort of description is that? Does it taste like 1841 Macallan, or not?

Hopefully, the Mac 1841 on which this replicant whisky is based is not one of the "vintage Mac" bottles that contained whisky which according to recent press reports was scientifically tested and was "in some cases as young as 10 years old"?

If it is, one would hope Mac would inform potential customers exactly what is the approximate age of the spirit that has been replicated and is now offered for sale at the premium price of UK£99.99? (4 times the price of a standard Mac).

As for the other replicant bottles - what exactly are these whiskies created to replicate? What's in the bottles!

Time to get down to my local Oddbins and read some labels

[Rudolph Hucker]

Has anyone read the recent report in Malt Advocate, "Macallan Shocked by Fraud"?

Of course we know that Mac wouldn't have been shocked if anyone at the company had paid any attention to what folks were trying to tell them for 18 months here (and many months prior to that, in private correspondence)

The report makes some gobsmacking claims on behalf of Mac.

Re Iain's latest posting. surely the commonly understood definition of a replica is an exact copy - apart from the age.

So the contents of the 1841 replica bottle should be exactly the same as those of the original in taste, colour, smell etc if not in age. Does this mean that the original 1841 was the same taste, colour, smell etc as the 10 yo used in the fake bottles? And if not, did the same person who presumably validated that the fake bottlings were original , also validate the 1841 replica? If so, what faith can anyone have that the validation is accurate?

Mac may well claim in the Malt Advocate article to be shocked by the findings that they have been selling fake products - although as Iain rightly points out , they should not have been, given all the doubts raised here, but surely it might be sensible for them to hold back on the promotion of old (sic) and replica (really?) expressions until they are sure beyond any doubt of the provenance of their products.

I am sure I have not seen everything that Mac has said about this sad saga, but certainly in what I have seen, they appear to be more interested in portraying themselves as the victims, without a word of apology or regret to those people who actually bought the fakes, or for their actions in offering them for sale without having verfified their provenance.

Maybe they feel that they just need to tough it out and it will all be forgotten - except by a few anoraks on this forum who they clearly dismiss - or was that the editor of WM ? - as bizarre

Cheers

Rudoplh

[Lawrence]

I have read somewhere that the 1841 is about 8 years old, quite young for a Macallan. Unless the Macallan says otherwise I am going to presume that the whole line up is based on modern faked whiskies.

Rudolp what did you mean by the WM comment?

"Maybe they feel that they just need to tough it out and it will all be forgotten - except by a few anoraks on this forum who they clearly dismiss - or was that the editor of WM ? - as bizarre."

[Rudolph Hucker]

Lawrence

If you go to the Whisky Magazine section of this forum, you will see Rudolphs topic on Whisky Magazine - to which you contributed a posting.

I was pointing out that I thought it strange that the Editor of WM should refer in his column in the magazine to some of the contributors to these forums as being < bizarre > and <weird > .

I have read somewhere that the 1841 is about 8 years old, quite young for a Macallan. Unless the Macallan says otherwise I am going to presume that the whole line up is based on modern faked whiskies.

Rudolp what did you mean by the WM comment?

"Maybe they feel that they just need to tough it out and it will all be forgotten - except by a few anoraks on this forum who they clearly dismiss - or was that the editor of WM ? - as bizarre."