Value of signed bottles

by **phaenggi** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:39 pm

Hi all

I have e.g. two bottles of the Bowmore 1968 Celtic Heartland edition. One is signed by Jim Mc Ewan, the other one is not signed.

Since I want to open one of the two, I am interested in knowing which one is more valuable if I want to sell it.

To make the question more generic. If I have three identical bottels of following kind, how do you order them in price.

Signed by a well known person with a personal text e.g. "My best whishes to Philipp, Jim Mc Ewan"
Signed by a well known person with a unpersonal text e.g. "Jim Mc Ewan, 1.12.2005 Zurich"
Not signed.

Thanks for your input
Philipp

by **Oliver** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:12 pm

Signed bottles are a fad, IMHO. Or: have the people who actually make the stuff sign it; not the 'adverstiser/rep in chief' or 'master' distiller...
Lets put it this way: I sometimes buy whisky online and elswhere and given the choice I would NEVER buy the signed bottle (since I usually despise the person giving the autograph) over the unsigned one.
FWIW,

by **irishwhiskeychaser** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:22 pm

I would say if it is a well known person who had a hand in making the whisky it can only help sell the bottle but may not substantially increase the value. I reckon you would get more interest in a signed bottle. This is because there is provenance attached to the bottle which is an antiques trade term.

therefore my opinion would be that it would sell faster than a clean bottle.
However a personalised dedication may not help.

I would list importance as such.

Signed by a well known person with a unpersonal text e.g. "Jim Mc Ewan, 1.12.2005 Zurich"

Not signed.

Signed by a well known person with a personal text e.g. "My best whishes to Philipp, Jim Mc Ewan"

by **Deactivated Member** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:19 pm

My guess (and I don't know) is that most signatures from the industry would have little recognition factor in ten or twenty years. Jim McEwan may be well known today, but who was the master distiller at Bruichladdich or Bowmore in 1986? Signatures of people who are no longer famous might detract from the value.

Scarcity is also an issue. I have a bottle of House of Commons whisky signed by Mr Tony Blair. Whilst this is clearly a nice thing to have, there are lots of similar examples out there and they are unlikely to be drunk, therefore as an item of value, my bottle has lttle value now and will have less value when Mr Tony Blair fades into history.

I collect signed books and do get them dedicated to me. I have no intention of selling them, but persuade myself that the more writing in the author's hand, the better. Even if it is personal.

I guess there is no right and wrong answer. Fashions change and the winners (financially) will be those who managed to guess the trends of tomorrow rather than follow the fashions of today. Who knows - Tormore might become a cult whisky and the man with a crate of today's vintage will be laughing.

by **TheLiquorBaron** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:09 am

Interesting subject...!

I wonder myself at autographed bottles...their value as a collectible rather than the actual whisky that is.
I know I wouldn't drink from a bottle(or open it for that matter) if it was autographed by someone significant within the industry.

Here is a question...would you pay more for the bottle below than what the shelf price is??

by **irishwhiskeychaser** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:58 am

For a currently available bottle I would not pay any extra for a signed bottle. But my point earlier was that if the bottle was collectable one would probably sell the signed one faster than say a clean one and may get a slightly better return but not a whole pile more.

Just it is more interesting to have a bottle which was signed by the distiller or master blender of the time. I personally think it adds to the whole image of the bottle (an extra talking point if you will) but I would not be counting on making a shed load out of signed bottles.