Bah, quand tu es riches au-delà de toutes limites ...
C'est pas plus idiot que d'avoir 50 Ferrari dans ton garage, ou d'autres trucs du genre.
Par contre, l'article est truffé d’âneries concernant le whisky ... comme souvent.
Modérateur : Modérateurs
Bah, quand tu es riches au-delà de toutes limites ...
Oui, je viens de lire son billet ... d'humeur, dirons-nous.Steph2A a écrit :SV émet quand même de sérieux doutes quant à l'authenticité de la bouteille. Et là, pour le coup, si c'est un fake, ça devient un peu con.
Disons qu'ils ne vont pas nous coller des tasting notes complètes en plein milieu d'un article de presse pour grand public, si c'est à ça que tu pensais en utilisant le terme "léger". Ca se trouve, le patron en a dit plus, mais l'article a été édité.canis lupus a écrit :Steph2A a écrit : Pour revenir à l'article, la description par le barman, si elle a été fidèlement retranscrite, me semble franchement bien légère.
EDIT 3: 17 pages de thread sur le forum whiskymag...pour ceux qui ont le courage d'explorer le sujet.It’s a great fine whisky, if you know the type of modern Macallan, it's very similar, it’s got the sherry notes. Because it’s a very old bottle I worried that maybe the alcohol had diminished, but it was still very good, like a whisky.
http://forum.whiskymag.com/viewtopic.ph ... d87fea8b18Regarding fake Whisky.
In Whisky Magazine No.28 Dave Broom writes apiece called “An old con” in which he writes:
......”Occasionally, however, some could be shown to be fake. Two such bottles were both supposedly from Macallan, one from 1872, the other from 1888 (sold at auction) and purporting to have been bottled by Stephen Smith & Co. Ltd. Once again the labels were remarkably unmarked and also complex. While there was a wine and spirit merchant called Stephen Smith (who did blend and bottle whisky and was at one time the owner of the largest vineyard in Australia), Companies House could find no record of it trading at this time, and trade journals could find no mention of the firm offering bottled, mature malt whisky. Still, it was possible that they had a few casks hidden away and decided to bottle it at a much later date. The label stated that the 1888 whisky was “produced and bottled by Roderick Kemp, Proprietors, Macallan and Talisker Distilleries Ltd”. The 1872, strangely, was “Selected by Proprietor R. Kemp, Macallan-Glenlivet and Talisker Distilleries Ltd”. There was no record of either firm in Companies House. That isn’t particularly surprising. Roderick Kemp had owned (or part-owned) both Macallan and Talisker distilleries, but not at the same time! He sold his interest in Talisker in 1892 and then used the money to buy Macallan. In 1898 Talisker merged with Dailuaine to form Dailuaine-Talisker Distilleries Ltd. At no point did he own both Talisker and Macallan. Kemp was a businessman. He wouldn’t put an illegal company name on his whisky. Neither would he have deviated from standard business practice and changed the name of his firm willy-nilly.”
Il n'y a aucuns doutes c'est un faux.Steph2A a écrit :SV émet quand même de sérieux doutes quant à l'authenticité de la bouteille. Et là, pour le coup, si c'est un fake, ça devient un peu con.
L'histoire est sortie après qu'il ait acheté la bouteille.canis lupus a écrit :Du coup, si pour des experts il est si facile d'identifier la un fake, et si cette bouteille est connue pour être un fake, on peut s’interroger sur l’honnêteté de l'hôtelier, non ?