Lumsden's explanation sounds perfectly sound to me.
maybe they wanted it to reach 40 years, as it's quite an age to have on the bottle.
One final detail is that you are not quite correct to call the 1965 Ardbeg 40 years old - I had it bottled in 2005
They could have been waiting for it to peak
There's going to be a tasting session next week with some big shots of LVMH and some whisky afficionado's I know. I will post the notes when I have them.
PeatPirate wrote:There's a new topic-title. The title of the topic however isn't half as important as a thougtfull discussion about the current situation at Ardbeg.
PeatPirate wrote:Hoi Jeroen,
I think there's a little misunderstanding. One of the other forum users asked me by PMS to change the original topic title, so there's no other topic as far as i know.
He thought the first title (something with scam and misunderstanding) was damaging and a bit harsh.
I didn't fully agree with him, but as this forum is for everybody, and because I'm a really, really nice guy, I changed the title immediately
So I finally contributed to political correctness (yuk ) My father would be proud...