|
Case #001 - Glen Albyn 10yo |
|
I bought this bottle more than two years before I started worrying about 'fakes' in general.
In fact, since I don't really move in collecting circles, it may have been the very first time
I thought about the topic at all. Until then I implicitly trusted the seller to be 'on the level'.
Nevertheless, I had a very strong suspicion this Glen Albyn was a fake bottling even before
I bought it. First of all, there was the overall atmosphere in the store where I bought it...
It was a small store in a cellar at the 'Bloemenmarkt' in Amsterdam; Noord's Wijnhandel.
Being an obvious tourist trap along a canal where the only natives are the flower vendors
and fishmongers, it's not the type of liquorist I'm likely to visit under normal circumstances.
However, the circumstances were hardly 'normal'. It was June 21, 2002 and I was strolling
along the canals of Amsterdam with Davin, Serge and Serge's wife Frederique. We had left
Klaus, Michael and Roman in a cafe to watch some international football match and cruised
the markets of Amsterdam looking for trinkets and souvenirs. After a while we ended up on
the flower market (I think Davin was looking for some squirrel proof tulip bulbs) and despite
my doubts the francophones were determined to enter the liquor store when we passed it.
We were greeted - or rather, we WEREN'T greeted - by a surly, burly 'souteneur' type.
My mother raised me too well to mention anything to his face at the time, but as long as
you promise not to tell anybody else I'm happy to say behind his back that he looked like an
untrustworthy fellow. And the odd thing was that the biggest part of the store was closed
off by a massive rope - and the liquor pimp was guarding it jealously. A fairly odd situation...
Anyway, to cut a long story short; I still ended up buying two bottles at only 40 Euro's each.
I can't be 100% sure this is a fake bottling (I've only tried one other Glen Albyn), but since
the distillery closed in 1983 this 10yo bottling would have to be bottled in the early 1990's.
So, how likely is it thatl there were still many bottles left on the shelf? Not very, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
Well, this must be the shoddiest fake we found so far.
Our Taiwanese maniac Ho-cheng Yao found it on the shelves of 'Drinks Wines & Spirits Co. Ltd.',
Taiwan's largest chain of liquor stores. This was supposed to be an Arran 1982/2002 (57%, 'OB').
Well, well... that's very interesting, because the very first spirit flowed from the stills at Arran
on June 29, 1995 - some thirteen years later. So, it's either a case of 'mislabeling' or a fake.
Needless to say, we checked with the distillery and they confirmed our fears: it was a fake.
Shocking, isn't it? From a distance the bottle actually looks quite authentic.
The front label specifies intimate details like a bottling date of 24/10/2002 and an ABV of 57%.
They copied Arran's logo & typeface and Arran's catchphrase 'Single Island Malt Scotch Whisky'.
It comes in a cool wooden box and has red tin foil around the cap, just like the 'Unchillfiltered'.
However, as you can see on the picture at the right, the tin foil looks a little bit 'ruffled'. Hmm.
That's odd - and there are some other things about this bottling that seem positively suspect.
There's the use of the odd phrase 'Distillation in 1982' instead of the more common 'Distilled in
1982' and there are some strange typo's you wouldn't expect, like 'Strling' instead of 'Stirling'.
Obviously, these small oversights pale in comparison to the blunder of putting 1982 on the label. The people who produced this fluky fake were obviously not too bright - to put it very mildly.
First of all, if you're going to fake a malt whisky, you might as well try to fake an upmarket malt
like Macallan or Port Ellen. To the best of my knowledge, Arran hasn't quite reached the same
levels of status and collectability yet. The only reason I can think of for fakers choosing Arran
is that there's a good chance that customers won't taste the difference between 'the real thing'
and some locally distilled fire water. What's more, if these fakers would have had the smarts to
check the Distillery Data section on Malt Madness they would have known better than to come
up with an Arran that was supposedly distilled in 1982. In fact, they probably would have come
up with something completely different altogether - a good fake of Ardbeg or Brora would be
worth a lot more than an Arran, I imagine. Well, it's an odd fake, however you look at it.
You can find some more pictures of this fake Arran in E-pistle 10/12
in Malt Maniacs #10.
Especially the wooden box the bottle came in is very nice. It almost makes this fake collectible...
|
|
|
|
Well, we're not entirely sure about this one - it may or may not be a 'fake'.
In E-pistle 10/14 Serge suggested that this could be fake bottle. First of all, the bottle looks
completely different from the black, tall and slender 10yo bottle we all know and love to hate.
Serge also felt that Diageo, the world's #1 malt manufacturer, wouldn't choose the 'Amaretto'
type of bottle shown at the right. Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that particular argument...
After all, aren't they the people who bring us Cardhu? That bottle's design is hardly 'spartan'.
And there were other 'positive' signs as well; I agree with Serge that the plastic seal around
the stopper looks quite professional. After collecting some more data, Serge changed his POV.
He wrote: 'I think the Loch Dhu isn't a 'fake', but rather a misuse of a registered brand name'. Hmmm... but that brings up an interesting question.
Even if Serge is right about 'misuse of a brand name', the fundamental problem doesn't change.
Here we have a label that suggests something about the contents of the bottle that isn't true.
After all, the name 'Loch Dhu' suggests the bottle contains malt whisky distilled at Mannochmore.
Isn't the fact that even the people of an esteemed publication like Whisky Magazine were fooled
proof that 'misuse of a brand name' or 'labeling errors' can be just as serious a problem as fakes?
Anyway, we don't have enough information right now to confirm this as a 100% fake.
Please feel free to drop me a line if you have any more information about this bottling.
|
|
Case #004 - Laphroaig 1991 'Highgrove' |
|
As far as we know, the Laphroaig 'Highgrove' was only one of many fake Laphroaigs.
For example, the seller (Mr. David Brooks from the UK) also sold the Laphroaig 30yo on eBay.
You can find all the horrifying details in
E-pistle 11/07 (a minute-by-minute account from our
Belgian Maniac
Luc Timmermans) and 11/08 (confirmation by Lawrence Graham
from Canada).
The most baffling aspect of the case isn't that somebody was selling fake bottles of Laphroaig
through eBay, but that Allied (the owners of Laphroaig) seems suspisciously reluctant to take
action - or inform victims of the fraud about any actions they might be taking. Very odd....
Anyway, just read Luc's extensive E-pistle
for a full account of his misadventures.Meanwhile, Mr. David Brooks has simply changed his eBay alias from 'kanchenchunga' to
'muchtyboulder' shortly after articles from Luc and Lawrence were published on Malt Maniacs.
Changing an alias is easy and we've since learned that other sellers on eBay are also selling
suspect bottles through auctions. I'm just speculating here, but it might be possible that
some sellers choose auctions on eBay because national trade laws protecting consumers
don't apply to international eBay auctions? Hmmm... interesting theory, If I may say so.
And things get even more interesting when you notice some of the disclaimers that are
added; discalaimers along the lines of
'This item is sold for its value as a container not
its contents, it is sealed and still holds its orginal contents, but this is coincedental.
This item is being sold as a collectors item and is not intended for consumption.'
Well, well... I'm no legal expert, but I guess provisions like these could muddy the
water some more for conned consumers that try to get a refund for their fake. I should mention one more thing, though...
Italian maniac Luca Chichizola
has bought an UDRM bottling of Convalmore from Mr. Brooks
and according to Luca nothing seems to be amiss with this bottling as far as he can tell.
So, it's entirely possible that some of the bottlings sold by Mr. Brooks are indeed genuine.
And Luc DID receive his money back, although the story could have ended different as well.
Anyway - I should be able to publish some more juicy details on this in the future...
|
|
Case #005 - Mortlach 21yo Flora & Fauna |
|
Within two months after discovering a fake Arran (supposedly distilled in 1982) in August 2004
our fearless fake hunter Ho-cheng Yao
found a friend of him in the posession of another fake.
And based on what I've seen so far, it seems that the fakes here in he west are superior in
'quality' to the fakes found in Taiwan - just like the Arran this Mortlach was highly suspect.Obviously they tried to copy the Mortlach 16yo (Flora & Fauna).
However, they did a pretty crappy job - just like they did with the Arran (from '1982').
In fact, that Arran looked almost like a work of master forgery compared to this Mortlach.
They forgot the 'naturist' picture that's present on the label of all F&F bottlings, they changed
the age statement from 16yo to 21yo and there are lots of silly spelling mistakes on the label.
Any label with phrases like
'singel malt', 'Keppt', 'distillerise' and 'waetr' should be viewed with
extreme suspicion. Furthermore, the bottle isn't right (the real thing has a slightly 'bulgy' neck
as opposed to the long straight neck of this bottle), there's no black tin 'collar' around the cork,
the level of whisky in the bottle is very low and it seems to be 'sweating' quite a bit. Check out Log Entry 11/21 for a close up of the label and a comparison with 'the real thing'.
It's not very obvious on those pictures, but to the naked eye the differences between the
shape of the proper Flora & Fauna bottles and this Taiwanese fake are very clear indeed.
The fake bottling is notably 'taller' and the label doesn't cover as much of the 'body' of the
bottle as it does with the real F&F bottlings. Together with the spelling mistakes and other
flaws I already mentioned, this bottle already screams 'fake' at you from a large distance.
This is without a doubt the clumsiest fake we found so far - they might have gotten away
with the Arran if it hadn't been for the '82 vintage, but this wouldn't fool anybody for long.
The shop: Pacific Department Store, Yonghe Branch, Yonghe City, Taipei County, Taiwan.
|
|
Case #006 - Ardbeg 14yo 1988/2002 'Manibolari' |
|
Well, at least here's a 'suspect' that smiles at you from the shelf. In fact, it grins maniacally.
And that's not the only fun part about this bottling - it's actually a pretty good dram as well.
When four malt maniacs sampled it at Serge's place in November 2004 it received three 87's
and an 86, putting this rabid rooster uncomfortly close behind the universally loved 10yo OB.
So, what's the problem, you ask? Well, only the simple fact that Ardbeg was closed in 1988!
As far as we know, Ardbeg was mothballed in 1983 until production resumed again in 1989!Mr. Giuseppe Gambi from Ristorante Gloria, Vialle de la Nazioni 420, Marina di Ravenna, Italy
(the seller of the bottle) stated:
'I can guarantee the authenticity of the product because
it has been personally selected by me; the origin of the casks is from various bottlers in the
UK, whose name of course I keep jealously secret. Regarding the Ardbeg 14yo 1988/2002,
I asked the same question to the seller of the cask, who answered that the Ardbeg distillery
was re-opened in 1989 for what concerns official distillation and bottling, but the independent
bottlers managed to get some casks at the very end of 1988. That's why my label displays
the 1988 date: I believe in what the British guys say, because they are usually honest people.' Well... Stuart Thompson disagrees; 'There was no production at all at Ardbeg during 1988'.
So, that's reason enough to consider this bottle 'suspect' until further notice...
|
|
Case #007 - Hazelburn 12yo 'Circa 1900' Thorne & Sons |
|
I didn't know it at the time, but when I read
Flemming Gerhardt-Pedersen's open letter about
the Hazelburn 12yo (supposedly from ca. 1900) it was already a controversial bottle. In fact,
only after publishing the letter and Mr. Andreas Jacob's response did I hear that Dave Broom
had already voiced strong doubts about these bottles in Whisky Magazine #31. Then the first
stories from other 'insiders' emerged who had already dismissed the 'Thorne & Sons' range as
probable fakes. Well, after the carbon testing at Oxford University there's no more doubt...Even though further research wasn't neccessary to determine the 'fakeness' of this bottle
we discussed this Hazelburn and the other Thorne & Sons bottlings in our Fake Signs E-pistle
and the more we poked around in the dirt, the stronger the stench of deception became.
Personally, I found the seller's response most disturbing of all. Even after Flemming sent Mr.
Jacobs the results of the carbon dating, he continued to sell bottlings in this Thorne & Sons
range on eBay without making any mention of the fact that this might be a fake bottling.
Even sellers of fake Rolexes have the common decency to tell you you're buying a fake....
And that's usually reflected in the price as well; some of these fake whiskies can cost
you thousands of Euro's - which could buy you a pretty decent real Rolex, I imagine...When I asked Mr. Andreas Jacobs about a response to Flemming's open letter he replied:
'I do not know which bottles are fake and which are no fakes, I think this is very difficult
for everyone. They tested the Hazelburn and it seems to be a fake. I do not sell a Hazelburn
on eBay. Nobody knows, if all bottles from this edition are fakes or not. That's why they write
"seems to be fakes". I think I made everything right.' Oh really? Well, maybe I'm just being
old-fashioned, but it seems to me that the decent thing to do when confronted with news
that suggests some of your merchandise is not genuine is have at least one more bottle
tested. If that turns out to be genuine you have a case for other Thorne & Sons bottlings
having a fair chance of being genuine as well. Otherwise, you should talk to the person
who sold them to you instead of trying to unload them on unsuspecting customers.
|
|
Case #008 - Ardbeg '1892' McDougall & Co |
|
After the Hazelburn, we found another ancient 'high end' bottle that raised suspicions.
It was offered on eBay by Mr. Giuseppe Gambi who was kind enough to answer all our
questions in detail;
'I inherited this bottle from my father, who in turn had inherited it from
his (my grandfather). My grandfather was born in 1921, the bottle is of English provenance
and was bought from an English collector almost 100 years ago (I can't supply more details
because both my father and grandfather are dead). In my humble opinion, the bottles are
authentic, because of the ancient look of the paper laber and of the glass...
The only thing I can say is that I have sold some of these bottles in Japan: they were
opened and drunk with excellent response, at least according to these Japanese guys who
drink a lot of whisky and are quite knowledgeable. So, for all that concerns me and with
the info in my possession, I can safely say that my bottles are OK and I don't think it's
fair that they are looked uopn with contempt or judged as fakes.'Well, we didn't 'judge' this as a fake bottle, but in E-pistle #13/05 some questions were
asked and we have taken it upon ourselves to try and investigate all the 'cases' that are
brought to our attention. In this case, fellow malt maniac Charles MacLean and Martin
Hoeflmaier of the Ardbeg Whisky Archiv seem to believe this bottle is genuine while Dave
Broom and Sukhinder Singh have some doubts. So, that's a precarious 50/50 balance.
The other opinions seem to be pretty much divided along the same grey lines as well.
At the moment, I'm personally inclinded to believe this bottle is genuine.
Anybody cunning enough to knowingly sell masterfully forged antique bottles surely wouldn't
claim these bottles to be 'in the family' for almost a century. If somebody indeed decided to
buy the bottle and have a sample sent out for carbon dating, a 'fake' conclusion would leave
little to the imagination about the culprit in the case. In our experience so far, some sellers
can be incredibly vague when asked about the source of suspect or confirmed fakes.
So, based on the information so far I'd have to label this one 'inconclusive'.
Until somebody buys the bottle and has a sample tested, that is...
|
|
Case #009 - Macallan 1954 OB Display Botttle |
|
Well, this Macallan 1954 is a bit of a special case.
It is a 'fake' of sorts - but this bottle was actually produced by Macallan.
The same isn't neccessarily true for the contents of the bottle, though - that may be tea!
Or, according to Mr. David Cox from
Macallan, a three years old whisky - but not Macallan.
This Mac '54, brought to our attention by Gabriel Radstrom, turned out to be a display bottle.
Here's the reply Gabriel received from Macallan after enquiring about the bottle;'Dear Ms Radstrom, Thank you very much for your e-mail. Upon investigation, it appears
that these bottles were issued as dummy bottles, for retailer display. They contain 3yo
whisky (not The Macallan) and are purely released to allow a retailer to display the look of
Fine & Rare Macallan without having to incur the expense of purchasing and holding stock.
Genuine Fine & Rare vintage Macallan will always have a unique reference number on the
back label, together with a signature, as well as a code number on the inside of the front
label (visible by looking through the bottle from the back). I hope this helps !
kind regards, David Cox, Director, Fine & Rare malt whiskies.' So, that's a rather clear-cut case of a fake bottling, it seems. Well, yes and no...
As you can read in E-pistle # 13/07 the seller on eBay actually included a picture that
highlighted the missing reference number (see right) and mentioned this was a 'sample'.
Unfortunately, he didn't specify what he meant with 'sample' - which might explain why
somebody still ended up the happy winner of the auction at the princely sum of £780.00.
That's more than 1,000 Euro's in real money, so I can only hope that the buyer never
reads this. Aided by the omnipotent powers of suggestion he may actually enjoy the
contents of his bottle some day - even though it's just a 3yo whisky at best...Well, hold that thought... Shortly after we published our 'Mac 1954' discussion Lawrence
received a reply from the buyer. As it turns out, Macallan found out about these bottles
being offered on eBay and contacted the seller. To avoid any (probably legal) problems
the seller asked the buyer - a friend - to 'buy' all the bottles. So, it would seem that in
this case we can't complain about a lack of involvement on the part of the distillery.
|
|
Case #010 - Longrow 14yo 1993/2004? |
|
I received another message from our Taiwanese fake hunter Ho-cheng:
'After the fake Arran 1982, I have found another odd "label" in the store.
The same chain store that sold the Arran is now selling "Longrow 14yo 1993". (...)
It turns out the store changed the paper box into a wooden box in Taiwan to sell more.
However, someone had the bright idea to put a vintage on the box.
It is obvious he has no sense about the numbers. Anyway, the bottle itself has no problem.
I actually asked politely if I can get the original paper box.
They asked me to leave a contact number but never call back!'Well, I'm not sure I agree with Ho-cheng that this is not a 'fake'.
If we accept the excuse 'mistake on the label' or 'mistake on the box', that would make it
very easy for fakers and malicious traders to cover up an intentional fraud if they're caught!
Especially when we're dealing with a store that has sold confirmed fake bottles (the Arran)
before, I think the 'burden of proof' is on the store and we should consider any 'mislabeled'
bottle as suspect until proven otherwise. This box says there's a 14yo whisky from 1993
inside - which can't be the case because this was probably bottled in 2004 or even earlier.
And that's assuming this actually is a Scotch whisky. If the store is unscrupulous enough
to 'invent' details in order to sell more, who's to say they would stop there?
At the same time, we can't rule out the possibility that the bottle itself is genuine.
Ho-cheng also provided a picture and at first glance I didn't see anything alarming there.
Nevertheless, it seems to make sense to treat traders that have sold confirmed fakes in the
past with caution. Based on the reputation of Drinks Wines & Spirits Co. from Taipei I would
personally avoid spending any money there at all and look for a more reliable source instead.
|
|
Case #011 - Ben Wyvis 10yo 'Invergordon' |
|
Well, let me start by stressing that this isn't really a 'fake' bottling as such.
However, I think I'm not exaggerating when I use the term 'misleading' for the labeling.
Although the label boasts the name 'Ben Wyvis' and the phrase 'Single Highland Malt', this
has nothing to do with the actual Ben Wyvis distillery - that one was demolished almost three
decades ago in 1977. This 'bastard malt is part of Invergordon's 'malts of distinction'; sold in
Holland by the carpetbaggers from Gall & Gall. There are three other malts in the range;
Ardnave, Cairnluish, and Glen Foyle.I've checked my 'Moss & Hume' and it seems that Ardnave and Cairnluish are 'fantasy' names.
However, Glen Foyle was an actual 'real' distillery, just like Ben Wyvis. It was closed in 1923.
However, the warehouses were used by Tullibardine and they were sold to Invergordon in 1971.
So, Invergordon could very well own the 'brand name' (although they were never involved with
the distillery when it operated). Nevertheless, the whisky inside the bottle can't have anything
to do with the whisky distilled at the real Glen Foyle distillery - which would be priceless. The story of Ben Wyvis is a little more complicated, I'm afraid
There actually were two distilleries by that name, both now closed. The first one, also known
as 'Ferintosh' was built in 1879 and closed in 1926. AFAIK, Invergordon was never involved here.
Then, in 1965, the Invergordon distillery (located in the same area) built an all new 'Ben Wyvis'
distillery next to their complex. This distillery has been silent since 1977 and is now dismantled.
So, even though the age statement on the bottle only indicates a 'minimum' age, I would say
it's highly unlikely that the whisky in the bottle at the right was distilled at Ben Wyvis ;-)
So, I'd say chossing the names 'Ben Wyvis' and 'Glenfoyle' is misleading...
But it's not a downright fake, so we'll call it a 'label issue'.
|
|
Case #012 - Springbank 1966 |
|
This story started in March 2005 when seller 'macmad2000' offered an empty bottle on eBay.
It was a Springbank from 1966, Bourbon cask #502, Bottle #109, 53% ABV. This bottle was
sold to buyer 'minybottles' for 31,50 GBP. Fredrik Wallstrom had been monitoring the actions
of 'minybottles' on eBay after buying a suspected fake bottling some time ago. When he saw
the same bottling (but this time supposedly full) offered on eBay less than a month later he
decided to contact the Malt Maniacs Taskforce. And we agreed this was a smelly story...We were unable to determine if the seller 'rarebowmore' was actually a different person from
the buyer of the empty bottle ('minybottles') or just another fake identity, but that was hardly
relevant. Both ads specified that the bottle involved was bottle number 109 (bottled at 53%).
Research of a few Springbank experts confirmed that cask #502 was the only one bottled in
september 1999 at 53%, proving that the 'full' bottle #109 from that cask had been empty
just a month earlier. So, this seems to give a whole new meaning to the phrase 'refill'... Some further research into the ebay archives showed that the eBay members 'minybottles'
and 'rarebowmore' are either one and the same person or part of a small group of people that
do a lot of trading amongst themselves. Within a few hours after we sent the seller of the
'refill' bottle a few questions the listing of the item was cancelled. Seems like a clear cut case.
|
|
After presenting the first twelve cases it dawned upon us that this page could become a tad TOO useful.
Useful for the fakers themselves, that is... By publishing all the details about our investigations and the 'evidence' we've
gathered on this page and in several log entries and E-pistles we were actually busy writing our own version of 'Faking It for Dummies'. Obviously, that's not what we wanted to accomplish when we started this page. So, the
deliberations on any future suspect bottles will take place 'behind closed doors' and we will only publish our final conclusions on this page. Whether or not you are willing to accept the 'judgements' of the malt maniacs at face
value is entirely up to you, of course.
Please feel free to invest your money in bottles we deem 'suspect' - see if we care ;-)
|
Case #013 - Isle of Jura 'Season 1882' |
|
The first case where we reached a 'fake' verdict without publishing our evidence afterwards.
But rest assured that we did find the proof we needed; in fact we obtained several pieces of
evidence from a number of different sources - and it all adds up to this being a confirmed fake.
The price? Oh, the seller (Mr. Andreas Jacobs, who also offered the fake Hazelburn in january)
would like a measly 4,900 Euro's for it. So, at these bargain basement prices you could almost
buy it on a lark, no? Well, maybe not - with 5,000 Euro's you could buy a hundred great malts!
We investigated the matter further and Klaus discovered that an 'Isle of Jura Season 1882'
bottling was offered for auction at McTears on September 20, 2000 - likely the same bottle.
This is the only bottle from the 'old' (pre-1963 re-opening) Jura Distillery ever seen at auction.
That bottle had an estimated value of 1600 to 1900 pounds but was sold for 4,1000 pounds.
Apparently, it appeared at auction again in April 2001 with an estimated value of £3,000-3,500
and eventually achieved a price of £2,100. Hmmm... That's a drop in 'value' of 50% in just six
months, if I'm not mistaken. Does that mean anything? Possibly...
Like I wrote earlier the bottle is now offered by Mr. Andreas Jacobs. When we asked him about
it he readily disclosed where and when he obtained the bottle, so that seems to be a good sign.
Unfortunately, we don't have an e-mail address for the seller, so I can't investigate further.
Nevertheless, it seems likely that this is the same bottle offered at the McTears auctions.
|
|
|
|
Next Case? |
|
Join the mailinglist if you want to know when we've discovered another fake...
|
|
