- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/03 - Ardbeg Masterclass in Oostende
Submitted on 03/02/2005 by Luc Timmermans, Belgium

I admit I did not hesitate one second when Geert Bero (a big
Ardbeg collector from Belgium) sent me the invitation to join an
Ardbeg Masterclass with a very promising line-up.  Where can
one enjoy these exclusive Ardbeg expressions in one evening?
Look for yourself:

Ardbeg 30yo (40%, OB)
Ardbeg 21yo 'Committee' (56.3%, OB, 2500 b.)
Ardbeg 10yo (58.7%, OB, Cask Strength Japan, 2003, 900 b.)
Ardbeg 1976/2000 Committee (53,2%, OB, Cask 2394, 446 b.)
Ardbeg 1972/2004 (44,4%, OB, Manager's choice, C#3038)
Ardbeg 1976/2004 (51.4%, OB for Feis Isle 2004, C#2398)

What an impressive line-up!
And this for only 95 EUR including a full Scottish buffet with delicious smoked salmon.
The masterclass was presented by Bert Bruyneel.  Bert is also a big Ardbeg collector and if I'm correct he has the full collection of Ardbeg's released after the re-opening of the distillery except for only 3.  Beside from collecting Bert is also a big whisky connoisseur and the chairman of the Wee Dram Whisky Society (www.weedram.be) in Belgium.  So I was in for one exciting evening of whisky enjoyment, for sure!

To start the evening and, like Bert put it so nicely, 'get the palate straight', we started with a young one.
They first presented us a young Ardbeg expression, the Ardbeg 10yo 1993/2004 (50%, DL OMC, Cask 1262).
Nose: a very fresh and peaty nose, even at some stage very sweet and slightly fruity, again the Ardbeg cow stable comes through, salted butter, slightly bitter in the nose, not overly complex but a very nice nose all together.
Taste: whauh, this one attacks you immediately big time, very alcoholic and peated with some light smoke.
Finish: medium long, peaty but rather sharp.
Comments: the nose is much better then the taste, too alcoholic if you ask me, the punch is perhaps simply too harsh.
Points: 85 points.

During our tasting Bert positively overwhelmed us with his knowledge of Ardbeg. 
He had been working for a week at the distillery in August of last year together with Lode Bleux and shared with us all the details of the distillery and its whisky production.  I was really impressed.   I bet Bert even knows the first name of all cats and mice's in the Ardbeg warehouses.  I know now who to call if I want to give an Ardbeg masterclass.  Congrats Bert!
So here is the line-up again with my tasting notes.  Happy reading!

Ardbeg 30yo (40%, OB) - 87 points
Nose: shoe polish, wax, dried orange peel, apricots and becomes very smoky.
Taste: very smoky taste, bacon with salt.
Finish: rather short but very delicate.
Comments: the nose is simply beautiful but the taste is perhaps too weak, if only Ardbeg had made this with a higher alcohol volume. By adding some drops of water this Ardbeg becomes very farmery and even metallic in the nose.

Ardbeg 10yo Cask Strength (58.7%, OB, for Japan, 2003, 900 b.) - 89 points
Nose: very fresh, peat, butter, cut metal, plastic, pretty strange but lovely at the same time.
A bit like opening a Tupperware box that has been closed for some time.
Taste: whauh, what an attack again, very biting and sharp and salt.
Not overly complex but what a punch, have I been kicked on the head here.
Finish: very long finish with the peatiness coming back over and over again
Comments: this one is made for big boys, what a punch of peat & salt in the taste, the attack is perhaps even too dominating.

Ardbeg 21yo 'Committee' (56.3%, OB, 2500 b.) - 91 points (although I scored it 93 at a previous event)
Nose: butterscotch, apricots, citrus, oranges, slight woodnotes, sour cream, metal and again some plastic notes like the Japan version
Taste: peat attack beautifully mixed with sweet notes, but very attacking and powerful, but better then the Japan version
Finish: very long finish with a perfect balance between peat, butter and salt, with the sweetness coming back to you
Comments: this is great stuff; I like this one so much.  The mixture between peatiness and sweetness is magnificently balanced in this Ardbeg.

Ardbeg 1972/2004 (44,4%, OB, Manager's Choice, Bourbon Cask 3038, Belgium) - 93 points
I had tasted this one before for the French Whisky magazine; that cask sample earned 92 points.
Nose: fine and complex nose of salt, seaweed, very farmery, an open cow stable, salted butter, some caramel notes, pineapple tree, metal, salted bacon, mmm very delicate nose that keeps on bringing and bringing.
Taste: very salted taste, even some pepper notes but again simply beautiful.
Finish: medium long finish, very gently interwoven Ardbeg character with a perfect balance.
Comments : this is a super great whisky, not for the peat-freak that looks for a powerful Ardbeg expression but if you look for some delicacy this should be your choice, perhaps the saltiness in the taste and the perhaps rather short finish make this one not 100 % perfect, although I doubt if we will ever discover thé perfect dram.

Ardbeg 1976/2000 (53,2%, OB, Cask 2394,Committee 2000, 446 b.) - 93 points
Nose: smoked and salted bacon with caramel notes and burnt sugar, prunes, raisins, furniture polish, tobacco (the best kind from Cuba) and coffee, slightly sulfur, very powerful nose, simple great stuff.
Taste: beautiful round taste of delicious peat with burnt sugar, smoked bacon coming back, great balance.
Finish: medium long finish, spicy, but slightly bitter and woody, but in a positive way, no off-notes what so ever.
Comments: Beautiful balance between the peat – fruit and the furniture polish and smoked bacon, too bad the sulfur notes are present, otherwise this one could compete with the Ardbeg 1976/2002 (53.1%, OB, single cask for Feis Isle, cask 2390).

Ardbeg 1976/2004 (51.4%, OB for Feis Isle 2004, Sherry butt #2398, 504 bottles) - 70 points
I had tasted this one before at the Ardbeg session before our Italy trip at Serge's place, and I did not like it then.
I can only say, that has even become worse, me disliking this Ardbeg expression, especially after this line-up.
This last Ardbeg does not have it, if you ask me.
Nose : burnt sugar, shoe polish, wood, tobacco……
Let's wait to see if we get anything else, nope, 5 minutes later, nope nothing…..pretty simply.
Taste: yak, this is so bitter and woody, I taste alcohol and sulfur, and this is so bad.
Finish: it finishes ok, but only on bitter woody sulfur notes.
Comments: this cask must have been good 5 years ago or so, but simply went over the top.
I scored it 85 at Serge's place but 70 this time and I'm sure I will even score it less next time.

During the tasting we could also taste some water from Lochindaal and now I know where the rural character of Ardbeg comes from. Well, well a very exciting evening of Ardbeg enjoyment, and again my congratulations for the organization and the host of the evening, Mr. Ardbeg Bert Bruyneel.  And for those interested Ardbeg only uses soap in their wash still…..

Luc Timmermans
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/04 - Caramel Research - Prelude
Submitted on 04/02/2005 by Klaus Everding, Germany

YOUR TIME IS LIMITED

Some of the fiercest wars have been fought about questions of belief.
Fortunately the malt community has not reached that degree of escalation... Yet...

But we also have our fields where we debate with passion and lack the arguments and hard facts.
One of these fields is the question: "Does the addition of caramel to single malts change the taste?"
Jim Murray is one of the zealots who argue "Thou shalt have no caramel!" (Whisky Bible 2004). He says that caramel (when overused) can kill a whisky dead. Others (preferably those who sell whisky) say, "We use caramel only to adjust the colour. It has no influence on taste and aroma." And then there are those who say e.g. "Ah, that Highland Park does not taste as good as I remember. Damn! They certainly use too much caramel." And so caramel is the baddy without real evidence.

SALVATION IS NEAR

This cannot go on forever. We need hard facts.
And so the malt maniacs have set up an experiment;

- a team of experts whom you can trust
- a handful of malt bottles with no initial caramel
- real spirit caramel from a bottler.   

Currently our Master of Ceremonies is preparing samples of the malts with well defined concentrations of caramel.
These samples will be shipped to the team and we will taste them several times blindfolded. This will show where the treshold concentration for detection of caramel lies. If we find out that it is necessary to turn a pale white wine coloured malt into a sherry monster to have an effect, you can rule out caramel as explanation for a change in taste and aroma. Our results will be published in an E-pistle a.s.a.p. Until then you still have time to discuss vividly about the effect of caramel. And to heat things up a little bit, I will add some basic facts about caramel and a preliminary experiment with E150c caramel.

CARAMEL BASICS

While googling for caramel I found out that caramel is no easy to understand product.
Caramel is made by controlled heat treatment of carbohydrates (e.g. sugar, molasses).
To promote caramelization and to define which kind of caramel you want acids,alkalis or salts may be added.
Basicly there 4 different kinds of caramel, depending on how they are produced and where they are used:

- E150a: plain or spirit caramel
- E150b: caustic sulfite caramel
- E150c: ammonia or beer caramel, bakers and confectioners caramel
- E150d: sulfite-amonia caramel, soft drinks or acid proof caramel

Caramel is a dark brown to black viscous liquid, sometimes also solid.
It has an odor of burnt sugar or brown bread (pumpernickel) and usually tastes bitter.
For the tinting of whisky E150a is used. If you want to dive deeper into the world of caramel, I suggest:
http://www.caramelworld.com/solution_center/basics_of_caramel_colors.asp and
http://www.aaccnet.org/cerealfoodsworld/pdfs/W03-0205-01F.pdf

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

A few months ago I made an experiment together with a friend.
We used E150c caramel (bought in a supermarket), Glenturret 12yo (40%, OB), and plain water.
Here is my record of it;

The caramel we used is a viscous brown liquid which smells like pumpernickel, liquorice and blueberries.
I have no idea whether the different kinds of caramel taste/smell different.
I give some E150c into a beaker glass and add water to it (approx. 1:4).
The liquid is still rather viscous but easier to handle.

1. Water Experiment

A - Normal concentration (giving the water the colour of eg. Glenmorangie 10yo OB):
Nothing to detect, neither nose nor taste.
B - Sherry monster concentration (e.g. like Macallen 100 proof OB):
Nothing to detect, neither nose nor taste.
C - Loch Dhu concentration,  almost black:
I smelled pumpernickel, burnt toast, blueberries. Tasted a little bit bitter.

2. with Glenturret 12yo OB
Although this malts contains initial caramel (I live in Germany where it must be statet on the label) this malt was the best available good benchmark candidate from my shelves since it is rather fragile (no obvious strong taste or smell identifiers). There were no big changes when I gave the Glenturret the colour of a sherry monster an not even when adding enough caramel to change it to an ultra-sherry-monster. Then I maded a blind tasting: pure (ha!) malt vs coloured malt with eyes closed and a friend giving me the different glasses. BIG SURPRISE - I could always identify the E150c coloured malt. Well, the statistics were not great. I made only 3 attempts. But I don't think that it was only by chance.

I thought harder about possible differences between coloured and uncoloured malt and came to the following conclusion. There is a slight difference in the mouthfeel. The E 150-malt is a bit oilier. Additionally it has lost some of its edges and is marginal more fruity. My friend who did the experiment together with me can support my results. We both think that caramel added to whisky has (almost) no influence on the taste and nose. I think it is unlikely that the blenders add so much caramel to a malt that a pale white wine coloured malt suddenly looks like a sherry monster. And only in such cases the results are on the edge of the detection limit.

But these are just preliminary results - a full report about our research will follow.

Klaus
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/05 - Ask an Anorak: The Fake Factor - Part I
Compiled on 08/02/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland

After publishing the Fake Alert page about a week ago I've already received a number of reports on suspect bottles. I haven't collected enough data to 'go public' yet, but it quickly became apparant that this is an even more serious problem than I initially feared. Reason enough to pick up the 'Fake Signs' discussion we started in E-pistle #12/15 last month.

Johannes : Hiya, maniacs. Well, it seems this whole 'fakes' problem is a bit like a dungheap.
The more we poke around, the more it starts to smell - I've already received reports of other suspect bottles.
While I'm waiting for confirmation I'd like to hear some more of your thoughts about the whole 'fakes' situation.
Based on the information I received so far, it seems we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so far...

Mark : It was nice to read all the wise words about the fakes in MM#12/15 - but how about casks?
I've been fairly mute on the incandescent fakes issue and there's actually a very good reason for that.
I am not in a position to pay sums of money which make it worthwhile for a faker to fake in the first place.
However, I'd like to bring up a related issue. On the Malts-List Pascal De Schepper wrote: 'It happens that a (for example) 28yo cask contains whisky with a strength of 70% ABV, even after 28 years. The SWA assumes that one of the reasons could be a refermentation in the cask. I always thought that the high alcohol percentage prevents any fermentation ! Any opinions... ?'

Pascal's note and the replies it received so far take my imagine in a new direction. What if an entire cask or several casks could be faked? I have no knowledge of such things happening, but it reasons fairly well that a thief will strike wherever he finds opportunity. If not now with this case of Pascal's, then some future cask may be faked. Another possibility I thought of for Pascal's cask imagines a cask being filled with make as it ran off of the still without being reduced in strength at all. It's not the usual practice, but with all of the other experiments being done these past 20-30 years someone may have hairbrained a higher proof oldster by starting out with a good lead. My tuppence... Mark.

Charlie : Yes Mark, there were periods of experimentation, when distillers tried filling casks at higher strength, and this may have contributed. The other reason is that if the cask has matured in a warm, dry, high-racked, modern warehouse - especially if it has been racked at the top of the pile (maybe 12 high), the cask loses water, and thus increases in strength. It is possible for a cask to come out with an even higher strength that it was filled at, even after many years maturation.

Olivier : No way sugars can go through the stills !
Even if there would be sugars in a whisky at 70° proof, again, it is categorically impossible that any yeasts (or even bacteria) would be able to ferment them. Maybe he is using the term refermentation to describe some other kind of activity?

Luca: Refermentation in the cask at high ABV (60-70%) is definitely impossible.
I live in Piemonte, region of great wines such as Barolo, Nebbiolo, Barbaresco, Dolcetto, Grignolino, Asti, and I have a couple of friends in the wine industry: they confirm that the alcohol limit for natural fermentation is WAY lower than that!

Klaus: Olivier said in one of the latest mails that it is impossible to get sugar through the distillation.
Yep, that'a true. But I wonder what is it that makes some malts taste sweet?
Does it come from the cask? Is it really sugar or some other substances?

Luca : First, I must say that alcohol can be moderately sweet. I have a bottle of "pure ethanol" (ABV 96%) that I used to make absinthe and that I also use for cleaning the internal shank of pipes, and it tastes slightly sweet.
My bet is the casks, anyway. Bourbon casks impart a vanilla sweet taste, sherry casks a drier and winey one.

Peter : Malt can taste sweet due to the sugar alcohols that are produced during distillation. 
Sugar alcohols are currently used in a lot of low carbohydrate foods to add sweetness without raising the blood sugar.
Always ask a diabetic about this stuff!

Johannes: Hey, hey, ladies! Let's try to keep some sense of focus, here, shall we?
We were talking about potentially fake casks and fake bottles. Any more insights in that topic?
W.r.t. the 'fake casks' discussion I did find something odd the other day. On the MM Matrix we have two official bottlings of Isle of Jura that apparently came from the same cask; first of all there's the Isle of Jura 27yo (45%, 0B, Stilllmans Dram, Cask #590) and then there's the Isle of Jura 36yo (44%, OB, Cask #590, 449 Bottles). Were there two casks with number 590 or did they bottle half of the cask and put it away again for a few years?

Ulf : Mark, good that you brought this up on the MM forum, but perhaps not all MM's follow the MALTS-L list.
I'll cut and paste my reaction below, maybe it answers your reasoning in the segment of your post:

<--SNIP--> Pascal, who in the world gave you this information? Cask re-FERMENTATION to ABV 70%!?
I do not think this is possible. Further, it is also hard to believe that such info came directly from SWA.
If so, could you please provide me with the name of your source?
However, 28 years ago it was common to fill casks with ABV % higher than today's standard of ABV 63.5%.
An ABV of 70% and higher was not uncommon. One, perhaps the major reason, to drop the input level (in Scotland) to ABV 63.5% was to minimize the fire risk. It is said the move was driven by insurance companies. Visitors to a dunnage warehouses know that flash photography used to be not permitted, due to risk for explosion. A rule which today seems to be more lax.
Under absolute perfect conditions (hermetic) the ABV % may stay at the input level over time. Such situation was/is not to be found in the trade, I believe. A sub-case is the known fact that the micro-climatic conditions for maturing Bourbons may INCREASE the ABV % a few notches (there are studies in our archive, if my memory serves me correct). Such conditions does not exist in Scotland, though. <--SNIP-->

Regarding fake casks; Wasn't there a UK commodity swindle case in the end of the 80's where the public were tricked to invest in whisky casks, getting none or getting casks filled with whisky of dubious origin but brand stenciled?

Johannes : Correct, Ulf. I was contacted - very agressively, I might add - by these guys in the early 1990's.
The company was called 'James Devereaux' from London, if memory serves... They were indeed offering all kinds of casks. Based on what I knew then - virtually nothing - I couldn't determine if the offer was genuine, but there was something decidedly fishy about their approach. In my youth I had the misfortune of working for a commodities broker for no less than three days (it took a few awkward phonecalls to helpless old ladies for my conscience to kick in) and the pushy approach of the 'Devereaux' sales person reminded me a lot about the way the senior sales people at 'Scholts Commodities' were peddling their 'unique opportunities'. If anything, this shortest career in commodities trading has been good for one thing; it taught me enough to enable me to resist this unique investmet opportunity.

Wait a minute... I just did a websearch and found some more info on Horst Luning's website;
Simply check out http://www.thewhiskystore.de/industry/dti.htm

Ulf : Johannes, you got it! This was the company I had in mind in my question.
DTI rang the bell 1997 but I think they were operating already at the end of the 80's beginning of the 90's.
Glad that Horst highlighted it on his pages.

Luc: Dear All, I'm trying to find out whether the bottle at the right is a genuine one.
Can any of you shed some ligth on this one.  A friend of mine has asked Ardbeg but hasn't
received any information back yet. According to Martin Hoeflmaier from the Ardbeg Archive
this should be a genuine one.  I appreciate any comments/feedback on this one.

Lex : The one thing that makes me a bit suspicious is the 1892 year on the label.
I find it hard to believe that in those days vintage-dated malts were relevant.
Having a vintage year on the label of a malt is really something of the last 10 years or so.
Not saying it is a fake, just being circumspect .....

Serge: Hi Luc, Ardbeg was 'established' in 1815 if I'm correct, while the first distillery has
actually been built in 1794. So I doubt an 'official' label  - not a merchant's - claimed it to
be estalished in 1794. They could have written 'built in 1794' or 'since 1794' but perhaps
not 'established'. Just thoughts..

I just checked my Barnard and he wrote: "It was established in the year 1815, but long
previous to that date it was a noted hount of smugglers..." Barnard surely got that information
from the distillery when he visited it, so it's strange that a few years later, the distillery would
have written '1794' instead of '1815', even if 'playing with dates' is a common sport in the
beverage industry. Today's label say '1815'. Further, Barnard also wrote: "The make is Pure
Islay Malt (...) which is all taken up by the larger firms of wine and spirit merchants in Glasgow,
Liverpool and London. The firm are distillers from malt only, not dealers or merchants otherwise."

That doens't prove the bottle is a fake, though (20 years or so must have passed between
Barnard's visit and the date that bottle could have been released). And Giorgio has got some
1895 with exactly the same label. Some old 15yo I've seen on the web also state '1794'.
But some Thornes are shown on the same websites ;-)
Dave? Ulf? Charlie?

Ulf : Several of my sources (The Scotch Whisky Industry Record and others) claims that a distillery was erected on the site of an illegal still. Not so uncommon these days. This, illegal, still was demolished and removed by the authorities in conjunction with the wash still law enforcement. In 1794 a new still was erected by an Alexander Stewart. The firm McDougall & Co is said to have 'revived' this operation in 1815 and the first recorded run thereafter is said to have occurred 1817-1818. McDougall & Co became incorporated 1902.

Another version goes: ...'The crofters Alexander and his son John McDougall elected the site as the site for their distillery. The distillery stood ready for its inauguration around 1798. It was probably a farm distillery as the Dougall family didn't start to commercialize its output until 1815.'... None of my sources claims a true commercial operation before 1815.

Luc: Hi All, Many thanks for all these inputs.
Would it be possible to have the bottle/whisky tested without opening it ? 
How did they perform the Macallan tests ?  By opening the bottles ?  Or using other methods ?

Ulf : Hello Luc, Sticking a hypodermic needle through the cork, is what is done.
When Macallan launched their first 'replica' in the 90's this was exactly what was done too. A sample was drawn from the original bottle and compared to a multitude of cask samples blended to mimic the origin as close as possible. Willy Phillips (the distillery manager at that time) told me it was a time consuming and clinical but fun and challenging process. At the launching party, in London, invited reps. for the media and others were given the opportunity to sample the origin and the copy together. I had the opportunity to participate. A friend was offering me his 'ticket'. But couldn't it due to conflicting agenda.

Note that the practice of 're-corking' is accepted in the wine trade.
Leading wine-makers f.i. the ones that belongs to the 1855-classification offers this service. It is recommended to do this with 40-50 years intervals as cork may deteriorate and the wine destroyed. When re-corking is done it is performed under strict control by specialist from the Chateau in question and guaranteed in the form of a certificate. Some also offer the service of 'topping up' with wine from the same vintage! All to a (hefty, I assume) cost.

Olivier : We do re-cork wines as soon as we see the level droping below 1 - 2 inches from the cork.
We order printed corks with the original markings and top the wine up with the same wine. Costly, but also fun, as you get to finish the 'sacrified' bottle. I'll give you the dates of the next session if you want, we do usually about 20 different wines/day, usually over 25yo. Regarding wines, there is usually 10 to 15ppm SO2 added in the bottle during this operation to compensate the oxydation.

Luc: Hi All, many thanks for all the input on this Ardbeg.
This answer was sent by Sukhinder Singh to my friend who was looking to buy the bottle....
'The bottle is from the same source as the old Macallans. Hope you understand.'
So, I think we have another suspicious bottle for the fake alert page, but I can't provide any more information than the mail from Sukhinder, which is not that conclusive ..... We could ask Ardbeg to provide more information, but my friend who asked about this bottle told me that they don't really seem to be co-operative on this ...... I guess we have heard that before, haven't we.....just like Allied....silence, silence, silence......... I'm a business man myself, and if somebody would start faking or copying our software products I would put every effort in disclosing this and provide all the help and assistance and legal steps necessary to stop this, but I think the whisky-industry just operates different hé....... Yet another disillusion....

Mark : Bogus bottles of old and/or rare whisky are usually sold for large sums of money, okay, huge fistfuls of cash!
Hey, my horizon still lacks purchases of Springbank Local Barley, and Ardbeg Provenance. So, I have been reading the woes of you and they who have suffered purchases of bogus whisky, and I am for once thankful that someone hasn't schemed to bilk us, the buyers of $50-100 malts. That day will forever change the malts market, I think. For now, the consequences of bogus whisky sales are few, and feather-light. Caveat emptor rules the day, and it seems that no one is willing to stick their neck out in advocacy of the consumer, who is the only one here taking a financial loss. The Ghost who sells to Store X, or Auction House Y, still gets his money. The store/house/seller still gets their money from the collector who believes he has found a worthy treasure. Greater than the boatloads of money shelled out for bogus bottles is the total cash value the market at large will lose due to rapidly shrinking consumer confidence.

Isle of Arran, Macallan, Ardbeg, and Laphroiag are possibly only a few of the fakes recently discovered. What about those which have yet to be seen as having the packaging or taste flaws of a bogus malt? Fakes will ruin the high-end collector market for all concerned - importers, distributors, purveyors, and consumers. The only way confidence will be regained and maintained is by swift, shrewd, and severe treatment of all parties who knowingly pass off whiskies to others for a profit. As more collectors (usually quiet, secretive types) begin to speak with each other about their bad buys the market will begin to decline. Something should be done now, not later, with the full backing of all global industry players, to put a stop to the fraudulent whisky trade. Governments need not get involved in this - it should be handled from within the global family of the whisky industry, with the help of experienced and knowledgable whisky collectors.

Soon after the high-end consumers lose whisky industry trust the mid-level and everyday consumers would begin to lose trust, and the whole whisky market could suffer irreparable atrophy. I fully support Malt Maniacs, and all whisky lovers worldwide, blasting the truth about fakes from the highest mountain tops until the trade begins to take notice and respond to this attack in a swift and responsible manner.

Davin : Mark and all, Slightly off topic here, but you mention that you are thankful no-one is faking the less expensive malts.  You probably are right, but due to our long legacy of bootlegging, brought about by prohibition, then over-taxation, some estimates range as high as 30% for the portion of bootlegged, smuggled and faked bottles of working-class priced liquor sold in Canada.  Purchasers include bars and legitimate outlets (not government stores), but also individuals.  Announcement of a wedding, for example, sometimes brings calls from people who can supply liquor at a discount.  Some of this is produced by the company named on the label and has been sold tax free to smugglers; some of it is the cheapest stuff available, adulterated and bottled in legitimate bottles.  I doubt volumes are sufficient to affect malt whisky, but certainly bourbon is faked here and sold "off the back of a truck" at favourable prices.

Klaus: I do not think that faking expensive bottles will be the worst we can expect.
Hey, wake up, 30, 50 100 Euro is also cash! I fear that we can expect faked Lagavulins 16 yo OB, Glenmorangie 10yo OB,  even Glenfiddich special reserve in the future. I don't care if collector are robbed, who are foolish enough to spend much money without reliable expertise. But when the faking reaches the mass market I am really concerned.

Ho-cheng: I agree with Davin!
Actually, the "cheap" fake bottles are serious problem in Taiwan - or may all over Asia! 
Even for single malt like Macallan has lots fakes in Taiwan.  I actually have quite some confidence that the new Macallan bottling is to prevent the fake ones in Asia.  The totally new bottle in the world will make the copier very difficult to fake people, at least they'll need to collect the empty bottle before them fill the fake spirit. I actually have some experience on business dinner to taste fake whisky, it taste not that different but you'll feel bitter in the mouth.  My friend, stephen, actually found fake one on the birthday party of his father and law.  He insist everybody not to drink the bottle.  As a result, the guest brought the bottle was unhappy and Stephen has to apology to him later.  But personally, I would say the guest should thank Stephen because no one knows what will happen if you drink the fake bottle. So, be careful, even for cheap ones, trust your taste.
If you don't feel OK, just don't drink it.

Dave: A few points...
1) Faking is rife. Fake Johnnie Walker for example. Yes I know it's not a malt, but you get the point.
It is a full-time job keeping tabs on fake bottles and those which pass themselves off as the original in export markets ['Johnny Walker' for example] It's worth a hell of a lot more than a few faked malts...

2) The Ardbeg looks suspicious to me. The date, the grammar of the label and one important point which doesn't appear to have been picked up on. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Ardbeg established by the MACDougall family and not the McDougalls? I know Barnard says Mc, but when I checked with Allied on this (when another one similar to this appeared a few years back) they assured me that MAC was the correct spelling. Both Neil Wilson and Andrew Jefford use Mac. I'll keep digging on this.

3) A hypodermic syringe was used to extract tasting samples. I was at the 'Replica' launch when it was wielded with great efficiency. The sample was poured and most people in the room expressed amazement that it had remained so 'fresh' and 'lively' despite its 100+ years in bottle. Just like a late 20th century Macallan in fact .. amazing, huh?

4) When the purchaser of a bottle such as this tastes it, they enter a state of cognitive dissonance. They want so much to believe that they refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary. It might be a misprint on the label, they might have made it unpeated in those days, American oak was widely used. Emperor's New Clothes and all that ...

5) It is my understanding that when Macallan sent the bottles for analytical testing larger samples were drawn. The reason why the Replicas are still on the market, despite the fact that the distiller has accepted the rest of the collection if faked, is that Macallan says that it doesn't have sufficient (indeed any) of the 'originals' left to test .. therefore is it happy to believe they are genuine.

6) I agree that if Sukhinder says this is dodgy then treat it with caution.

But ..as I said a few weeks back, I'm a journalist, so I'm also a cynic. :-)

Mark : G'mornin', all - Re 2 points form Dave today:
(1) Yep, I had overlooked the rampant fakery with Johnnies Red & Black, though I do recall that recently a ring faking the Black were highlighted more in the media than is usual. Was that just because they were causing blindness (or so the stories went)? Of course, if spent bottles of 'the real stuff' are used for filling with swill, then the 'handmade' malt fakes on the market are mere drops in the bucket. Now it all makes sense. Though, I still think that the distilleries or their owners could be much more prudent and honourable in their response to legitimate single malt frauds using their good name.

(2) "MacDougall" is the spelling in my memory too. I allotted 30 minutes of Googling the Mc/Mac issue, but came up empty. I winder if John MacDougall, of Fife, the unstoppable whisky consultant who managed 19 distilleries in his time, would have any input about this? I think I have his email address around here somewhere. Additionally, have any of you mentioned the word "Liqueur" on that Ardbeg label? Maybe I overlooked it.

I'll wager that many many more fakes will soon come into the light. Oh, the heartbreak coming for some.
Like Klaus, I think that any of our favorites which are now falling off of the market due to stock shortages are likely targets at the lower-price breaks. Laggy 16, Springer 21, etc, the list could be huge. Scary thought. Recognizing a machine-made label identical to others on the shelf is impossible. Oi! Let's not give the bastards any ideas, though.
I will only purchase new make from now on...

Johannes: Well, that might be a bit drastic, Mark ;-)
Some fakes probably taste a lot better than new make spirit...
Meanwhile, I asked Luca to translate and forward some questions to Mr. Gambi, the Italian seller of both this 'Case 008' Ardbeg 1892 and the 'Case 006' Ardbeg 1988/2002 from Mandibolari. I asked Luca to translate and forward te following message;

Dear Mr. Gambi, Given the growing proliferation of fake bottles of whisky in stores and on eBay the malt maniacs have take it upon ourselves to publish an overview of 'suspect' bottles on our website and try to determine wheter or not they are genuine. I am afraid we have received reports from readers of our site about two bottles that, according to our information, were or are being offered for sale by you - both Ardbegs. Therefor, we would like to ask you a few quick questions about these bottles. First of all, there was an Ardbeg 1988/2002 (40%, Mandibolari) - The malt maniacs that tasted it liked it (and the label) a lot, but according to our information Ardbeg wasn't operational in 1988. Could you tell us something about the history and background of the cask? And then we have an Ardbeg 1892 from McDougall. One of our readers informed us that this bottle belonged to your grandfather, is that correct? If so, do you know when your grandfather purchased the bottle?

Mr. Gambi responded very quickly and quite extensively - making a trusthworthy first impression.
He wrote; 'I thank you for your e-mail and I agree that the market is saturated with fake bottles of any kind.
Regarding the Mandibolari Club bottles of Ardbeg, 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 distilled 1988 and bottled 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: of course I believe in what the British guys say, because they are usually honest people. Perhaps this independent bottler was too "honest" in giving me this information which should have been reserved to those in the business, because the distillery is considered officially re-opened in 1989. Perhaps I should have asked the seller the permission for writing 1988, but frankly I was in good faith and I didn't think of the issue. Anyway, I confirm what's on the label because I trust the UK seller and I am sorry that the bottle is considered suspicious, because I consider it 100% authentic. Of course everything is questionable, because in the whisky business there are indeed some suspicious bottles, or even openly fake or tinkered... and all coming from the Bologna area.'

'About the Ardbeg 1892 bottle, I inherited this 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 with contempt or judged as fakes. (...) Kind regards, Gambi Giuseppe.'

Well, we didn't 'judge' these Ardbegs as fake bottles, 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 50/50 balance right now. The other opinions seem to be divided along those same lines.

At the moment, I'm personally inclinded to believe the Ardbeg 1892 could be 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. That would mean that this bottle was already in the collection of the Gambi family before the end of the 1990's when large numbers of fakes seem to have first appeared. 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 my experience, some sellers can be incredibly vague when asked about the source of suspect or confirmed fakes, but Mr. Gambi readily provided us with all the information we requested. So, based on the information so far I'd have to label this one as ' inconclusive'. Until somebody buys the bottle and has a sample tested, that is - that would be the proof we need to declare it either 'confirmed fake' or 'cleared'.

As for the 'Mandibolari' Ardbeg 1988 - I'm not quite ready to label that as 'cleared' quite yet.
I'll label it as 'inconclusive ' as well until we've received conformation from Ardbeg one way or the other. If there was indeed some distillation going on at Ardbeg in 1988, there's no more reason to suspect there's anything's fishy about this bottling.

Of course, any further information regarding these cases will be published a.s.a.p.
But whatever the results may turn out to be, it looks like the 'fakes' story is far from over...
Buying bottles on eBay is always risky, as is yet again proved by a story that's developing as we speak.
And guess what: it's about Macallan. I should have enough information to 'go public' in a few days.
By then we should have heard from Ardbeg as well. Check out the next 'AaA' E-pistle for more...
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/06 - Tipsy
Submitted on 08/02/2005 by Alexander van der Veer, Holland

I noticed recently that after my 101-epistle I haven't published anything else.
That's a shame, such a shame.... I was working on a few epistles simultaneously , but nothing has been finished until now. I still have to finish my "first" blind tasting. Probably the longest blind tasting in the world since it lasts now for maybe 6 months or more…but I want to finish it this year. Read the epistle that will be published next at least, I hope it will be the next one) and you'll know why it took me so long: yes it's FEAR, nothing more, nothing less...

The next thing I started was a book review. Once upon a long ago, I made an agreement with Davin to start writing book reviews, alas it never came past the start-up. But what didn't happen up 'till now, doesn't mean it will not happen at all. And now I'm already starting my fourth one, and as you can see, these lines aren't near the end, so it's not finished, he, he, he, but I guess since you are reading this now, I finished it. I got inspired by Johannes' Liquid (B)log entry #205, and by his reaching the 1000 malts marker too! Congratulations! Yeah let's try to remember how the day mentioned in his entry #205 went by, and write an e-pistle too!

Let's retrace my steps shall we? The story starts on the 6th of January and ends a day later.
I'm involved in a project at work that made me miss my regular vacation I usually take in December to be with my wife and her family for the holidays. Strangely enough that was no reason for my wife to stay behind, and she left me all by myself, without any food, to do my job. I never thought she could do such a thing to me, but now she gave me one of the most powerful tools: Revenge ! I believe a visit to Scotland just became possible ! Let's have a dram and try singing the song on the back of the Bunna bottle.

After crying myself to sleep for a week, I picked myself up, and started to make plans for the rest of my time alone. What could possibly be better than to spend some time with my good friends Johannes (the fabulous) & Andries of Cadenheads fame. Surely the greatest ambassador for the brand they could possibly have. I hope you guys in Scotland read this, because he's a hidden gem of the industry. You don't find a lot of these guys around anymore. Sorry, I digress, let me go back to my epistle.

Both being very busy, it took me a while to make a date with them. Finally it was a done deal and January the 6th was the day. Last chance too, since my wife would return on the 7th. At first the idea was to come together at the Cadenheads shop, but J landed a project so he couldn't make it, but we would meet the same evening giving him time to finish his work. I managed to reach Andries´ shop at around 14:00. He was quite busy with some very sloooooow customers, so not wasting a lot of time and whisky, I started trying some stuff he has around, or should I say, HAD around ;-)

Before becoming the legend I became in J's epistle #205, I have to correct the facts a bit. I'm sorry to say I didn't try 12 malts at Andries´, it turned out to be only 11, which is at least 10% less than claimed. Those 11 weren't even all Cask Strength, only 7 were. There were also 2, 43% and 2, 50% ones too. Not so glamorous as a dozen Cask Strength whiskies, isn't it ? Oh the shame ! But ok, it's still worth to have a look at those 11:

1. Glencraig 22yo 1981/2003 (57.5%, Cadenhead, Bourbon, 216 bottles) - 87 points
Color: Murky white wine
Nose: Bourbon, Creamy, Butter, Fresh cut grass, Fresh altogether, Perfumy (floral bouquet)
Taste: Very nice sweetness, Full, Beautiful, Hint of peat, Candy, Chocolate

2. Pulteney 8yo 1990/1998 (63.1%, Cadenhead USA) - 88 points
Color: Gold
Nose: Perfumy, Malty, Some wood, Hay
Taste: Very sweet, Sweets, Afterburner (2 stage rocket), Loooooong finish, Exceptional for it's age

3. Teaninich 21yo (50.8%, Cadenhead, 18.75 cl. bottle) - 89 points
Color: Copper
Nose: FABULOUS, Malt, Fruits !, Full (sherry), Sweet, Apples
Taste: Sweet, Cookies (stopped taking further notes due to liking the moment too much) - Andries had 5 little bottles of this left. Stashed them somewhere back, but got an email later on stating that I couldn't have them all. Bugger!

4. Glen Spey 17yo 1985/2003 (56.5%, Cadenhead, Sherry, 534 bottles) - 83 points (maybe lower)
Color: Copper
Nose: Farmy, Sea freshness ?, Dust, Soap
Taste: Sweet, Cereal, Short finish

5. Benriach 10yo (43%, OB) - 77 points
Color: Light gold
Nose: Loses it quick, Malt, Dust, Nothing distinguishable…
Taste: Thin

6. Balmenach 1979/1996 (62.4%, Scott's Selection) - 85 points
Color: Light Gold
Nose: Grainy, Fresh, Sea spray, Toilet refreshener, but better later on, A bit harsh
Taste: Sweet (high %), Somewhat bitter, Ferns

7. Benrinnes 1978/1998 (58%, Scott's Selection) - 84 points
Color: Pinkish Gold
Nose: Grainy, Deep, Sweet
Taste: Deep, Sweet, Amber like, Dough

8. Bunnahabhain 1979/2002 (50%, Lombard) - 87 points
Color: Copper-Orange
Nose: Old Sherry, Farmy, Zwart-Wit powder (Lakrisal or Liquorice)
Taste: Cannabis, Nice, Cola, Lively, Not harsh sherry bottling

9. Royal Brackla 11yo 1992/2004 (58.8%, Cadenhead) - 84 points
Color: Almost Gold
Nose: Stinks !, Mouth odour, Dust, Sweet, Fresh later on, Candy
Taste: Sweets (for throat)

10. Glen Elgin 1975/2001 (50%, Lombard, c#5161) - 85 points
Color: Gold
Nose: Nice, Classy, Like a fart (shitty smell, but not bad), Farmy
Taste: Sweet, Bubblegum, Slightly bitter

11. Dailuaine 16yo (43%, OB) - 83 points
Color: Copper
Nose: (forgot to make extensive notes, due to interesting conversation)
Taste: Bit watery

During this tasting session, Andries' mailwoman came along with her boyfriend to say goodbye because she's leaving for Paris to live there permanently. Yeah, some people do such things, I would rather live in Alsace, he, he, he. Since they like each other very much, this part of the day was a bit sad. Even sadder now, since I didn't make it to Johannes' aforementioned "dozen". Still, when we closed up shop, and switched off the lights, Andries couldn't let me go without a sample of a new Bruichladdich bottled by Gordon & MacPhail in their new Special Reserve series. I still haven't tasted it yet, but they bottled a mean Glenburgie in the same series.

Note: After some time had passed I got around to taste it. Here are my notes:
Bruichladdich 1989/2004 "Special Reserve" (57.9%, G&M Cask# 195, 275 bottles) - 86 points (preliminary score)
Color: Raisins, Mahogany
Nose: Fresh, Sherry, Raisins
Taste: Sherry with peat, A bit simple, Short finish

Time to call it quits for this afternoon, and have a bite to eat. I still had a long evening of tasting ahead of me and a camping bed to sleep in that turned out to be too short for me (Mark, did you fit in it ?)  On the way to Johannes I bought myself a very BIG bag of Flemish fries. (Nice thick fries for real men, not the girly, sissy type of potato molestation they sell at McD´s (desperately trying to avoid the F word here, not to offend our friendly maniacal friends from France !)''. Ok, where's the nice cuisine then, you would expect from a malt lover, someone with experienced taste buds, but there was no time to lose. I had to get me something fat and filling fast. Probably not the smartest thing to do, but they were nice 'n tasty anyway. Johannes was eagerly waiting and the Cadenheads session took me longer than I expected. I quickly shoved the hot fries into my feeding hole, which conveniently helped me to get rid of some skin that used to be my palate. Fortunately this didn't affect my tasting abilities later on. I moved along to the subway, and after some interesting (just kidding, try; boring) moments in the subway, (why do people, riding the subway, behave and look like zombies ?), I arrived at Johannes' place.

I entered his dimly lit grey and black apartment (color would distract us of the job at hand, yep no children here), and took possession of one of his couches (black). Right there on my right I saw some big bottles and little sample bottles in orderly fashion arranged across a chessboard: My assignment for the evening. It's called: Matrix-duty. Get as much of our maniacal scores on the matrix per bottle, so it is made sure to ourselves, the public and others if a bottle is worth buying.
Yeah, it's a hell of a job, and I had to do it !

This evening I managed to 'do' 13 more malts. That made the grand total of the day: 24. Not bad!
My secret: Drink a lot of water in-between, don't rush, and eat something from time to time. Keep your nose clean (keep sniffing your glass of water because your nose tends to dry out, what makes smelling whisky impossible). Also, pour yourself sensible amounts of whisky. After 24 whiskies, I didn't even get drunk or tipsy (such a beautiful word, I just died to use it).
But hey, I get ahead of my tipsy self. I did it again ! Here are the results of the Dutch jury:

12. Greenore 8yo (40%, Irish Grain) - 70 points (no notes)

13. Rosebank 11yo 1989/2001 (43%, Ultimate, c#789, 445 bottles) - 78 points
Color: Gold
Nose: Farmy, Sea, Liquorice
Taste: Less interesting, Short finish, Grainy

14. Linkwood 10yo 1990 (43%, Chieftains) - 77 points
Color: Light Gold
Nose: Creamy, Popcorn, Butter, Bananaskin (not ripe)
Taste: Nothing

15. Linkwood 12yo 1989/2002 (43%, Coopers Choice) - 79 points
Color: Copper Orange Brown
Nose: Sherry like, Farmy
Taste: Herbal, Sugar cube, Don't know where the color came from

16. Macallan 7yo "International Version" (40%, OB) - 76 points
Color: Copper
Nose: Liquorice root
Taste: Aspartame. Sorry I couldn't make much of it. It was not interesting.
I found out later that I liked this one better than the 'Italian' version from the 1990's, which usually isn't so.

17. Macallan 15yo 1984 (43%, OB) - 86 points
Color: Brown (dimly lit apartment)
Nose: Fresh Sherry, Sweet, Great, Tea
Taste: Like Drop (Dutch black candy, Liquorice), Bit short

18. Balvenie 15yo 1985/2002 (50.4%, Single Cask #286, 177 bottles) - 85 points
Color: Gold
Nose: Very perfumy (they usually are for me), Malty
Taste: Grainy, Sweet, Amber like

19. Glenglassaugh 1986/1998 (40%, G&M) - 82 points
Color: Orange gold
Nose: Sweetish, DAS clay, Sherry cask, Fresh
Taste: Sweet, Thick, Sherry

20. Tormore 14yo 1989/2003 (43%, Sherrybutt# 909/67, Sigantory) - 77 points
Color: Greenish gold
Nose: Farmy, Sweet malt, Chocolate mousse
Taste: Like the 14yo, Cadenhead C/S version (very recognizable)

21. Glenfarclas 21 yo (43%, OB, Circa 2000) - 83 points
Color: Orange gold
Nose: Johannes distracted me with a funny story, so I forgot to take notes
Taste: Surely this isn't the best Glenfarclas could do?

22. Benriach 34yo 1968/2003 (50.4%, Cask# 2593, Peerless) - 77 points
Color: Copper gold
Nose: Herbal, Late sweetness, Amber)
Taste: Herbal again, Slightly bitter finish, Sweet, Powder (make-up), Sour note

23. Scapa 9yo 1988/1997 (43%, Signatory) - 77 points
Color: white wine
Nose: Farmy, Sea, Smells Oily, Heather
Taste: (?)

24. Glengarioch 1971 (59.6%, Samaroli, 2280 bottles, Circa 1988) - 94 points
At this point I was so tired, it was such a full day, I fell asleep with this whisky in hand.
And it probably was the best one to do that with. It is fantastic, great stuff.
It was so good, taking notes wouldn't have done it right.

So how's that for an evening!
This was also the last evening alone, because my wife returned that day from her vacation.
So after three hours of sleep I got a call from her, telling me she crossed the border and was in the country.
That meant I still had two hours left. I fell asleep immediately. I was already in Amsterdam, so when she would call the next time, I only had to put on my clothes, and go find my car to pick her up. Unfortunately, I forgot about the time it would take to get dressed after a day like yesterday, and completely didn't use my brain to think about the time it would take to get to the subway and to the place were I parked my car. When I finally met her, she was standing for almost an hour in the freezing cold, being eyed by some shabby people, not feeling well after 17 hours of damp & smelly bus. I was sorry, I got whipped, Life's a bitch, but for a brief moment, just the day before, for the shortest amount of time, I felt like a tipsy pig in space!

Alexander

P.S. Very, warm and very big thanks to Johannes, for putting up with me, and giving me a place to sleep, and last but not least; Andries (& Erik, his partner in whisky), also for putting up with me and for making his incredible collection available for me. Many malts I tasted were from his collection. It may be unbelievable, but the man's even better than his collection. Let's make some free advertisement. When in Amsterdam, you all have to visit his Shop, you won't be disappointed.
Cadenhead's Whisky Specialist, Huidenstraat 19, Amsterdam, Tel: +3120 3306287,
E-mail: info@cadenhead.nl website: www.cadenhead.nl
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/07 - Ask an Anorak: The Fake Factor - Part II
Compiled on 11/02/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland

I published a fairly meaty 'Fake Factor - Part I' E-pistle just three days ago and now there's more 'fake news'.
This time the star of the show is a bottling from the distillery that more or less was the cause of the whole controversy around fake bottlings: Macallan. And interestingly enough, the maniacs had just seen and discussed this bottling (or rather this series of bottlings) on our trip to Italy. But let me start with an interesting picture Serge just found...

Serge: Hi all, did you know this bottling?:
Yeah, this one is called 'Inspiration' instead of 'Replica'.
So many remarks to make, I don't know where to start ;-)

Ho-cheng: I thought you would know this one.
As far as I know, the "Inspiration" is only sold in Asia, and probably 90%
in Taiwan.  I didn't taste it actually, because I knew at the beginning
it comes from imagination.  There is no such bottle in the Mac history.
Thus, it not in the Replica series and not even on the Macallan Website.
The normal price here is around 70 USD. I actully saw one of these
bottles at an whiskyauction and end up with a price like 300 euro's.

Johannes : Well, well, well... interesting indeed, Ho-cheng.
If there really are people out there who are willing to pay 300 Euro's
for bottles with a retail price of +/- 60 Euro's (even 'inspired' ones ;-)
can we really blame Macallan for wanting to cash in on their brand?
After all, when we take the various taxes into account they don't
see a very big chunk of that 60 Euro's - and nothing at all of the
240 Euro's mark-up that some Macallan fans seem to pay gladly.
I've been known to do some Macallan bashing in my time, but
now I understand the prices they ask for the 'Fine Oak' Macs.

But that's besides the point - right now I'd like to bring up another Macallan case.
A few days ago I received a message from Gabriel Radstrom who had discovered a 'suspect bottle on eBay.
In fact, he found several; all Macallans offered by the same seller on eBay, one 'matteo5141'. Gabriel asked my opinion about one bottling in particular, a Macallan 1954. I'm no expert on the matter of old and rare bottlings, but at first sight things looked a bit fishy to me. The seller had supposedly joined eBay less than two weeks ago, which is a bad sign if you know how easy it is to 'invent' a fake identity on eBay. Nevertheless, he managed to sell the bottle for a sweet £780.00 to a trusting buyer.
(See http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1351&item=6149893541.)

That was all I could tell Gabriel at the time, but when I did some further desk research I noticed
'The Definitive Guide to Buying Vintage Macallan (First Edition)' that Krishna gave me when he was
last in Amsterdam. I did some checking and discovered that every bottling has a unique reference
number and that Macallan is willing to check the number for anybody that buys a bottle on the
'secondairy market'. Well, just before I could inform Gabriel about my discovery it turned out
that he already figured it out by himself. He sent some of the pictures provided on eBay
(see picure at the right) to the people at Macallan and quickly received the reply below;

'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 three year old
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.'

Well, I'd say that's solid confirmation that this is a fake bottling. Or is it?
Let's have a look at the description of the bottle that 'matteo5141' provided on eBay.

'One unopened 700ml bottle of Macallan 1954. (...)
This bottle was given to me as part of a set of samples by a good friend which i
am reluctantly parting with. The seal is intact and the bottle is in good condition.
As this is a sample there is no unique referance number on the reverse (see example photo).
This bottling is a true collectors piece and an ideal present for any whisky collector. (...)
Happy Bidding!
In accordance with ebay policy. Bidders must be of legal age for their country of residence.
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. (...)'

So, as you can see the seller clearly states that this is a 'sample' - whatever that means.
He even points out the fact that there's no reference number on the label and provides a picture!
So, from that perspective this could be an honest offer; maybe some collectors are willing to pay real money for a 'display' bottle. At the same time, the price of £780.00 (more than 1000 Euro's) leads me to believe that the buyer of the bottle thought this was a 'proper' Macallan. But as Gabriel and I quickly discovered, Macallan seems to be really serious about 'fakes' these days; they introduced the unique reference numbers and quickly respond to questionaires. So, the seller could easily have taken a minute to check this with Macallan - as Gabriel did. Some of the other suspect bottles we discovered were (sometimes very clever) attempts to mislead potential buyers, but this case is a little different it seems. Any maniacal thoughts on this?

Lawrence: It never ceases to amaze me regarding the silly things the Macallan gets up to.
After having been fooled by forgers who bought empty Macallan bottles and who then sold those fake bottles back to them as the real article you think the Macallan would have learned a thing or two. But to place actual Macallan 'dummy' bottles in the market place beggars belief. In 20 years Macallan will be buying these back and basing "replica' bottlings on their ill advised 'dummy' program.

Mark : I cannot for one minute fathom the depth of Mr Cox's idiocy to openly admit to such fraudulent practice.
Might Dave and Charlie or others know of other distillers who issue 'display bottles'?
That is just begging for trouble. Shame. Is that even legal?

Serge : Yeah, but they did these dummies before the fakes became fakes, actually.
What David doesn't tell us, is that they don't even contain whisky, but... Tea! That's what the French importer told us, at least... My take is that it's not even tea, but... Colourized water with chlorine, so that it's stands time. That's what the wine pople do. Now, when you know that the genuine 'vintage' bottles contain some G&M Macs bought at Begnoni's in Italy... A vatting of old bottles, imagine!

Craig : It happens, usually as 'mock-ups' for advertising shots/brochures before the actual product is bottled, but I would've thought that the company would have kept them under fairly close order.  One wonders how many of these 'display bottles' are out there?  Yep, Mr Cox is the source of much folly - anyone who would continue to hold the line against both Dave and Lex on the 'fakes' was always cruising for a bruising.

Louis: Hello everybody, this may not be so farfetched.
Park Ave. Liquors had the entire line in their display window.
Perhaps there were quite a few mock-ups produced for public display.

Alexander : Cadenhead also issues fakes for windowdressing (Andries in Amsterdam has "fakes" in his window).

Lawrence: This last comment jogged my memory, I saw those bottles in Cadenhead's store in Edinburgh however the ones I saw in Edinburgh were empty but had a colored lining inside to simulate whisky. It was quite evident that the bottles were for display only. I'm sure if I really wanted one they would have sold me one for a lot less than GBP 780 and all parties would have know that I was not buying the genuine article. As I'm sure you're aware faking whiskies has been going on for a long time, in one of my books there's a copy of a letter from John Dewar & Son stating that they would not longer be able to supply customers who had purchased cask of their whisky with labels, capsules and wrappers. It's dated December 22nd 1899. Taking into account the recent scandal involving the Macallan you think they would have been more prudent than to be so obliging to a) put a product into the market place that looks like the genuine article and b) to supply potential forgers with everything they need to fake the genuine article. Actually all they had to do was slap on a lot number and fake one signature and they'd be done. And I was just beginning to like the Macallan again...

Johannes: Hmmm.... Now I feel the need to step up and defend Macallan - an interesting turn of events.
Granted, they may have behaved irresponsibly at the beginning of the fakes crisis a few years ago, but from what I can tell they are taking this much more seriously these days. I'm not moving in collector's circles, but it would seem that Macallan is active enough when it comes to preventing the proliferation of fakes; if the buyer of this bottle had just sent a quick message to Macallan I'm sure he would have received a speedy reply, just like we did. Remember how long it took us to get some solid information from Allied?

As for the display bottles; it would seem this practice isn't that uncommon, so I don't think we can fault them for that either. As for the practice in general - I agree we may have a problem here. I don't know if Cadenhead clearly marks their display bottles as such, but Macallan doesn't. If the lack of a number on the back is all that distingueshes a real bottle from a display bottle, unsuspecting customers could easily mistake a 'show' bottle for a genuine one. If there's no specific indication whatsoever that the bottle doesn't contain what the label says it contains, this would make the life of fakers very easy indeed.
So, I'm wondering together with Mark if it's even legal!

So, even if it was produced by Macallan I'd have to classify this as a confirmed fake for the Fake Alert page.
The Arran and Mortlach were badly produced knock-offs, but some other fakes we found so far could only be identified as such after some serious research. If the buyer of this bottle had just dropped a note to Macallan he would have known that the bottle didn't contain any Macallan from 1954 - or any Macallan for that matter.
Another sorry story for our archives...

Lawrence: I sent a message to the buyer and received this answer after three days (!):
'Re: Macallan Bottles. As you probably noticed, matteo was selling several bottles of Macallan. He was contacted by the Macallan distillery who informed him that the bottles could not be genuine. It was the last day of the auction and he was worried that eBay would not be able to cancel the auction. So he asked me (a friend of his) to 'buy' all of the bottles. He wrote to eBay informing them of what was going on, as did I. But to be on the safe side, I stepped in and bought all of the bottles. Luckily, eBay has cancelled the auction (after the fact), so no charges will be levied against him. I don't even like whisky that much. So,to answer your question, yes. Once Macallan called and explained things to matteo, he realized that the bottles were 'displays', or something and therefore he could not sell them. Many thanks for your concern, Mark'

Johannes : Wow, that's an unexpected last-minute turn of events...
It would seem that Macallan took a pro-active stance in this case and responded to Gabriel's question.
Excellent - once again I have to say that Macallan seems to have changed their approach to fakes.
So, you won't find me Macallan bashing this time... They're making an effort - even if it's not perfect.
But being the big brand that it is, will it be enough to keep more Macs popping up on the Fake Alert page?
Only time will tell...
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/08 - Caramel Prelude II: What You See Is What You Get?
Submitted on 17/02/2005 by Thomas Lipka , Germany

A few months ago I attended at tasting at Whisk(e)y-and-more, a local whisky store near Bremerhaven, where I live. Ingo Kirchhoff, who runs the shop, usually offers six whiskies at his tastings -  three before a short coffee break and three afterwards. This time it was a little different, though. That night Ingo had presented his first "own bottlings": a Linkwood, a Highland Park and a Caol Ila CS which were all single cask bottlings. Because in fact the selection of the casks and the bottlings actually were all done by  Signatory's Andrew Symington for him, with a wink in his eye Ingo now declared himself an "independent labeller".

All three whiskies were pretty good, especially the last one, the Caol Ila 1994/2004 (55,9%, Signatory for Whisk(e)y-and-More, Bourbon Cask # 10848), a smoky and typical Islay-like malt which was very much to my liking. As most Signatory bottlings these days it was un-chillfiltered and non-coloured and thus like white wine in colour. And at 40 EUR the Caol Ila offered more than enough bang for your buck, so I decided to pick it up later on.

Anyway, right before the break, we were in for a special treat as Ingo all of a sudden came up with one more malt, this one for free. He told us that he was contemplating to buy yet another cask from Andrew Symington. But because he was still going back and forth on this one he wanted us to give him our honest opinions about this whisky which he was pouring us now. To make it a little more interesting he did not tell us anything about it except for the fact that it was an Islay as well and similar in age to the one we had before. He challenged us to guess three  details about the whisky at hand: a) the distillery, b) whether it had matured in a bourbon or a sherry cask and c) the ABV (+- 3% were good enough). Those among us who would answer all three questions right would be rewarded with a bottle of Nikka blend whisky liqueur…

Okay, so we weren't exactly driven by the prize, but our egos alone assured that we took this task seriously enough. Who wouldn't want to be THE expert among about 20 connoisseurs? Soon enough the mumbling grew louder as we all tasted the dark-looking mystery malt. Most in the group agreed that this was a sherry-influenced whisky, while at the same time  my neighbour surmised that we were drinking a Caol Ila again. My own thought process eliminated the lighter Islays Bunnahabhain and Bruichladdich right away. Bowmore? Nothing flowery at all, so that probably was not the answer either. I didn't think Ingo would come up with a Port Ellen bottling considering today's prices for it, so that left me with Ardbeg, Caol Ila, Laphroaig and Lagavulin. I scratched Ardbeg from my list next because I was missing hints of fruitiness and the typical (sometimes delayed) Ardbeg explosion. I could detect no typical iodine in it either, so Laphroaig was gone next. Caol Ila or Lagavulin? The more I sniffed at the whisky and the longer I looked at it the more I seemed to find some sweetish peat or malty notes in it. At first I thought it was a bourbon cask but now I changed my mind and picked sherry instead. For the same reasons I decided to go with Lagavulin. A little bit strange I wondered, because Lagavulin is not exactly known for patronizing independent bottlings, but maybe this would be called Finlaggan or something. And as for the ABV I found it to be in about the same range as the Caol Ila we had before.

Well, as it turned out, only one of my picks was right (the ABV) and nobody of us received the Nikka blend at the end of the day. Only one of over 20 people had the distillery right (my neighbour..) because, you probably guessed it by now, we had tasted the exact same whisky again as a few minutes ago! Yep, that bourbon cask Caol Ila, only this time Ingo had added some caramel to the malt (E150c, to be more exact; for more information about caramel basics read E-pistle #13/04 for Klaus' excellent prelude.

The mood in the room could only be described with words such as subdued, abashed or dumbfounded.
How could so many "experts" not notice the similarities? Within minutes you drank the same whisky twice yet your nosed and tongue signalled different notes? This could only be explained by the added caramel, right?
So caramel DOES influence the taste after all, doesn't it?

"Not so fast", Ingo said. The idea for his little experiment was born after he read two related articles in a magazine. The first one basically described the same scenario we had just experienced, only in that case the victims were well-known French wine connoisseurs who had tested white wine which had been turned into rosé wine. And immediately the testers had found fruity notes which typically are not found in white wine. They same did not happen when another group of testers tried the wines blindfolded. So why did one group got tricked while the other achieved realistic results?

According to the magazine's other article the answer lies in the way our mind works.
Psychological studies have shown that no matter what you sniff or taste, your eyes already have been there!
They are faster than any other of your senses. Whatever you think you detect in food or drink is influenced by what you saw before. What is even more amazing, you can't protect against this way to register things even if you know that you're being tricked. Immediately after seeing something your brain opens up certain drawers that contain specified information linked with the object (or in this case colour) you're viewing. For example, if you see a reddish drink, your brain probably will suggest flavours like strawberry or cherry or - in combination with whisky – sherry. Just try to defend yourself against that effect, you'll have a hard time. And now you know why master blenders all over the world use blue glasses while creating their blended whiskies…

The same mechanism holds true for things that you hear, by the way.
Your ears too are faster than most of your other senses as well. Have you ever noticed how in larger groups of whisky drinkers the first one coming up with a flavour suggestion often finds agreement? What you should try to do at least once while tasting with friends is this: name something that you actually don't smell or taste in a malt but that is at least reasonable (e.g. leather in a dark whisky) and watch the reaction. The larger the group the better. The first one to nod approval will boost the other's "perceptions" in the same way. Don't be too surprised if in the end fifty percent or more will appreciate the leather notes in this specific malt.

So we still are not that much smarter than in the beginning.
Did we detect sherry notes because our eyes told us so or did the caramel add flavours to the drink?
Well, Ingo was convinced we were tricked by the whisky's appearance since he had tried clear water with caramel while being blindfolded before his little prank and couldn't tell the difference. And if you cannot detect it in water you are not going to notice it in whisky either, was his reasoning.  Who are we to argue, but on the other hand one person's experience isn't hardly statistically relevant. However, as Klaus put it in his teaser, salvation is near as the Maltmaniacs caramel project is under way.

So keep on reading!

Slainte,

Thomas
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/09 - Ask an Anorak: The Fake Factor - Part III
Compiled on 18/02/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland

Guess what; I've just received a message from Ho-cheng about yet another fake that popped up in Taiwan.
Together with Italy, that seems to be a genuine treasure trove for any dedicated fake hunter....

Ho-cheng: Not fake, just fun!
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".
What? 1993 14yo?  Are you sure it's 2005 right now?  I asked the shopkeeper.
It is obvious the shopkeeper doesnt' know what I am asking about.
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!

Johannes : Well, Ho-cheng, I must say I don't really agree 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 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 we're living in 2005. Taking shipping from Scotland to Taiwan into account
(assuming this bottle actually came from Scotland), it's likely that it was bottled in 2004 at
the latest - so, it's either a 14yo bottling (like it says on the front label of the bottle itself),
a younger expression distilled in 1993 or none of the above. If I understand Ho-cheng's story
correctly, they 'invented' the 1993 vintage. Well, malt maniacs care about details like that!
I'm really astonished by the contempt 'Drinks Wines & Spirits Co.' from Taiwan shows their
customers. Based on the information provided so far it seems they are either involved in
the whole faking process or they just don't care about the source of the bottles they sell.
The end result is just the same: the consumer pays for something he doesn't receive.
By the way, Ho-cheng - did you find out more about that fake Mortlach you reported?

Ho-cheng : Yes I did! It was sold in a cart sale at the top floor of Pacific Department Store, Yonghe City Branch.
Address: No.238, Sec. 1, Zhongshan Rd., Yonghe City, Taipei County 234, Taiwan (R.O.C.). I have been contacted by Diageo once asking if my friend who bought it was willing to provide evidence (the bottle, reciept, ect.). After contacting my friend and said yes.  We were not contacted again since then. There is a local importer name on the back label, but the company seems not to exist. The back label shows a company name and an address.  But we do not know this company nor we can find any information about the company. It's not in the government data base, so it should be either broken or have never existed.)  We don't know who or which company should be reposnible for the bottle.  As you know the department store knows very little about the cart sale. It's a temporary stand and the invoice was issued by the department store.

Johannes : Well, that just doesn't sound very kosher to me...
Surely the store must know who sold a certain shipment of bottles to them?
And even if they don't, it doesn't seem like they were very very alarmed by this news.
But if they don't know or care who sold these fakes, they're very likely to buy other fakes in the future!
So, whether they knowingly sell fakes or just don't care, it seems a shop to stay away from.

I guess finding the guilty party responsible for any of these frauds is almost impossible.
But then again, for all practical purposes it doesn't really matter if a trader:
A) knowingly passes along (confirmed or suspected) fakes
B) unknowingly passes along (confirmed or suspected) fakes
C) is gullible enough to buy bottles that are identified by 'amateurs' as fakes
D) pretends to be gullible enough to buy fake bottles himself

In the end, the consumer receives a severe beating with the short end of the stick...
Reason enough to keep monitoring the Fake Alert page, I'd say... It might be prudent to be extra careful when it comes to traders who have sold 'confirmed' fake bottlings in the past. There's no guarantee that's the only fake in their collection.
But how about that suspect 'Mandibolari' Ardbeg 1988/2002 I mentioned in E-pistle 13/05 recently?
Any more maniacal insights in this malty matter? Have we heard back from Ardbeg yet?
Just to refresh your memories, here's Mr. Gambi's reply w.r.t. that Ardbeg '88;
'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 distilled 1988 and bottled 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: of course I believe in what the British guys say, because they are usually honest people. Perhaps this independent bottler was too "honest" in giving me this information which should have been reserved to those in the business, because the distillery is considered officially re-opened in 1989. Perhaps I should have asked the seller the permission for writing 1988, but frankly I was in good faith and I didn't think of the issue. Anyway, I confirm what's on the label because I trust the UK seller and I am sorry that the bottle is considered suspicious, because I consider it 100% authentic. Of course everything is questionable, because in the whisky business there are indeed some suspicious bottles, or even openly fake or tinkered... and all coming from the Bologna area.'

Craig : Actually the "Ardbeg operational in 1988" story is both plausible and reasonable and should be verifiable.
Lots of distilleries operate very intermittently and it would be in the interest of the owners and potential owners to be making sure that the equipment is in working order during any sale negotiations, so cranking up the stills in the period where sale negotiations were taking place is not at all far fetched.  Also look at it from the 'new' owners point of view, particularly from their marketing and "branding" perspectives.  they'd want to be able to specify a date from which they were exclusively responsible for the make, so that "line in the sand" would have to be after they took over control of the distillery. The Ardbeg 1892 is a much more difficult proposition. Submitting the stuff for chemical analysis would be proof, but who's going to do it??  If you would not trust Mr Gambi to be telling the truth, why would anyone trust that the whisky he had analysed was the whisky in that particular bottle.  And as we know from the WMD fiasco, proving a negative is almost impossible.

Charlie : I do want to say 'Bravo Snr. Gambi'. I had an equally embarrassing moment in Leiden last year, presenting a bottle of Brora 30yo, distilled 1984. Someone in the audience: "But you say in your book that Brora was closed in 1983..." Panic phone-call to Diageo's archivist. She ran a check, and, like Mr. Gambi says re Ardbeg, there was limited production during this period. As for the old bottle - it looks ok to me. I am thinking of capsule and label condition. Dave's observations about 'Mc' rather than 'MacDougall' are interesting, but I have a family bible from the 1930s where my great-great grandfather inscribed the names of his (13) children. He spells their surnames MacLean, McLean, M'Lean, Maclean and Mclean. In truth, as a spoken language, Gaelic is very flexible when written! Roman, look out for the next issue of the (Russian) 'Whisky' magazine. I devote my editorial to fakes, and mention the good work done by the maniacs. You are the only one who will be able to read it!

Thomas: Hi all, my thoughts on Mr. Giambi's answer;
I've read his statements about the Ardbeg 1988 a few times and still am not sure what he is saying.
It is still very fishy to me. Especially this part keeps me wondering: "but the independent bottlers managed to get some casks at the very end of 1988". Nowhere it says that these casks were actually filled with whisky distilled in 1988. The independent bottlers only "managed" to get some casks. And only independent bottlers got some from that 1988 distillations!? What about any official bottlings? Wouldn't you think that Glenmorangie would have made it officially known that there were some test runs done before they took over? Wouldn't they use these cask for whatever purposes if they were any good (which obviously they are)? And who would have run the production in 1988? Afaik, Iain Henderson took charge of things in 1989. Do you think he just dropped by a few months earlier, cleaned up the mess of five or six silent years and made some excellent runs just like that? That leads me to two possible solutions. Either these casks are from 1983 or before, which I doubt, because every bottler would have loved to present older casks, or Mr. Giambi got lied to. And saying that all British are honest guys is as naive as saying all Germans have been nice all the time... So IMHO, Mr. Giambi more or less accepted the possible lie, either out of naivity or knowingly for profit's sake. These are all just assumptions on my side, of course, but unless Stuart Thomson confirms production in 1988 I tend to consider his story highly unlikely.

Louis: These explanations from Mr. Gambi prove nothing.
All of the sources are trustworthy, but cannot be revealed. Uh-huh...
And I have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell. I have inherited the exclusive rights from my now-dead grandfather...
Maybe Mr. Gambi will trust me also...

Ulf: Hello MM's. This is what Stuart Thomson told me when I asked him;
'Dear Ulf, There was no production at all at Ardbeg during 1988. Regards, Stuart.'

Thomas: Bingo!!!

Johannes : Wow, this radically changes my perspective on things - again!
At first I thought this Ardbeg 1988 bottling was fishy, then Mr. Gambi's explanations more or less convinced me that it could be genuine (and even quite special) and now there's almost no denying that this is a 'fake', is there? Or at least that the information provided on the label isn't correct. And if somebody in the sales chain isn't telling the truth or providing the correct facts about one aspect of this bottling (namely the vintage), he could be 'fibbing' or mistaken about other aspects as well, no? Maybe we weren't sampling an Ardbeg at all in November in Alsace, but a young Lagavulin, Laphroaig or Caol Ila. It was a very nice Islay whisky, but there are many more 'very nice Islay whiskies' around - at very nice prices too. It don't know the 'street price' of the Mandibolari Ardbegs, but I imagine you could get yourself two or three bottles of the 10yo OB for that money. So when somebody pays a hefty premium for a Mandibolari Ardbeg, he (or she) usually does so because he (or she) hopes that such a single cask bottling could offer a new perspective on the distillery. As it turns out, they may have been paying good money for a 'fake'.
Or am I jumping the gun here? Is this a 'confirmed' fake?

Davin : This is not the first time I have heard of small runs being done at Ardbeg during the time they were closed.
Despite what Stuart says, it may be prudent to find a second reliable source.

Lawrence : Didn't Laphroaig do some small production runs at Ardbeg while it was silent?
I seem to remember that this is so but cannot remember where I read it.
This should be kept in mind if any future questions/bottlings arise.

Craig : I agree with Davin and Lawrence.
I would be very careful to rely on one source especially when attempting to prove a negative. WMD's anyone?
Also it may be Ardbeg, but not from 1988 - now this may mean it is fraudulent, but it might also mean that the broker who owned the cask got the distillation date wrong and Mr Gambi could be perfectly blameless.  I'm not saying he is, just that to suggest otherwise might not be the friendliest thing one can do on the web and making open accusations is fraught at the best of times.

Mark: The "1988" would probably make more sense if either of the "8"s was a misread.
Blurred vision, smears, dust accumulation, and the like could easily 'morph' an 8 into a 3 5 6 9 or 0, and vise versa.
Happens all the time with important numbers. What about checking with the Excise Board?
Are they pure evil and not to be contacted? I would guess their records to be scrupulous.

Ulf: I agree in principal with Davin, Lawrence, Craig and Mark as well.
Note that we do have an OFFICIAL statement from Ardbeg saying that no productions occurred during 1988.
This must carry more weight than loose rumors saying production occurred in 1988. I have heard such rumors as well, like the Laphroig version. However, none of them have specified 1988 as a definitive year for such productions. And this is the core question in the Gambi matter. For curiosity reason; did any MM acquired one of these bottles? May I suggest the following:
1. Check with the Excise Board. If they deny then the bottles ought to be classified as fakes.
If they confirm production during 1988 then Ardbeg is wrong and the bottles MAY be authentic (not ARE).
2. Go back to Mr Gambi and tell him that the OFFICIAL standpoint from Ardbeg is that no production whatsoever did occur during 1988. Ask him to contact his supplier to provide him with a document disclosable to anyone it may concern confirming that the cask stems from a 1988 run. Postpone further action until the Excise Board replies and/or Mr Gambis reaction is known. My tuppence...

Olivier: I have the same opinion. I do not think that there is a more disorganized distillery as Ardbeg.
Once, it took over 2 years to receive an order from them. It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't keep any official record of that time or, even better, if they can't find them anymore.

Lex : Agree, the statement by Stuart is only as good as the Ardbeg archives allow.
That doesn't mean Mr Gambi is right, only that the matter hasn't been solved yet.
Definitely we should confront him with the official statement by Ardbeg and see whether he can disclose more.

Charlie: I am with the rest of you. Be cautious. Can we ask Stuart to expand upon his brief reply?
We should also remember that many distilleries, including Ardbeg, thought in terms of seasons  not calendar years.
So, that would be season 1987-88, 1988-89, etc

Johannes : Hmm... many excellent points, maniacs - now I'm in doubt yet again...
Stuart Thomson 'officially' confirmed that there was no production at Ardbeg in 1988.
For me personally, that would be quite enough to classify this particular bottle as 'too hot to handle'.
Nevertheless, I kindly informed Mr. Gambi of the clear statements made by Stuart Thomson.
I also asked if he might be able to check the information provided by the seller.
Here's the speedy reply I received:

'Thanks for your e-mail.  I cannot furnish personal information on my suppliers of barrel.
I am sorry that you have these ideas on my bottle. You also classify the bottle as you want, I am sure of what I do. I have had many compliments for this bottle, the whiskey is liked a lot, the barrel was of the year 1988 and me I believe in my supplier of barrels. Thanks for your collaboration. Giuseppe.'

Hmmm... Now this sounds a little familiar. That was more or less the stance Mr. Jacobs took, no?
I understand that traders are not too happy if questions are raised about bottles in their collection, but like I wrote earlier in the Hazelburn case, I personally believe that this 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil attitude' is irresponsible. If somebody like Stuart Thompson says there was no production in 1988, the least you could do is check the facts with the seller of the cask. Anyway, if I had to choose between the opinion of Stuart Thomson on one hand and the alleged claims of a 'mystery man that can't be revealed' on the other, I would be quite happy to err on the side of caution and keep away from these bottles. However, right now the majority of the maniacs seem to agree we need more 'proof' before we can make any definite claims.
After thinking it over, I suppose those maniacs are right. So, watch this space for more.
I've asked the Excise Board, but they're public servants so I won't hold my breath...

Lex: Must say I'm disappointed in Mr Gambi's reaction.
Basically what he's saying is that the bottle is genuine, that we just have to believe him.
Every bit of evidence against the bottle being genuine doesn't matter because the whisky is nice.
Well, the question is not how good the whisky is, but whether he's putting a fraudulent bottle on the market.
Note that he doesn't even argue Ardbeg's/Stuart's statement or try to come up with an explanation as to how a 1988 cask of Ardbeg could still exist. Let's see what the Excise avenue brings up. I'll hold judgement for now.

Johannes : Aaaargh! I just pulled a muscle trying to put my foot in my mouth...
It seems I will have to swallow my earlier remark about public servants - together with some humble pie.
I received a first, preliminary response from the UK Excise Board within half an hour! Very promising indeed.
Here is part of their response;

'I am in receipt of you email regarding your discovery of what may turn out to be a fake bottle of malt whisky. (...) I believe that 8 year old Ardbeg is the youngest spirit that they bottle then its is 10 year old, 15 year old, 18 year old and 20 year old but there may even by older malts bottled by Ardbeg. (...) The fact that there was no production at Ardbeg in 1988 may have little effect on the position as a bottle produced in for example 1988 may be valid as being either 8,10 12, 15 years old the spirit would all have been produced the relevant number of years stated on the bottle earlier as a minimum. (e.g. a 10 year old bottle may contain some 11 or 12 year old spirit in the finished product. (...)'

Hmmm, yes... They may have gotten some of their facts mixed up, but at least they tried.
As far as I know the official Ardbeg range includes a 10yo and a 17yo, but not a 15yo or 18yo.
But that's nitpicking. I responded and tried to explain that all we needed to know is whether or not Ardbeg operated in 1988 or not. If the excise board says 'no', we have conformation that the information on the Mandibolari Ardbeg doesn't reflect the facts. However, until we've received a 'final' answer from the excise board we can't make any definitive claims.
Let's wait and see what they come up with...

Serge: I remember some people from G&M's telling me that they have some casks of Ardbeg made by Iain Henderson when he was running Ardbeg intermitently in the late 80's. So, my take is that Mr Gambi isn't suspect of frauding (what would be the difference between a 1988, late 1989 or 1990, value-wise?) but that either it IS some 1988, or it's some late 1989 or 1990 but he simply made a small mistake. Frankly, the whisky's good, and we've seen MANY errors on labels elsewhere, so, I wouldn't accuse Mr Gambi of frauding. I'd write 'mislabelling' instead of 'fake', that's all. It's more 'funny' than 'a fraud'.
Yes, I'd write 'funny mislabelling', in fact.

Johannes: Well, maybe we do actually need a new 'mislabeled' category.
Serge makes a very good point about the lack of obvious motivation for 'faking' an Ardbeg 1988.
But how can we ever tell the difference between a 'fake' and a 'wrong label' - especially when the seller (in this case Mr. Gambi) maintains that the information on the label IS actually correct. If he had taken the trouble of contacting his source and check the data, he would have been able to either confirm that the cask came from 1988 (according to his source, of course) or that somewhere along the line there has been a mistake in the data stream. Now we'll just have to keep guessing.

Maybe I have been a bit paranoid about fake bottlings lately.
However, I googled 'Ardbeg 1988' and I came up with no hits at all for other '88 bottlings.
A definitive answer from the Excise Board should help us determine the status of this bottle.
So, let's close this dossier for now and wait until we can uncover some more information.
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/10 - Has Diageo Dumbed Down The Classic Malts?
Submitted on 23/02/2005 by Lawrence Graham, Canada

Glenkinchie 10, Cragganmore 14, Dalwhinnie 15, Oban 14, Talisker 10 and Lagavulin 16.
It has been commented on during the last year or so that the Classic Malts from Diageo, originally United Distillers, the flagship line up of malts representing each of the "Classic" regions of Scotland have lost their 'edge' and now have a taste that is sickly sweet as compared to their former selves. Perhaps this 'dumbing down' was done to give the Classic Malts a broader appeal by smoothing out the 'rough' edges? Some people would argue that those 'rough' edges were the malts character and should be have been left in place. Whatever has happened, the Classic Malts are not the same product that they were in the mid to late 1990's and Lagavulin and Talisker are the most apparent examples.

The six malts Glenkinchie 10 the Lowlander, Cragganmore 12 from Speyside, Dalwhinnie 15 from the Highlands, Oban 14 from the West Highlands, Talisker 10 from Skye and Lagavulin 16 from the isle of Islay. Each has a different flavour profile with Glenkinchie being the lightest and Lagavulin being the strongest. It has also not been lost on some that United Distillers/Diageo have neatly ignored the other recognized region, Campbeltown and if they had built a distillery in the missing region when they first launched the Classic malts they would now have a seventh whisky in the Classic Malts, but that's another issue.

Why is this of any consequence you ask?
Because the six Classic Malts of Scotland are an important milestone in the world of Scotch whisky as they clearly demonstrated, for the first time, in countless bars and tasting around the world to tens of thousands of novice whisky drinkers that not all malts are the same and that there are regional variations.  And more importantly, people liked them the way they were and now they're commenting that their favourite dram has changed and not for the better. Memory can be a funny thing, however in this case people from all over the world have independently noticed the change from rugged individuals to sweet siblings.

How are we to examine this question without bottles from nearly 10 years ago and the product being sold today?
Well we can look at UDV/Diageo's promotional material for clues and see how they described the Classic Malts, then and now.

In 1996/97 United Distillers described the Glenkinchie as; "Glenkinchie 10 Year Old, the region's driest and smokiest, it is exceptionally pale, smooth malt that reaches perfection at 10 years maturity." Today at www.classicmalts.com they describe Glenkinchie as: "Glenkinchie, Light dry and intricate, fresh tasting with a sweet citrus finish. Glenkinchie is now only one of two Lowland distilleries that remain open." Hmmm, sweet and one of two? Auchentoshan, Glenkinchie and Bladnoch, I count three.

In 1996/97 United Distillers described the Cragganmore as: "Cragganmore, The Speyside region of the Highland is the heartland of whisky production and home to half of Scotland's malt distilleries. Cragganmore is a pleasantly austere and finely balanced 12 year old malt with a dry, somewhat delicate aroma, a firm body and a smoky finish." Today at www.classicmalts.com they describe Cragganmore as: "Cragganmore. Complex, mature and well balanced, with a slight fruitiness on the tongue overlaid with smoky notes."

In 1996/97 United Distillers described the Dalwhinnie as: "Dalwhinnie. The most sheltered East Highlands produce notably fruity whiskies. Among these is the 15 year old Dalwhinnie, with a light and aromatic character all its own. Known as the "Gentle Spirit", Dalwhinnie has a rich body and a soft honey finish." Today at www.classicmalts.com the describe Dalwhinnie as: "Dalwhinnie. Smooth, mellow, subtle with a heathery honey taste and just a hint of smoke. Dalwhinnie in the highest distillery in Scotland."

In 1996/97 United Distillers described the Oban as: "Oban is a West highland malt that is matured for 14 years. It has a distinctive rich and complex flavour, with the merest suggestion of peat in the aroma and a long, slightly smoky finish. These characteristics position Oban somewhere between an Islay and highland malt." Today at www.classicmalts.com they describe Oban as: "Oban. Rich, elegant and glowing with sea air notes and an underlying rich fruitiness. Oban is one of the smallest distilleries in Scotland."

In 1996/97 United Distillers described the Talisker as: "Talisker. This famous 10 year old Golden Spirit of the Highlands, which poet Robert Louis Stevenson immortalized as the "King o' Drinks', is assertive, but not heavy and fully flavoured with a pungent, peaty ruggedness. Talisker explodes on the palate and lingers on. It is well balanced and has a sweetish, seaweedy aroma." Today at www.classicmalts.com they describe Talisker as: "Talisker. Powerful, sweet and robust maritime on the nose-sweet, spicy undertones on the tongue. Talisker is the only single malt to be produced on the Isle of Skye." Where did the famous Talisker "lava of the Cullins" go? Where is the famous pepper in the mouth feel?

In 1996/97 United Distillers described the Lagavulin as: "Lagavulin. The Isle of Islay (pronounced "eye – luh") in the Inner Hebrides is blanketed in a thick layer of peat and lashed by wind and rain. Although it is only 25 miles long, it has no fewer than eight distilleries, the finest being the producer of Lagavulin. This intensely dry 16 year old malt has a firm robust body and a powerful aroma of seaweed, peat smoke and earth." Today at www.classicmalts.com they describe Lagavulin as: "Lagavulin. Intense, potent, pungent with rich peatiness and deep smoke/sweet finish in the mouth."
"Sweet finish in the mouth"? Are they mad?
They've lobotomized Lagavulin!

It would seem from both consumer comments and from the promotional material from Diageo that the Classic malts are now kinder, gentler whiskies and not the individuals they once were. How sad.

Lawrence
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/11 - Ask an Anorak: Where Do The Heads & Tails Go?
Compiled on 26/02/2005 by Johannes van den Heuvel, Holland

Serge: Some distilleries, like Jura, re-distil all heads and tails endlessly.
So, I'm just wondering where does the methanol go at the end of the day?
In short, does it end up in our glasses, or does it get somewhat destroyed or muted during the process?
An important question because we don't wan't to change the meaning of 'blind' tasting, do we?

Olivier : First it would be interesting to know what kind of quantity (in volume or weight) of methanol is produced during the fermentation, this would give us an estimate of % at distillation. Perhaps the quantities are very low and unsignificant, especiallly at the start of a series of distillation (i.e: quality and purity is better at the beginning of a work season than at the end, IF, the tails and heads are not kept). In wine, for example, the law required that there has to be less than 2g/l of methanol. That level changes with certain grape varieties.

Charlie : All distilleries do this, and save the foreshots/feints from the last distillation before they close for their 'silent season', using them to start off the next season to achieve 'equilibrium' in the second distillation. Any methanol in the low wines will come over before the ethanol (smaller molecules), and forms part of the foreshots, to be re-distilled. After 12-15 distilations, the amount of methanol in the charge to the spirit still is such that tiny amounts will escape into the spirit cut. When this happens, the still is said to be in equilibrium, and the amount of methanol in the f&f receiver neither increases nor decreases.

Methanol is produced during fermentation, and concentrated by distillation.
It is in tiny amounts and can be almost excluded by the use of certain yeasts - so no fear of 'blind' tastings.
It's less than 2g/l (I don't yet know the exact amount) and it will vary slightly from distillery to distillery.
[I am indebted to Dr. Jim Beveridge for this explanation]

It is an interesting thought, Olivier, that the earliest distillations (i.e. when no feints/foreshots are added to the low wines) will be 'purer' - less methanol, and other compounds (higher alcohols/fusel oils). But the distillate may not have the character we know and love, which, after all, comes from 'impurities'! I shall be interested in your other thoughts - Klaus, does Jim's explanation make sense?

Serge : Thank you Charlie, this is very interesting, and confirms what we've been told by some distillers.
What I don't quite get (I'm sorry but only whisky gets smarter when ageing, I guess) is this:
- Methanol goes back into the wash stills, together with the whole foreshots.
- That will lead to more and more methanol being distilled and re-distilled, to the point where some of it will be 'taken' with the middle-cuts (the 'equilibrium' as you say Charlie).
- Since they will even re-use the 'old' foreshots (and feints) when re-starting the stills, this 'Methanol concentration process' will go on and on, after the 'equilibrium' point has been reached.

Three solutions then (or I should slow down on Brora ;-):
1. The middle cut / spirit cut gets smaller and smaller, to prevent too much Methanol from entering the newmake.
2. More and more methanol does indeed enter the newmake.
3. There is a device that blocks the 'excessive' methanol between the wash and the spirit stills - but then the yield of the wash still gets lower and lower, as the useless methanol takes a growing share of the alcohol being 'treated' by it.

Or... The ammount of methanol in the wash is just too small to be significant
Even if you could concentrate it 500 times; it would remain too insignificant to have an effect.
But 2g + 2g + 2g +... + 2g/l = ???  Or there's something I miss? Hugely possible.

Klaus : Maniacs, some words about the re-use of foreshots and feints....
I would say that Charlie's / Dr. Beveridge's explanation is a very interesting one.
I have thought about it several minutes and tortured my head. Impossible, I said to myself, the amount of foreshots and feints must increase if it is re-used endlessly. (I think that is the point where Serge ended up.)
But then I stumbled about the word "equilibrium" and now I have understood it.

When equilibrium is reached, a considerable amount of foreshots and feints lands in the middlecut (our malt). In fact the amount is as much as is in the "beer" for the current distillation run. This way the amount of foreshots and feints does not grow. In other words, when equilibrium is reached, only water is extracted. If that is true, I wonder whether it is possible to make malt whisky (even though it certainly will not be allowed to be called so) by simply extracting water from the "beer" by other methods (mol sieves or columns).

And how about methanol? I know there is methanol in malt whisky. I have read it in several scientific papers.
The amount is very low and harmless. But I don't know why there is methanol at all.  OK, it is produced during fermentation but PHD chemist Michael tells me again and again that is a sake that copper is used for distillation still because it destroys methanol. He really should explain this reaction in detail to me.

Serge : Hey Klaus, Thanks! So, instead of thinking 'they must have a way of getting rid of the methanol', we should just consider that the ammount of methanol - and all other compounds - in the wash (beer) is low enough to be safely and naturally incorporated into the spirit, once the foreshots are 'saturated' (equilibrium). That would make sense! In fact, maybe I (and Olivier) were sort of biased in our reasonning because we distil some fruits, which give a lot of methanol in the foreshots (which we then have to throw away).
That would mean that 'whisky' beer is much lower in methanol than fermented fruits. Is that true?

Davin : If I understand correctly, once equilibrium is reached the same amount of methanol is taken off as part of the middle cut as is introduced with the new wash.  This methanol thus ends up being matured in cask with the rest of the cut.  That must be the same for all the other impurities as well if the heads and tails are never discarded.  In other words, a volume of all the volatile impurities equal to that introduced by each new wash is included in the middle cut of each final distillation and makes its way into the casks as part of the new make to be matured into whisky.  In other words, the net effect of distillation is to remove the excess water and solids only, but everything else makes its way into the whisky in the same amount that was introduced with the new wash.
Charlie, Klaus, am I missing something?

Serge : Exactly, that is how I understood it. You only have explained it far better, Davin.
Can't say that I am too lucky that methanol and other components with high vacuum pressure as well as fuseloils make their way into the malt. But if it improves the taste ...

Charlie: One thing that Jim Beveridge repeated several times was that 'whatever you put into the wash still (in terms of chemical compounds) has to come out - as low wines or spirit, pot ale or spent lees'. The compounds are first developed during fermentation, although some are changed during distillation (acids to esters, etc) - mainly by the action of copper. So such methanol as has been created during fermentation is concentrated during distillation, and since it comes off first, in the foreshots fraction, is excluded and re-distilled. As you say, the amount of methanol increases (over about 15 spirit-still distillations) until there is so much that some 'escapes' into the middle cut/new make. This is the point known as 'equilibrium', after which the amount of methanol being redistilled neither increases nor decreases. Does this make sense?

Klaus : If I think at our recent discussion about direct and indirect firing of stills I must admit that Charly's, Davin's and my explanation is a little bit simplified. Distillation with re-use of foreshots and feints is not simply extracting water and solids. Chemical reactions occur during the distillation. I think some of those nice esthers, aldehydes etc. are only produced in the heat of the distillation process. To explain what this means for reaching equilibium is too complicated for me using the English tongue. Why? Even the next approximation: distillation with re- use of ... is removing water and solids from the wash + chemical reactions of the wash during the distillation is not exact. By adding foreshots and feints the ratio of several important compounds is changed and chemical reactions work different.

Charlie : My understanding is that equilibrium is achieved early in the still run (since methanol is a smaller molecule than ethanol, so comes off first). When a certain level of methanol has been created by redistillation, some begins to 'escape' (Jim Beveridge's word) into the saved spirit, thus 'balancing' the amount of methanol in the f&f receiver: it neither increases nor decreases.
I am interested in your friend's suggestion that the copper 'destroys' methanol. Can you ask him for more info?
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E-pistle #13/12 - Erin's Mega-Malt Tasting
Submitted on 17/03/2005 by Lex Kraaijeveld, England

Click HERE to read Lex' E-pistle about Irish whiskey - and the rest of MM#13.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

Archive
 
<--  Previous Issue       Next Issue  -->      

Page 2 of MM #13
 

Malt Maniacs #13