Appropriate
It was a fantasy drink for the fantasy novelist. The incident will probably inspire him to write a novel about it. A win-win situation.
$10,000-a-dram whisky 'wasn't even a malt'
A Swiss Hotel bar has apologised to a Chinese fantasy novelist who paid $10,000 (£7,649) for a shot of rare whisky – only to discover the single malt was a fake. The Devil's Place Whisky Bar at the Waldhaus Hotel in St Moritz boasts that it has the world's largest collection of malts, with 2,500 stocked in its bar and …
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 17:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
Carbon dating ?
Bit old school no ?
Anything claiming to be from before 1942 will be free of the radioactive buzz that everything in the world since then (*) now has.
Which is why pre-1942 wine bottles are very valuable.
(*) = except the steel sunk at Scapa Flow, which is still being recovered for use calibrating equipment that needs as close to zero radioactivity as possible.
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 18:10 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: Carbon dating ?
Which is why pre-1942 wine
It still has lead. Plenty of it in fact. The inter-war period predates the high performance low cost diesels developed during the war so nearly everything that had an engine was petrol driven.
This is on top of the lead deposited by unscrubbed output from coal burning plants and coal burning stoves in every house. In fact, the latter was probably a much bigger net contributor to early lead contamination in agricultural produce than the lead in the petrol.
I would much rather have an occasional alpha or beta particle from residual radioactivity than lead thank you. While there are DNA repair mechanisms to deal with low level breakage from radioactivity, there is nothing to remove lead once it gets into your system.
-
Monday 6th November 2017 11:39 GMT Dr Dan Holdsworth
Re: Carbon dating ?
Actually there are mechanisms for coping with toxic heavy metals in pretty much all organisms. In humans, metallothionine proteins are one of the main methods; these simply grab onto heavy metal ions and sequester them. Generally, a person's bones contain most of their sequestered lead, mercury, radium and so on, meaning that crematoria chimneys need fairly effective scrubbers to prevent the more volatile heavy metals like mercury from being re-emitted.
-
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 18:16 GMT Lysenko
Re: Carbon dating ?
Steel picks up Cobalt-60 because of the huge amount of air circulating in a blast furnace. Bones pick up Strontium-90 because it is chemically compatible with Calcium and gets biologically concentrated, but Whisky?
There's no "concentration" step in play, it's just background to vegetable matter to product. Even if you did detect a post-war isotope it wouldn't be distinguishable from environmental background level.
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 19:41 GMT Joe Werner
Re: Carbon dating ?
There are a few cosmogenic radionuclides. 14C comes to my mind, or 10Be. Those are present all around, and have been produced continuously without any human influence.
What could maybe be detected is 137Cs (not sure about the isotope, too lazy to check, sorry). Detecting this means it is definitely past bomb. At least that isotope is found in plant material, not sure if you find it in distilled products... it is what I would look for first: get the spectrum of the decay activity of the bottle. Non-invasive, doesn't use up any of the produce. But 14C dating is nice as well ;)
Oh, and I believe a human has an activity of 8 kBq... ;p
-
-
Saturday 4th November 2017 17:34 GMT Daedalus
Re: Carbon dating ?
Wow. I thought techies knew a little science, but no.
OK, Carbon-14 is produced continuously by cosmic rays hitting nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. It mixes quickly with the rest of the carbon and gets absorbed into plants. Its half-life is over 5000 years. Once the plant dies, the carbon in the plant matter no longer exchanges with atmospheric carbon so the natural decay process starts reducing the C-14/C-12 ratio. You can measure the ratio by various means. The whole system is calibrated against samples of wood etc. of known age, and yes, nuclear weapon testing did have an effect, but it is allowed for.
-
Monday 6th November 2017 14:27 GMT MT Field
Re: Carbon dating ?
That's approx what I remember. But given the half-life is 5k years it would be pretty inaccurate for measuring in the ~100 year scale. Very useful for dating early humans and their artifacts.
By the way, I don't believe whisky of any sort improves once it's been bottled, whether that was by a scots artisan or a fraudster. It's cask time that makes it special.
-
Tuesday 7th November 2017 18:11 GMT Daedalus
Re: Carbon dating ?
That's approx what I remember. But given the half-life is 5k years it would be pretty inaccurate for measuring in the ~100 year scale. Very useful for dating early humans and their artifacts.
That was my first thought. Something along the lines of : they figured it couldn't be 1878 because of the lack of decay. However it turns out that with extremely accurate mass spectrometry that is available nowadays, you can date even recent objects to a year or two of accuracy. Basically they can count atoms now, instead of measuring the level of C-14 radioactivity.
-
-
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 18:10 GMT DCFusor
Old lead better
Old lead from shipwrecks is better than old steel (and older yet) because, being lead, it also has some shielding properties. It's highly valued for use in Gamma Spectrometer "castles" to keep out the ambient radiation to the extent possible. Also ancient lead flashing on some old buildings...now sometimes a theft item.
Yes, I work with radiation.
-
Sunday 5th November 2017 13:11 GMT jason 7
Re: Old lead better
Yeah there was a documentary on a few years ago where salvage folks were hunting for a WW2 cargo wreck that apparently had loads of silver on board.
They saw a load of bars and pulled them up to find out they were lead. They said at the time they were still worth pulling up for the reason you stated. So they did. Then luckily they found the silver too.
-
Monday 6th November 2017 15:55 GMT Steve the Cynic
Re: Old lead better
"Also ancient lead flashing on some old buildings...now sometimes a theft item"
They say that back in the 70s, the folks responsible for maintenance of York Minster paid for a complete rework of the flashing by having the mediaeval lead flashing processed to separate the silver from it. The amount of silver recovered from the lead was more than enough to pay for the whole job.
-
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 19:13 GMT lglethal
Give Credit where its due
The Swiss Hotel were contacted by some Whiskey experts to suggest that the bottle didnt look right for a Macallan 1878. The Hotel under their own steam (and at their own cost), sent off samples to be tested, and once the samples came back, they flew out and personally apologised and returned the blokes cash.
You have to applaud the Hotel for there honesty!
If that had happened in the US, the hotel would have denied everything, probably tried to get a gagging order against the experts who told them about the false looking bottle, denied everything and would have fought any attempt to have the liquid tested. Then if it eventually did end up getting proven they would sue the testers for loss of income, issue some statement about "buyer beware" and held on to the money for as long as possible (i.e. until they got sued by the customer).
But nope in this case, adults were involved, an honest mistake was repaid and everyone walks away happy. It's not a whiskey but this --> is for the hotel owners!
-
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 20:05 GMT Franco
Re: Give Credit where its due
To be honest it's a very sensible move by the hotel, as they will no doubt have a very large clientele of whisky connoisseurs willing to pay high prices for their rare whiskies.
BTW and I know I'm being pedantic but the spelling of whisky is important. Scotch is ALWAYS whisky and never whiskey which is used for spirits distilled in Ireland and the United States.
http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky/swa/chap1.html
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 21:20 GMT Pen-y-gors
Re: Give Credit where its due
but the spelling of whisky is important
I would normally agree with you, and in current usage we'd be right. BUT 'thasn't always been so. Until at least the early C20 they seem to have been interchangeable:
"ASK FOR HAIG'S Glenleven Old Scotch Whiskey. - Pure and Wholesome-Over Seven years old" (Rhyl Record, 1895)
"DUNVILLES WHISKY Obtained Gold Medal, The Highest Award for Irish Whisky. At Paris International Exhibition ROYAL DISTILLERIES. BELFAST" Llandudno Advertiser 1901
"PETER DAWSON'S Scotch Whiskey, 3s. 6d. a bottle, absolutely the finest whiskey in the world. Sole agent, Percy C. Vollam. " Llandudno Advertiser 1906
"BRECON. WORKHOUSE WHISKEY WEAK. At the guardians yesterday were recommended by the medical officer (Dr. Parham) to obtain bettol whiskey for patients. It transpired that only 3s 3d per quart was paid for the whiskey, and thi Mayor (Mr Aneurin George) remarked that whiskey at that price was not worth drinking. It was decided that the medical officer deal witII the matter. S Wales Daily News 1897"
More entertaining boozing history at www.pint-of-history.wales or twitter @peintohanes - history of pubs in Ceredigion!
-
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 21:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Give Credit where its due
I agree it's noble of the hotel to be completely honest and not get any publicity.
I'm sure a lot of people will view this hotel as a potential destination that has nothing to do with this widely publicised story.
In fact I would go so far as to question why they got it tested in the first place.
Moi cynical? Never.
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 6th November 2017 19:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @Big John
I feel fine about myself. I'm not smugly bigoted and don't feel justified in insulting whole nations full of people I have never met. Unlike you UK types.
Try a small experiment. Look for posts here where Brits insult Americans and the nasty names used, you'll find plenty. Then look for Americans making blanket statements about everyone in Britain and list the pejorative terms used. Good luck with that, there won't be a fraction of the smug derision you Britons spew.
Nah, we don't worry much what you think of us. It's mostly incorrect anyway.
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 22:13 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: Give Credit where its due
But nope in this case, adults were involved,
No, in this case, PR consultants were involved. They got a gigantic piece of positive PR out of this. PR to which you and me are continuing to contribute.
Think of all the PR which would have been lost as a result of a gag and god forbid negative PR generated.
Think of all the other bottles with 10K stickers on them waiting for the next sucker with a fat wallet.
-
-
-
Saturday 4th November 2017 00:45 GMT Franco
This may be apocryphal, but I was told a story by a brand ambassador for one of the Islay distilleries when I was last over there that she had seen (on more than one occasion) service refused in Scandinavian whisky bars if anyone asked for anything other than water or ice. I think it was somewhere in Stockholm she told me about, and the customer demanded to see the manager who backed the barman and told the customer if he was trying to buy expensive malts and mix them he was doing it purely to show off.
Adding ice to a single malt can be a contentious enough subject, adding a mixer would have the purists up in arms. If that's how you like it then fine, but it's pretty pointless buying an expensive whisky then.
https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/article/ever-put-ice-single-malt-scotch/
-
Sunday 5th November 2017 23:31 GMT I ain't Spartacus
I was going to France, and asked a friend if he wanted anything. Decent brandy, he says. Spend about £30. Then, that would get you a 15 year old single malt, and with lack of French sin taxes and a favourable exchange rate, he got some rather nice brandy.
So he tells me about how lovely it is, and how he keeps cheap stuff around, for friends who don't appreciate the good stuff, but still insist on drinking his anyway. Not something I'd do, though I keep cheap blended whisky / bourbon around for mixing and cooking.
So having told me all this, he buggers off to the kitchen, and instead of coming back with a balloon of the good stuff, he's clutching a highball with ice and coke!
Shameful! I'm still not sure if he was just being a snob, or had convinced himself that his discerning palate could taste much of anything over the coke.
To be fair, I can tell decent gin from cheap crap in a G&T. But we did a "tasting" at a friend's leaving do and went through a nice bar's gin selection. Yummy! From Gordon's up to the £40 a bottle boutique stuff, and the only one I could taste any real difference with was Gin Mare. £35 from Waitrose, and very nice indeed. Not sure I'd pay that for it as a mixer though. For martinis I might.
-
Monday 6th November 2017 14:43 GMT KroSha
@Spartacus
With gin, you'll always get a much wider range of flavours than with Scotch, as the flavours are what it's all about. Gin is easy to differentiate, which is why there are a plethora to choose from at the moment, all with their own distinctive taste.
Gin Mare is one of my favourites as well; try Bulldog or Martin's Icelandic gin. They're nice. But you're right, too nice to be drowned in tonic.
-
Monday 6th November 2017 15:17 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: @Spartacus
KroSha,
I'm not sure how wide the difference in gins really is. They're all pretty perfum-y. The Botanist, that my brother gave me for chrimbo, was much nicer than Gordon's in a martini, very little different in a G&T and still not very nice neat.
I've only had one gin that stood out from the crowd (other than the fruit flavoured stuff, yum Edinburgh Raspberry). That was the Cotswold Brewery Sipping Gin. Which was genuinely delicious neat.
I admit that I'm not a huge gin fan, and similarly I suspect you're not a huge whisky fan. There's a massive difference between a 10 year old Jura (which is about as bland a malt as I've tried) and say Caol Ila (which is heading towards TCP).
In both the cases of gin and whisky, the alcohol and flavour are so heavy, that you probably have to educate your palate quite a lot, before you can make many distinctions. Gin isn't really my bag, though since I've started making martinis, it's more becoming so. But I've also been venturing into rum of late - my current favourite being Rumbullion.
-
-
Monday 6th November 2017 15:17 GMT Loyal Commenter
To be fair, I can tell decent gin from cheap crap in a G&T. But we did a "tasting" at a friend's leaving do and went through a nice bar's gin selection. Yummy! From Gordon's up to the £40 a bottle boutique stuff, and the only one I could taste any real difference with was Gin Mare. £35 from Waitrose, and very nice indeed. Not sure I'd pay that for it as a mixer though. For martinis I might.
If you are tasting gin, you really should do it neat. Take a small amount and swill it around your mouth until it stops burning, then swallow that and take a swig to taste it. Gin Mare is one of the few that is nice neat at room temperature, as the olive and Mediterranean herbs soften it a little. If you are looking for a G&T, you may as well go for something cheap and full of juniper, or something with a strong flavour that isn't damaged by the tonic, like a rhubarb gin.
...and if you like Gin Mare, it's cheaper closer to the source, around €30 a litre in Barcelona.
-
Monday 6th November 2017 10:02 GMT Hans 1
You do not mix The Macallan, I hope .. we are not talking lousy bourbon or blend, here ... now, I don't like Cola, so I even drink lousy blend straight, I don't have a sweet tooth, so I avoid Bourbon ... I do love a Single Malt and I can tell the difference, even between some Single Malts (especially the smokey ones) ... no expert, though ...
-
Friday 3rd November 2017 21:38 GMT Pen-y-gors
Even the experts sound iffy
Whisky/Whiskey is matured in casks. Once it is bottled it stops developing flavour and character. So by saying 'the bottle is wrong' for an 1878 MacAllen is strange. It could have been bottled anytime in the last century or more. Although it's possible there was only one known cask that was bottled in e.g.1980 and the bottle is wrong for that bottling.
It's worth paying for the good stuff. The most expensive whisky I ever bought was a bottle of 1956 Glen Grant that cost £80 in 1996. I drank the last measure in 2006. Very nice too. The same stuff, bottled in 2008 is now selling for about £1500!
£80 seemed quite a lot then, but if you reckon that at the time Grouse, Haig etc was £40 a bottle if you bought it in a pub!
So today? Cheap blends are £2.50-£3 a shot in a pub, so at least £70 a bottle. I'd say going up to £150 or £200 a bottle for a special occasion is well worth it. Or even buy two bottles and keep one for 20 years!
-
Saturday 4th November 2017 14:31 GMT lglethal
Re: Even the experts sound iffy
I think you might have misunderstood. The Whisky in this case was supposedly bottled in 1878.
So presumably the experts know what type of bottles Macallan used to bottle there Whisky in 1878, and what type of labels they used. Since this bottle doesnt match the bottles Macallan used in 1878 and the label was different it raised suspicions. Justifiably so.
Nothing to do with when the cask was laid in this case...
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
