Nick Brown wrote:Let's be clear. Ardbeg has set the rule at one bottle per member. I_Spey tried to cheat by breaking that rule. In normal society, if you try to break a rule, you get punished. Yet here, we see poor, gullible SMK deciding to help him out.
You took a facetious remark by SMK and ran with it because it gave you a bit of dramatic leverage to your argument.
My point, which I hadn't thought was too difficult to grasp, was that we would all have liked more than the one bottle but chose to play by the rules. Yet the one person who tried to cheat seems to get all the sympathy and help.
The only sympathy that person has gotten is the rightful backing of people who felt your comments were completely unjustified attacks on the person.
I, Les and SoI are NOT asking for second bottles, because we recognize that it would be unfair for us to do so.
But if you could have one, you would - it is obvious from your posting history that you're a collector, be it to sell or otherwise. Geese, gander, and whatnot.
I was just pointing out that if you were going to bless someone with second helpings, it seems odd to bless the cheat. If SMK doesn't want a bottle, then he or she should leave it for someone who does want one and hasn't got one.
As far as i'm aware, and I could be wrong, his remark was sarcastic at best.
As for my quote a couple of years ago, I still half stand by it. That was Ardbeg complaining that people (who might have followed their sales rules) were selling their whisky on ebay. I think this is inevitable if you sell a product at under market value.
The producer is ultimately in charge of market value - The guys who run Ardbeg are not daft bits of 3 day old tuna, they knew that any limited Ardbeg would fetch a good price on the secondary market. Short of Laphroaig kindly suggesting people don't sell their Feis Ile bottlings on ebay, i've never directly seen a distillery tell people not to sell things on the secondary market.
But what I really find objectionable is people who try to cheat on the purchase rules to get more for themselves, and people who try to skew a market by shilling or organizing runs on selected shelves in a bid to drive up the value of their own stock.
Speculation and delusion, nothing more.
Yes, I have used some emotive language. But that's because I think there is a real risk that a few people are using these pages for ends that are in direct conflict with the ethos of Whisky Magazine and the interests of most of its readers. And I am saddened that some members of this forum seem to side automatically with anyone who is being criticized without first asking whether the criticism might be correct.
Direct conflict with the ethos? This isn't the round table, Nick. As far as i'm aware the 'ethos' of this forum is to promote the discussion of all aspects of whisky, and that includes the terror
that is market speculation.
I will argue that if it weren't for a small handful of speculators in the mix of regular customers, these bottlings wouldn't be as popular nor as common as they currently are.