Slashdot Mirror


Nuclear Testing Helps Identify Fake Vintage Whiskey

Hugh Pickens writes "Industry experts claim the market for vintage whiskey has been flooded with fakes that purport to be several hundred years old but instead contain worthless spirit made just a few years ago. Now researchers at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit have developed a method that can pinpoint the date a whiskey was made by detecting traces of radioactive particles created by nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s. '"It is easy to tell if whiskey is fake as if it has been produced since the middle of the twentieth century, it has a very distinctive signature," says Dr. Tom Higham, deputy director of the facility. Nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s saw levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere rise around the world so the amount of isotope absorbed by living organisms since this time has been artificially elevated. Whiskey extracted from antique bottles is sent to the laboratory where scientists burn the liquid and bombard the resulting gas with electrically charged particles so they can measure the carbon-14 in the sample. In one recent case, a bottle of 1856 Macallan Rare Reserve was withdrawn from auction at Christies, where it was expected to sell for up to £20,000, after the scientists found it had actually been produced in 1950. "So far there have probably been more fakes among the samples we've tested than real examples of old whiskey," says Higham.'"

366 comments

  1. I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I turned into Whiskeyman. My powers include slurred speech, a drunken lurch, and blackouts.

    1. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      And I turned into Whiskeyman. My powers include slurred speech, a drunken lurch, and blackouts.

      You're forgetting your most powerful ability: To turn even the ugliest woman into a supermodel!

    2. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My powers include slurred speech, a drunken lurch, and blackouts...

      ...and wiskeydick.

    3. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by thhamm · · Score: 2, Funny

      And I turned into Whiskeyman...

      ... played by noone other than rainier wolfcastle!

      rainier: "ap ze fisky!"
      coach: "UP THE WHISKEY!"
      rainier: "up ze wizzki!"
      coach: "... better."

    4. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is your nemesis, tequila hombre? bato loco...

    5. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by davester666 · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it does this by temporarily remapping 'fugly' to 'hot' in your brain...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alcoholic Anonymous

    7. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was going to say "I think most of us were capable of interpolating that without your assistance", but your current Insightful mod might indicate otherwise. Kinda sad, really ...

    8. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Alcoholic Anonymous

      Once a hard-drinking fast-living example of the high life, he had an encounter with a toxic substance... straight water.

      Hiding his true identity, he goes from place to place, enlisting the unwary into his army, tempting them into temperance. When he begins to take the first of twelve steps towards his target, the end is near.

      When asked why he struck terror into the hearts of oenophiles, whiskey aficionados, and beer drinkers, he said:

      "Alcohol goes against my grain."

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    9. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by tool462 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But it also includes a fail-over mechanism that disables the relevant mechanical parts and evacuates the contents of your abdomen on said female. Of the course the risk that still remains is that you may have had too much too quickly and overshot that threshold and taken home somebody who is so fugly and desperate that neither of those two problems are a game changer for her.

    10. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by DamienNightbane · · Score: 4, Funny

      You already have a superhero identity, Mr. Stark.

    11. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Nah. They're just too drunk already, by now.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not drunk. I paid a lot of money to learn
      to walk line this.

    13. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I was going to say "I think most of us were capable of interpolating that without your assistance", but your current Insightful mod might indicate otherwise. Kinda sad, really ...

      It's just a matter of knowing your audience ;)

    14. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I don't know why people are so worried about this happening... in my (and my friends' from what they've said) experience, excessive alcohol consumption is more likely to cause problems getting it back down again than getting it up in the first place. It's lead to some marathon sessions in the past, any time she starts getting chafed you know you've been at it too long.

      It's only a problem getting things going in the first place if you've drunk enough to have stunding turble up.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    15. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by bimbim17 · · Score: 1

      nice post .. hope usefull for mankind.... _____________________________________ [URL="http://www.wisataurban.com"]Indonesia Urban Travelling - Ideas For Traveling Inside The City[/URL]

    16. Re:I was bitten by a radioactive whiskey by Meski · · Score: 1

      "Whiskey extracted from antique bottles is sent to the laboratory where scientists burn the liquid"

      Bastards! If it wasn't fake, it'd now be undrunkable.

  2. Taste by pilsner.urquell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What? They can't tell the difference by tasting it?

    1. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the whole point of this is, if you're willing to pay £20,000 for a bottle of whiskey, you probably want to be the only one drinking it.

    2. Re:Taste by PeelBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to Pizza Hut, no.

    3. Re:Taste by FredFredrickson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real bummer is never knowing (either by experiment, or by taste) without opening the bottle. And, of course, you'd leave the bottle unopened until the perfect occasion...

      So... a new status would be started, called the 99% full original verified bottle of vintage whiskey. In fact, unopened full bottles will become the anti-status symbol.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    4. Re:Taste by OpenSourced · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What? They can't tell the difference by tasting it?

      I suppose they can, but telling the difference is not the same as proving it. You need some kind of proof to accuse somebody of making fakes, not just its subjective taste.

      --
      Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    5. Re:Taste by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'cus, you know, nobody buys wine for how it tastes... just for how impressive it looks in your liquor cabinet.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    6. Re:Taste by Burning1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you spend 20,000 pounds on a bottle of whiskey, you're going to taste the difference, even if there isn't one. Belief can have as much an impact on perception as reality.

      Penn & Teller did a great experiment in an episode of their show, Bullshit. In one episode, they serve hose water in fancy bottles with fantastic stump lines about how great and rare each different bottle of hose water is. Most of the diners tasted a difference between the various bottles of hose water.

      In another, they had a prop design guy use (extremely) cheap ingredients to create tantalizing foods. The waiter would convince diners that stale bread was an exotic french import, receiving rave reviews in the process.

      Advertising is all about perception, and a lot of our consumer economy is based on it. My girlfriend works for a high end cosmetics chain... You wouldn't believe what a rip off that stuff can be.

      It makes me wish I was in the cosmetics business.

    7. Re:Taste by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure that they're taking a very very small sample of the whiskey if 750ml sells for $20,000.

    8. Re:Taste by antagonizt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whiskey unlike wine does not age in the bottle. A hundred year old bottle of crappy whiskey will taste as bad as a new bottle of crappy whiskey. When bottles of whiskey talk about age they are referring to the length of time it spent in the barrel.

    9. Re:Taste by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well it's whiskey, not whisky, so probably not.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Taste by teg · · Score: 1

      What? They can't tell the difference by tasting it?

      Not without having an identical sample to compare it to... In the case mentioned here, I doubt that is handy. And while they might be able to easily identify it if the contents was Johnnie Walker Red Label, distinguishing 1950 and 1850 from the same distillery would probably be a lot harder.

    11. Re:Taste by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Informative
      You can if you're the Highlander:
      • CONNOR: "Brandy. Bottled in 1783."
      • BRENDA: "Jesus. That's old."
      • CONNOR: "1783 was a very good year. Mozart wrote his Great Mass. The Montgolfier brothers went up in the first hot-air balloon. And England recognized the independence of the United States."
      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    12. Re:Taste by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Advertising is all about perception, and a lot of our consumer economy is based on it. My girlfriend works for a high end cosmetics chain... You wouldn't believe what a rip off that stuff can be.

      It makes me wish I was in the cosmetics business.

      Would you be able to live with yourself though? Constantly lying to people and ripping them off, it would really wear on a person with a conscience.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Taste by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      If you spend 20,000 pounds on a bottle of whiskey, you're going to taste the difference, even if there isn't one.

      Does it taste like hubris?

    14. Re:Taste by CAFED00D · · Score: 1

      In the Penn & Teller special (I know it's on YouTube somewhere) the "Water Steward" in the restaurant told one couple that it was an import brand, called "Agua de Culo". They happily drank it. Now *that's* marketing.

    15. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But doesn't opening it (and burning it :P) ruin the point of a 20,000GBP bottle?

    16. Re:Taste by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      More importantly, if you're willing to pay 20,000 for a bottle of whiskey, you're never going to be drinking it. You want no one anywhere to be drinking it or saying that they have it.

    17. Re:Taste by sampas · · Score: 1

      If you remember, the most expensive bottle of wine in the world was fake. Ben Wallace wrote a great book about how the world's top oenophiles were taken by a charlatan. I'm sure the same thing can happen with Scotch. The labs used the same dating techniques described here.

    18. Re:Taste by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Beats being a politician ;-)

    19. Re:Taste by Xoc-S · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine used to take Thunderbird, put it in expensive wine bottles, and serve it at parties. It was always a hit.

    20. Re:Taste by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

      "...worthless spirit made just a few years ago." Worthless? There's a recession going on you insensitive clod! Pass that "worthless whiskey" on to me. I have a new entry to put in my Oxymoron logbook. Worthless whiskey indeed.

      --
      Sorry about the mess.
    21. Re:Taste by denttford · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Respectfully, B.S.

      There is a sharp curve of diminishing returns once you cross the $40 mark in whisk(e)y. However, it doesn't take long to learn
      the difference between an Islay and a Highland, or to understand the difference between a younger or older scotch, or to understand that some expressions
      of whisky do better with longer casking and some are better when bottled at a younger age.

      Plenty is attributable to marketing - I'll take a $50 Lagavulin 16 over a $200 blended Blue Label any day of the week, twice on Sundays, and infinitely more on
      a mythical desert island. Those who are looking to impress coworkers, bosses, and clients may tell a different story, but it does not take long to develop a basic palate
      when it comes to whisky, nor does it require a ton of cash. Distinguishing between a chipped and truly aged scotch is trickier, but still doable.

      Frankly, in the end, it is about taste: if you can make a four year old taste like a 20 year old whiskey cheaply through chipping and good
      distilled water (whisky weakens throughout the barreling process as the "angels' share" evaporates), I'll be happy to drink it. To wit, I avoid blends in
      general, but a $15 fifth of blended White Horse is a hell of a deal and sits near a Macallan, Oban, Ardbeg, Balvenie 21, and a Lagavulin and a Laphroaig 15 (not to
      mention some ryes and borboun) on my shelf.

      And yes, I'm, might be fooled between the Lagavulin and Laphroig, but I doubt it when it comes to the others.

      I think one has to remember that not everyone who drinks or enjoys alcohol partakes in the American binge drinking culture - including many Americans.
      In fact, I have found some American tastes to be far more diverse than other cultures (to which I have been exposed) in fostering mixing, homebrewing,
      and modern bootlegging traditions - all of which should be somewhat enticing to /.ers in the sense of experimentation and applied science.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    22. Re:Taste by JoelTC · · Score: 1

      This is so very true and while it is good for scientist to get these frauds out in the open there probably is not much difference between the "real deal" and hoaxes. It is all about perception.

    23. Re:Taste by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well Pizza Hut is wrong.

    24. Re:Taste by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

      More importantly, if you're willing to pay 20,000 for a bottle of whiskey, you're never going to be drinking it.

      Actually, you might, under the right circumstances.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    25. Re:Taste by steeph · · Score: 2, Informative

      No it ain't
      The real thing is Whisky.
      Irish stuff is Whiskey (and so is the US variant IIRC)

    26. Re:Taste by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      You seem to know your whiskey. Perhaps you can offer your opinion on this particular bourbon (if you have tried it)? It is not too expensive ~35 per bottle and IMHO it is pretty good. What do you think?

    27. Re:Taste by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are correct. This is a useless te.

      Opening the bottle destroys the value.

      Sort of like Schrodinger's Cat, the mere act of testing destroys the test subject.

      An open bottle can never be presumed to be real, and a still sealed one is equally suspect.

      Call me back when they can do this right thru th bottle.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    28. Re:Taste by denttford · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sigh, there were some typos there. I wish I could attribute them to scotch, but I can't.

      I can, however, explain chipping, making a reply to my own post a little more legitimate. One way to make a younger whiskey (I'm not going to worry about the 'e' from here on) taste or appear older is to put roasted wood chips in the cask. Additionally, agitation may be used. Flavor and color is imparted by the cask over time and surface area (a terrible cheat is to introduce caramel into a casking, a practice which can disqualify the product from being marketed as scotch or whiskey in some areas). These tricks are more common in younger American distilleries, however lots of bad distilleries pull this nonsense.

      Now, younger whiskey will always taste "sharper" and less finished than it's older counterpart. It is possible to control this by mixing a younger whiskey with distilled water (for a single or vatted malt) or with older or calmer whiskies (for vatted or blended whiskies). Even so, there is a difference in taste between a whiskey that has matured and one whose alcohol content has been mitigated. Consumers can actually try this on their own, without a trip to a distillery: purchase a younger cask strength whisky (usually >55% ABV) and an older finished expression from the same distillery. Add distilled water until the ABV is the same level. Taste.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    29. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Binge drinking is not limited to the United States, so I don't know where you are getting this whole "American binge drinking culture" from. Take a typical weekend evening in Cardiff, Wales for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/sets/1391696

    30. Re:Taste by Malc · · Score: 1

      I don't think price necessarily is the delineating factor, although in general it follows age. I remembered sometime between 2000 and 2005 that Lagavulin jumped from about $50 to over 90 in Toronto, mostly because it became very popular. I think the most import factor is age. I don't particularly like anything over 20 or 22 years as it loses its character and becomes far too mellow and bland. People buying old malts are fools. Anybody being be caught be this scam doesn't know whisk(e)y, and deserves to be parted from their money.

    31. Re:Taste by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

      > I'm, might be fooled between the Lagavulin and Laphroig

      Really? I *love* the the peaty smokiness of the Lagavulin, but the Laphroaig, while similar, is considerably smoother (to my palate) and the finish is brilliant - talk about a slow burn!

    32. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a sharp curve of diminishing returns once you cross the $40 mark in whisk(e)y.

      I beg to differ. I would say the mark (at least where I live) is somewhere around $100 to $200.
      But prices vary drastically, as a baseline for where I am a bottle of The Macallan (emphasis on the correct name) costs about $25 US. That's the normal one, not even the 12 year. But yes there is certainly a point of diminishing returns on scotch, but there is at least a line.

      Get into something like vodka and that line is much lower, and if you drink blended Whiskey there's not much difference at all.

      Wine is one of the biggest con-jobs- you can find a $1 bottle that tastes better than a $1,000 bottle. Of course the opposite is also true.

      Frankly, in the end, it is about taste: if you can make a four year old taste like a 20 year old whiskey cheaply through chipping and good
      distilled water (whisky weakens throughout the barreling process as the "angels' share" evaporates), I'll be happy to drink it.

      And here, my friend, we are in complete agreement. Personally I tend to stick to the stuff that comes in the middle of the price range, just before the point where it starts going up exponentially.

      But I have drank some $1,000+ Scotch that you could tell for sure where that money went. And I've tried some $50 a bottle that I wouldn't drink again if you paid ME.

    33. Re:Taste by denttford · · Score: 1

      I'm not the best person to ask; I have more experience with Scotch, and even Rye, than Bourbon.

      That said, I have had the basic Woodford Reserve bottling. It's a good Bourbon, but not superlative, and at $35, you are paying $5-10 too much (using discount/delivery NYC pricing). Also, it depends on your use: is it for drinking straight/on rocks or for mixing? For example, I keep Maker's Mark (a quality, nondescript, sweet Bourbon that is mixed with a wheat whisky) around to make a sweeter Manhattan for guests (vs Rye - the "right" way - or a Bourbon mixed with a Rye whisky). It would be somewhat pointless for me to use Woodford Reserve for that as it is a somewhat smoky Bourbon, but on its own, it is a respectable whiskey. I prefer Knob Creek 9, but I haven't spent too much time developing my Bourbon palate, so take that as you will. Perhaps another /.er will pipe up?

      I will tell you the best way to develop a palate - other than tasting conventions/shows: order 50 ml bottles online and take notes or remember. It is a lot cheaper than buying high end whiskey by the shot in a bar or by 750 ml bottles at a time, and will allow you to access more expensive expressions and decide how to spend your money.

      One last point: if you are not averse to a spicier taste, American Ryes, especially Overholt and Rittenhouse, probably represent the best deal in any form of whiskey -foreign or domestic - in the U.S. market. At under $20, give one a shot (no pun intended) or try mixing with them.

      There are plenty of good reviews on the internet, once you have a little experience under your belt, you'll know from their comments who is full of shit and who has done their homework.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    34. Re:Taste by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the bottle is corked and someone doesn't want to insert a very tiny needle to get a sample of the whiskey itself, a fleck of cork could probably be tested to see how old it is.

      While the age of the cork doesn't guarantee the age of the whiskey, it might be an indication. Hard to say though.

      But the amount withdrawn is going to be in the uL range which isn't even a significant portion of a single drop.

    35. Re:Taste by denttford · · Score: 1

      Between Lagavulin 16 and Laphroaig 10, sure. There are other expressions though :-).

      (To be fair, I should have said "between a Lagavulin and a Laphroaig." I also should have checked my post for spelling.)

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    36. Re:Taste by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I'll ship you my grandpa's collection of 1960's cheap whiskey then. I don't know if it really got any worse for time, or if it was really that bad when it was new. Really, I'd prefer old crow.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    37. Re:Taste by denttford · · Score: 1

      Fair enough; it sound like prices are different where you are. In NYC, ordering online has gotten very cheap for some Scotches: Lagavulin 16, for example, has dropped over $20 since this past summer, but The Macallan (correction noted - the omission bothered me too) hasn't budged much.

      When I said that the curve starts at $40, this is not to say there are no expensive Scotches that literally are worth their weight in gold. However, Ardbeg 10 is Ardbeg 10 - it's a known quantity of good quality, and if its particular taste is desired, a different Islay or an Ardbeg expression casked longer will not replace it. Similarly, there are $20 Scotches of value - even in single malts. I bought Tomintoul 10 for $19 a bottle locally in store for mixing Rob Roys but I would sip on that over Johnnie Walker any day. However, $40-50 seems to be the stating point of quality, especially if one avoids bottles with "Glenfiddich" on the label.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    38. Re:Taste by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In another, they had a prop design guy use (extremely) cheap ingredients to create tantalizing foods. The waiter would convince diners that stale bread was an exotic french import, receiving rave reviews in the process.

      They also had at least one customer call them on how horrible the food was. And let's forget that they shot a lot of footage and only showed you the parts they wanted to (like the various asking people on the street obvious trivia questions shows). Definately a biased sample. But mostly they could have been praying on the people's nature not to cause a fuss, and to agree with authority. After all, if I tell you that the bitterness in Merlot is a Good Thing, you might not like it, but want to appear sophisticated to me (the waiter), so you claim to. In other words, people lie, especially when they worry their fears aren't warrented.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    39. Re:Taste by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      Guess you wouldn't want to drink any of the pineapple juice, everclear and vodka mixed drink I am currently obliterating my brain cells with.

    40. Re:Taste by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      If the money is good, you can soothe a hurt conscience pretty easy.

    41. Re:Taste by uncqual · · Score: 1

      I'll take a $50 Lagavulin 16

      If only I could still get it here in the U.S. for that :( Some years ago Trader Joe's had it for $40 (as single malt scotch was losing it's "cool" factor) and I wish I had bought a lot more of it.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    42. Re:Taste by wgoodman · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Ardbeg's 10year old that they've been selling for the the last 12 years while they waited for the new production to catch up (they closed in 1981 and reopened in 1997) is no longer remotely a 10 year old scotch. Having tasted the new batch of 10 year old "Renaissance" I have to say it's completely different, and a good bit peatier/rougher. completely different, but still quite tasty. I imagine, to keep some amount of consistency, they will be blending the two for quite some time. now, if only i didn't live on this continent so i could order some of their new expression that's peated at over 100ppm!

    43. Re:Taste by Maserati · · Score: 1

      The one that kills me is the Trader Joes label Macallan 12. They had that for $25 a few years ago. Twenty Five Dollars (US) for a Macallan 12. They stopped carrying it, nobody looked at the label closely enough to see what it really was and so sales were terrible. My local Costco has the 12 for $38, but I still wish I'd had the cash to lay in a couple of cases for $25/bottle. Tragic, really.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    44. Re:Taste by GKThursday · · Score: 1

      If you want an excellent good value Scotch, I'd recommend Edradour 10. It is one of the smoothest 10s you will ever taste, beating some 20s+ that I have tried, and only being beaten by a Glen Grant 50 (Gordon and Macphail bottling).
      You can probably find Edradour for 20ish. And it should appeal to your "homebrew" mentality, it is the smallest distillery in Scotland, 3 men work there, and one only handles the books.
      http://www.edradour.co.uk/main2.html

    45. Re:Taste by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      I've not tried the Woodford Reserve myself, but it did win a Double Gold and "Best Bourbon" at the SF Spirits competition, so it better be a good sipping Bourbon. ;) denttford says that it has a smoky characteristic, so I agree that it probably doesn't have the right flavor profile for mixed drinks.

      I suggest reading these articles, but as always, there's a lot more to explore:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/dining/28bour.html
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/02/WI144547.DTL
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/WIBC14LRGR.DTL

      I tend to drink more Rye than anything else, though.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/dining/29wine.html
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/16/WIRYE.DTL

    46. Re:Taste by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      But in this case, you don't want nuclear testing saying your bottle is fake.

      Just saying...

    47. Re:Taste by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      What? They can't tell the difference by tasting it?

      No, they have to burn it to determine the quality.

      Kind of like how you tell a real pearl from a fake one; the real pearl will dissolve in vinegar.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    48. Re:Taste by blincoln · · Score: 1

      More importantly, if you're willing to pay 20,000 for a bottle of whiskey, you're never going to be drinking it. You want no one anywhere to be drinking it or saying that they have it.

      What's the point, then? To save it until someone invents a food replicator and then you can have as many bottles of "$20,000" whiskey as you want, all to yourself?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    49. Re:Taste by ppanon · · Score: 1

      You think Merlot is bitter? As compared to what, a Sauternes? Because I consider Merlot pretty smooth and mellow, at least compared to a Cabernet-Sauvignon.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    50. Re:Taste by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      But does it have ELECTROLYTES?

    51. Re:Taste by denttford · · Score: 1

      I don't know which state you are in, but seriously, check Google Shopping. In NYC, it is almost always competitive with the lowest price around, except when a discount B&M shop overstocks something. I am pretty sure that Google takes your zip code into account when pricing liquor to avoid cross state shipping issues. For example, it seems I need to order a lot of this. In NYC proper, $60 a bottle (all prices before tax) is very good for Lagavulin 16. Everyone seems to love that one, huh?

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    52. Re:Taste by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      My favorites tend to be the Irish whiskys, I just wish it were easier to get some variety in them in America--Jameson and Bushmill's are boring, Powers is terrible, and even Tullamore Dew is hard to find, let alone something interesting like Knappogue Castle. Any suggestions for other interesting ones?

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    53. Re:Taste by pilsner.urquell · · Score: 1

      If I see it in a restaurant I might give it a try. I personally drink scotch but I am not above bourbon, American or Irish whiskey once in a while.

    54. Re:Taste by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      The highlander, or anybody with Wikipedia! I imagine such a list was much harder to compile back when people still learned things off thin pieces of wood.

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    55. Re:Taste by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      But mostly they could have been praying on the people's nature not to cause a fuss, and to agree with authority.

      "Dear God, please don't let those people cause a fuss or disrespect my a-thor-a-tay."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    56. Re:Taste by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      When bottles of whiskey talk about age they are referring to the [...]

      [...] amount of said that I have had to drink. Generally. Perhaps they talk amongst themselves, I only hear them after a good bender. (Right, not the goateed kind.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    57. Re:Taste by fractoid · · Score: 1
      Nope. To hoard it as a Veblen good which is valuable to you precisely because it is expensive. 100 years in the future, food replicators will probably produce molecule-exact copies of such whiskey but it still won't be worth much, purely because it's so easily available, while a bottle of whiskey from 1845 will still be worth megabucks even if it tastes like paint thinner.

      Interestingly, the time since it was bottled is irrelevant to the 'age' of the whiskey anyway:

      Whiskies which have been in bottle for many years may have a rarity value, but are not "older" and will not necessarily be "better" than a more recently made whisky matured in wood for a similar time.
      Wikipedia on Whiskey

      So the prices paid for these antique bottles are pure wank value (plus the rarity of the bottle itself).

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    58. Re:Taste by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Patients report that a more expensive placebo is more effective in treating their symptoms. Perhaps that's why medical expenses are out of control in the United States.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    59. Re:Taste by fractoid · · Score: 1

      "Extract", not "open". They most likely use a very fine needle to draw a tiny fraction of a millilitre out through the cork.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    60. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 20,000 pounds a bottle, you can taste c14-ethanol, and (ugh) c14-dioxide in solution.

    61. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, he can live with his girlfriend...

    62. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since this testing method requires taking the whiskey out of the bottle, no one who could pay that much for whiskey would ever use it.

    63. Re:Taste by Vesvvi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It should be possible. Other comments here (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1221551&cid=27821391) have indicated that the bottle should "off-gass", and those gases could be collected for analysis. Sensitivity might be a concern, since the best gas-sampling mass spectrometers aren't usually the best at measuring isotope ratios, which is required for the analysis.

    64. Re:Taste by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [blink] Is that why some folks drink "Scotch and water" -- to achieve the same effect??

      I don't drink any form of whiskey (don't like the taste, prefer rum myself), but love its subtle odors. So this discussion is interesting, and thanks for the very informative posts.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    65. Re:Taste by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      After eating at Pizza Hut, I couldn't either. At least my taste buds commited suicide after it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    66. Re:Taste by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      In general you would add water in order to bring the alcohol level down to a drinkable level. Whisky is usually diluted before bottling to bring the alcohol level down to 40-46% (depending on the whisky) - at that strength it's drinkable, but some (including me) find that the alcohol overwhelms the flavour.

      If you're drinking cask-strength whisky, which may not be diluted to the same degree if at all, then you'll have to add water in order to make the whisky drinkable.

      Connoisseurs will recommend that you use water sourced from close to the distillery. This is usually not practical - I usually try to use Scottish bottled water, but distilled water is probably the best option if you live on the wrong side of the Atlantic.

    67. Re:Taste by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      If it's Scottish, Canadian or Japanese it's spelled 'whisky'. If it's Irish or American it's spelled 'whiskey'.

    68. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really lying to them, though?

      I mean... what are cosmetics supposed to do? They're supposed to make you appear more attractive. But if you believe that a certain something is going to make you look very attractive, that it's very expensive - very valuable, really -, won't that increase your self-confidence already in such a way as to make you more attractive?

      You might call this a placebo effect, and I'd be inclined to agree to some extent, but given that we're talking only about psychological effects here, anyway, not measurable ones, is it really one? In the end, the stuff did what it was supposed to.

      (Of course, that's assuming it really did have this effect: if you don't believe in it, it's not going to work. But then, a 200$ lipstick that really IS worth its price in terms of ingredients etc. is not going to work if you don't believe in it, either.)

      Given that, I'd hesitate to call it a rip-off, too.

    69. Re:Taste by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can offer your opinion on this particular bourbon http://www.woodfordreserve.com/

      A friend from the States put that drink's name to me a couple of years ago, so the next time I was in one of the minor whisky bars in town (only about 350 different whiskys, compared to the 400+ of the serious players and the 20~30 of a normal run-of-the-mill bar) I asked if they'd got it. After all, it's from the other side of the ocean, trying to get into the country where the type of drink was invented.

      Tried it ; perfectly respectable taste and nose but nothing spectacular. Not particularly to my taste, but I can see people taking a liking to it. I wouldn't swap a quarter-gill of Glen Farclas, Morangie, or many other for a quarter-gill of Woodford ; I would swap a quarter bottle of Bells or Teachers for a quarter-gill of Woodford ; I'll keep the Talisker, and I'd keep the Talisker 12yo for another 3 or 4 years because it improves quite noticeably in those last couple of years.

      Most people who taste some of these super-old bottles, and who know their whiskies, reckon that after the first 25 to 30 years, they all start going downhill. At which point they're fit for selling to idiots with more money than sense, and no idea what to do with their taste buds.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    70. Re:Taste by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      a fleck of cork could probably be tested to see how old it is.
      While the age of the cork doesn't guarantee the age of the whiskey, it might be an indication. Hard to say though.

      The age of the cork would put a lower bound on the age of the bottling process. The most-recent bottling couldn't have taken place before the cork was formed. However the original bottling could have taken place earlier, and then the cork repaired later, following damage of some sort.

      But a 1950 cork in an 1850 bottle would raise almost as many questions as a 30A.D. image on a 1460±20A.D. piece of linen.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    71. Re:Taste by dangitman · · Score: 1

      However, it doesn't take long to learn
      the difference between an Islay and a Highland, or to understand
      the difference between a younger or older scotch, or to
      understand that some expressions

      but what does it take
      to understand the very weird
      word-wrapping of your post?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    72. Re:Taste by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Yeah woodford is fairly nice as bourbons go, if a little generic. Generally speaking you can't go too wrong with a Woodford, Wild Turkey, Elijah Craig, or Buffalo Trace.

      I tend to prefer wild turkey to Woodford, but i think that's more just my personal taste more than anything. If you're willing to spend a little more, an old rip van winkle with a dash of maple syrup stirred with ice is full of win. If you really want to push the boat out, George T Stagg is probably the most interesting I've ever tasted (it's far too string to drink neat though! Definitely one for an old fashioned) - I know in the US it's about $60 (and given that it retails at about $180 in the UK is the reason I buy as many as I can when I'm over there ;))

    73. Re:Taste by brusk · · Score: 1

      If the opening of the bottle, removal of the sample, and reclosure with an unduplicatable seal is filmed and witnessed, then it doesn't destroy the subject and the contents are still original. It's not that hard, an no quantum physics are involved.

      And of course, in the case of a batch of more than one bottle, testing a randomly chosen bottle will be a reasonable proxy.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    74. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding?! I might have too strong a conscience, but there are plenty of people who don't... or who can fool themselves into thinking it's acceptable behavior in spite of conscience.

    75. Re:Taste by drsquare · · Score: 1

      It's not really lying though, and if people want to believe that the more money they spend the better they'll look, why not take it off them? You'd be able to put it to much better use.

    76. Re:Taste by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      If the money is good, you can soothe a hurt conscience pretty easy.

      Undoubtedly using expensive wine from a restaurant....

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    77. Re:Taste by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Could be if I diluted it, I might like the taste as well as the smell :)

      Strange thoughts: sending your own water to the distillery for making a custom batch, so it's sure to match when it gets back to you, a decade or two hence. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    78. Re:Taste by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Brings a whole new meaning to "anal leakage."

      Eeeww.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    79. Re:Taste by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      I don't drink scotch myself, but I remember my father drank Glenfiddich. I can't tell from your post whether you're saying Glenfiddich is a good or bad brand (is it even a brand, or is it a type?). Can you elaborate more on that?

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    80. Re:Taste by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Maybe bitter isn't the right word. But I dislike the tanic acid taste.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    81. Re:Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or working for Monster Cable...

    82. Re:Taste by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1
      Uh, what do the Americans have to do with this? And certainly, when it comes to binge drinking I think the Aussies (and most of Europe) will beat them hands down. ;)

      Otherwise, I agree, there is probably a reason why true connoisseurs are prepared to pay serious money for certain bottles. But how many people actually crack open a $10,000+ bottle and consume its contents?

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    83. Re:Taste by blair1q · · Score: 1

      "I'm, might be fooled between the Lagavulin and Laphroig,"

      Arrgh!

      You had me nodding and going "yep, yep, yep," until you stumbled over yer kilt right there.

      They may be similar types, but they're an order of magnitude different in smokiness (albeit in the way that a billion is an order of magnitude different from 10 billion...pretty hard to make out from the common perspective of the mid-thousands...)

    84. Re:Taste by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Bushmill's is a bit pedestrian, but Black Bush is excellent pedestrian.

      I got a bottle of Redbreast a while back. It's got an interesting character with some twist and depth, unlike the clear, single-note character that most Irish brands seek.

      The story goes (and I have reason to think it's not entirely apocryphal) that Redbreast is what the blenders at Bushmill's drink when they're off work.

    85. Re:Taste by denttford · · Score: 1

      Glenfiddich is far and away the most common single malt around, at one point accounting for over 1/3 of all single malt sold (it's around 20% these days), and for many people their first (and often only) taste of single malt. I haven't tasted everything they've ever made, of course, but in general, it's the Coca-Cola or Heineken of scotch. In its basic expression, it's a common, nondescript scotch, and regardless of your tastes in scotch, your money can be better spent elsewhere. Most bars in NYC will carry a few single malt scotches in their basic expressions: Glenfiddich, The Glenlivet, The Macallan, Oban, and Laphroaig are frequently available in that order - which is roughly the reverse of my preference (though Oban is arguably the "best" of these). Of course the issue is figuring out what taste you like. :-) Going to a bar with a good selection and drinking responsibly with a lot of water* (good water is very important to whisk(e)y at every stage) is a great way to start; in Manhattan, dba (a great place when not busy) and The Brandy Library, among others, are known for their wide selections. Additionally, small taster bottles and whisky conventions are very good ways to "work" on this. Do not get drunk on whisky. It can and will destroy you, and you are wasting good booze.

      Glenfiddich is a brand and a distillery which has produced many different versions - the term "expressions" is usually used - of single malt scotch for over 100 years. I am curious about their Havana Reserve, not enough to import a bottle, but enough to order a glass next time I'm out of the U.S.

      *As shown in that link, snifters are used for tasting and judging scotch. Most bars will serve in rocks or old fashioned glasses; there's nothing wrong with this and you will draw stares asking for a snifter, depending on the place. Snifters (or even certain types of wine glasses in a pinch) do have real advantages: the alcohol is both warmed and the vapors are more concentrated through the smaller opening. Remember, most of the distinctiveness you experience in food and drink is in the complexity of smell - not taste, which is a comparatively basic sense in man.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    86. Re:Taste by default+luser · · Score: 1

      You don't like Powers? It's my favorite Irish whiskey that's easily available here. It's got a spicy flavor that most of the other smoother varieties can't match.

      But then again, everyone has their preferences. I mean, some people actually LIKE Scotch, if you can believe that :)

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    87. Re:Taste by denttford · · Score: 1

      I knew I'd get shit for that comment. :-)

      My point I am reasonably certain I would *never* confuse any of the other distilleries' expressions, but it is conceivable that I might carelessly make a mistake with the two Ls of Islay - especially in an older Laphroaig. I'm not going to confuse ginger beer with Pepsi, but if I'm not paying attention, I might confuse it with homemade ginger ale.

      Incidentally, Ardbeg is so odd to me. It looks light in color, has a light, evasive nose and then in the palate and finish... well, it's like someone smacks all the keys in the bottom octave at the same time.

      With the amp at 11.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    88. Re:Taste by heson · · Score: 1

      Since many of the aromas are not water soulable but alcohol soulable, by lowering the alcohol concentration you force some aromas out of the whisky and into the air. You taste better with your nose than with your tounge. So: Always water your scotch! Some well matured ones need only a teaspoon of water, others need to be watered down to 30% to be enjoyable. (I will now treat myself one cl of bowmore 18 with a few ml water)

    89. Re:Taste by KharmaWidow · · Score: 1

      The irony is that old stuff like this has an arbitrary and subjective value anyways. The fakes are objectively worth the same amount.

    90. Re:Taste by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I wonder what other liquors, or even wines might benefit from this trick?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    91. Re:Taste by davotoula · · Score: 1

      "Lagavulin 16"

      Amen brother, Amen!

    92. Re:Taste by slackerboy · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I wonder what other liquors, or even wines might benefit from this trick?

      Well, wine is already in the 10%-20% alcohol range (as opposed to whiskey at ~40%), so you've essentially already benefited from this effect. Essentially any mixed drink made with a harder liquor is going to take advantage of this, however

      --
      Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
    93. Re:Taste by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Ah. Well, the only hard liquor I drink is rum, and this may well be why I prefer it mixed (tho I make some strange mixes with it :) -- essentially I use it as a flavouring agent.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    94. Re:Taste by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It = the word used in the article, imbecile.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    95. Re:Taste by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You're a fucking illiterate moron too, die in a fire now. Read the fucking title for fuck's sake. I know the difference, it's the stupoid cunt who wrote the article that doesn't, but he's still smarter than you, you waste of oxygen.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    96. Re:Taste by denttford · · Score: 1

      No - if David Embury is to be believed, you use it as a base, with a healthy dose of modifying agents.

      Awesome book. Should be the first thing you buy after a Boston shaker, a strainer, and a jigger.

      Shame this story is done, slashdot should have an ongoing alcohol discussion.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    97. Re:Taste by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good textbook for bartending schools!

      The author would probably cringe in horror at my Poor Man's Daiquiri, tho... instant lemonade, a bit of Gatorade powder, a squirt of lime juice, and a capful of rum. Serve hot or cold.

      (No, no, the BOTTLE cap, not your headgear, you shameless sot! :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    98. Re:Taste by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Maybe they don't know what old whiskey tastes like because most of the old whiskey isn't really old.

      --
      ...
    99. Re:Taste by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info, but I don't drink. Not because of any moral objection or anything, but rather for health reasons (I'm diabetic and alcohol is a bitch to regulate in the blood stream). I was mostly just curious to learn a bit more about scotch as it's something I don't have very much knowledge about.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    100. Re:Taste by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I would think so. In my younger days, I always claimed a dislike of whisky. One day a friend explained to me that a splash of water "opens up the flavour"- and I've adored it ever since. I find a little less than equal parts whisky/water (in the whisky's favour) does me nicely, but YMMV.

      For the record (and the greater good), Talisker is my all time favourite off-the-shelf whiskey.

    101. Re:Taste by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'll have to try it. If I still don't like it, I'm no worse off than before. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    102. Re:Taste by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ... I'd keep the Talisker 12yo for another 3 or 4 years because it improves quite noticeably in those last couple of years.

      Unless you have the whisky stored in its cask, it will taste exactly the same as the day it left the distillery. Whisky doesn't age in glass.

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_whiskey_age_in_a_bottle

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sealed_whiskey_go_bad_after_time

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    103. Re:Taste by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      ... I'd keep the Talisker 12yo for another 3 or 4 years because it improves quite noticeably in those last couple of years.

      Unless you have the whisky stored in its cask, it will taste exactly the same as the day it left the distillery. Whisky doesn't age in glass.

      How many years did you run your still for? and how many litres of the dew of the mountainside did you collect?
      Answers on websites need to be calibrated against reality.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    104. Re:Taste by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      It is also the opinion of every whisky connoisseur (other than you) and distiller I've ever spoken with.

      If you claim a 10 y/o whisky bottled in 1979 is now a 40 y/o, you'll be laughed out of the room, and perhaps the country.

      The aging process requires the migration of the alcohol thru the pores of the wooden cask so that it will dissolve flavor compounds from the charred interior of the cask. My wife's favorite is a 25 y/o single cask, cask strength Macallan bottled by Douglas Laing.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    105. Re:Taste by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It is also the opinion of every whisky connoisseur (other than you)

      I've never claimed to be a connoisseur. I do appreciate a whisky and I do know which ones I'd cross the road for and which I wouldn't. But I've never claimed to have more than a slight knowledge of the subject.

      The aging process requires the migration of the alcohol thru the pores of the wooden cask so that it will dissolve flavor compounds from the charred interior of the cask.

      The distillers may indeed have a specific usage of the word "age" ; I'm using it in it's normal meaning of "get older", or even "progress through time in a forwards direction". And of course whisky both changes it's age (chronological) and flavour and composition if stored in inert vessels. The aldehydes oxidise, higher alcohols esterify with any carboxylic acids that are around and all sorts of other reactions are going on. Most of them are slow reactions. Putting the raw spirit in wooden casks flavoured with other wines or distillates just puts more, different chemicals into the mix.
      I approached running a still from the perspective of being a young chemist with a brother-in-law who made lots of different fruit wines - when a batch turned out bad, it would go into the still, and from there straight into 2-litre polyethelyene terephthalate bottles (coke or other generic plastic drinks bottles) or occasionally I'd use a couple of PTFE-lined bottles I'd got which originally contained hydrofluoric acid. A couple of months in the cellar (or if that was full, in the darkroom) et voilá, something for mixing back with the better wines to make fortified wines. And very nice they were, too.
      Without those couple of months and you still have noticeable conjoiners, which are why even hardened piss-heads generally don't touch the "white whisky" that comes warm from the still. It tastes quite disgusting.
      When I moved away from home for university, I forgot about 4 bottles of the "mountain dew" down in the cellar and they rested there for over 2 years. I took three of them back up to University for the delectation of the Gaelic Society (Drinking Sub-Section I.E. The Whole Lot) party, which resulted me being elected by universal acclaim to the Society's post of "Science Officer". Which was quite an achievement for a sassenach without a word of the Gaelic and not even being a member of the Society.

      Another year later the last bottle was broached, and was still improving. The position of "Science Officer" remains mine, unchallenged.

      (By the way, I don't recall any of the Gaelic Society considering themselves as "whisky connoisseurs" either - despite most of them having a quite considerable breadth and depth of experience of the amber nectar. Which reminds me to dig out Fionnlaigh's phone number, 'cos I know that he's still in town.)

      Incidentally, not all distilleries use "flamed" casks as you describe. A fair number do, but it's by no means universal.

      Macallan - popular enough it's true, but to be honest I'd generally take one of the "Glens" if I were given a choice. A -Morangie, a -Fiddich, or a -Farclas in approximate increasing order of preference. But still top of the list, for me, is Talisker. 100-proof, 12 or 15 year. Hard to find, so to be grabbed when it appears.
      Islay malts - you take them, I'll leave them. I'd rather have another pint. Or if you insist on a spirit, a double voddy an' coke.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Shocking. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I never would have expected fakes to outnumber genuine articles in a status driven market with poor verification.

    1. Re:Shocking. by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I never would have expected fakes to outnumber genuine articles in a status driven market with poor verification.

      I never thought it possible but this could be a niche market to rival audiophile products in regards to fraud.

    2. Re:Shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My magical fake magical fake detector detector has determined your magical fake detector is fake. It is never wrong.

    3. Re:Shocking. by Spaham · · Score: 1

      we should build aerodynamically and hydrodynamically tested glasses that don't ruin your audiophile extasy while you sip your $20000 whiskey bottle :p

    4. Re:Shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But it may not be a statistical sample. They're probably going to the expense of testing only the ones that are both expensive and suspicious for other reasons.

      There are ways that this isotopic technique could be foiled, theoretically. It wouldn't be easy to set up correctly, but what it would take is a combination of plants grown in the right C-14-depleted atmosphere (this is possible by generating CO2 from "old" carbon obtained from burning fossil fuels and piping it into a greenhouse), and getting water not derived from recent atmospheric sources (e.g., deeper groundwater that hasn't yet been contaminated by surface waters replenishing the aquifer, or old glacial ice). Then you'd have to go through the fermentation and distillation process with similar precautions. The goal would be to avoid using any water/carbon/nutrients from post-1950 time periods -- difficult and probably not worth the expense, but I think it would be technically possible, especially if they are only screening for certain isotopes.

      Perhaps I could legitimately advertise it as "radiation-reduced whiskey", and sell it at a premium? :-)

    5. Re:Shocking. by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Not if the cork in the bottle is replaced with a 100% gold cork which will lower the risk of oxidation and audio/visual loss over its lifespan. The gold cork also looks pretty and I hear people are willing to pay a lot for it!

    6. Re:Shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My magical fake magical fake detector detector detector has determined that your magical fake detector detector that detected his magical fake detector is fake is fake. It is never wrong.

  4. Business Opportunity...? by sampson7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It sounds like "real" old whiskies are set to see a dramatic increase in price. Imagine if a rare collectible that fetched thousands of dollars at auction were about to become 50 or even 80 percent rarer. The intersection of the good old supply and demand curve sounds like it's about to jump....

    But really, who needs anything better than a 16 y.o. Lagavulin, anyway? F'ing Snobs.

    1. Re:Business Opportunity...? by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      So where's this "business opportunity" you speak of? Well here's mine: decreasing the radioactive content of "fake" whiskey to match that of the "genuinely" old stuff!

    2. Re:Business Opportunity...? by Timberfox · · Score: 1

      that really makes me was to...liquidate... all my finacial assets

    3. Re:Business Opportunity...? by pilsner.urquell · · Score: 1

      My belief exactly. Whiskey stops aging after about 30 years in the casket and most of that in the first 15 years or so. Buying a 100 year old bottle of whiskey is just a wast of money.

    4. Re:Business Opportunity...? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Informative

      You quote a url and you can't even spell the key word right. Barbarian.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Business Opportunity...? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well here's mine: decreasing the radioactive content of "fake" whiskey to match that of the "genuinely" old stuff!

      Well, if you do manage to invent the nuclear damper and accelerate the 1/2 life decay of carbon-14, let me know. I can think of a lot of people who'd be interested in forcing accelerated decay of stuff like plutonium.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:Business Opportunity...? by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All you need to do is re-bottle 1940 and earlier whiskey as the super old stuff. That totally eliminates this test as a way to tell the difference.

    7. Re:Business Opportunity...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I'm happy with a ten-year old Glenmorangie.

    8. Re:Business Opportunity...? by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep - I think if he was able to do that, the technique itself would be worth far more than any whiskey tricks.

      But for anyone thinking it could somehow be filtered, that's simply not possible. All the alcohol and the stuff that gives it flavor are organic molecules with carbon making the backbone. There isn't a way to go in and find which are the carbon-14 atoms and selectively replacing them with carbon-12.

      The technique used is guaranteed to be mass spectroscopy which destroys the sample because it has to be atomized and ionized. All the atoms basically get weighed at the same time so you don't know which atom came from where. You just know the isotope ratios.

      There are mass spec techniques that would allow finding where a particular atom would be located, but I don't believe it would work if you have millions of molecules with random substitutions which is probably the case.

    9. Re:Business Opportunity...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never had a Glenrothes 1969, brother.

      Lagavulin is ok, but it tastes better with

    10. Re:Business Opportunity...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Barbarian"? Not necessarily --- just New World. Whiskey is a type of distilled spirit made from fermented grain mash, aged in oak barrels, and found only in America.

    11. Re:Business Opportunity...? by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

      Well, if you do manage to invent the nuclear damper and accelerate the 1/2 life decay of carbon-14, let me know. I can think of a lot of people who'd be interested in forcing accelerated decay of stuff like plutonium.

      Under certain conditions the half-lives of beta-emitters (of which class C-14 is a member) have been reduced in the lab. A quick search of Google produced a Health Physics Society letter that points us towards Bosch et al, "Observation of Bound-State (Beta)- Decay of Fully Ionized 187Re: 187Re-187Os Cosmochronometry", Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5190 - 5193 (1996).

      Of course it requires fully ionizing the radioactive atom, and perhaps the reduction in half-life wouldn't be significant for a light atom like C-14, so you're not going to spoof the age of your beverages with this technique.

      (From the same source, electron capture decay can be accelerated by placing atoms inside buckyballs, which basically pushes the shell electrons closer to the nucleus and increases the likelihood of capture. Of course, that requires putting atoms inside buckyballs.)

    12. Re:Business Opportunity...? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's easy. All you need is about 6-7 kilograms of PU rolled into a tiny ball and you'll see a hell of a fast decay. And not only of the PU.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. The Same Technique Was Used: +1, Informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was used to detect heart stem cell regeneration.

    Yours In Medicine,
    Comrade Kilgore Trout

    1. Re:The Same Technique Was Used: +1, Informative by RDW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, the 'real' applications for this technique are much more interesting, possibly even to whisky drinkers:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/science/03heart.html

      The nuclear powers helpfully performed a gigantic pulse labelling experiment on the DNA of the entire biosphere back in the 50s, which allows the cell 'birthdays' in various tissues of people born in that era to be determined. The measurements can be calibrated by the C-14 content in tree rings, so you can work out if the cells are (e.g.) as old as the person (certain brain cells) or renewed more recently (like heart muscle).

  6. Such a waste by ironicsky · · Score: 2, Informative

    If a bottle of whiskey is supposedly worth $20,000, assuming its a 26oz bottle and they take even 1oz out for burning that drops the value almost a grand.
    Seems like an expensive waste to me.

    1. Re:Such a waste by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

      But, if it turns out to have been created last tuesday, then you're only burning a few cents worth.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:Such a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your bottle is a fake, then it is not burning $1000 worth of whiskey.

      If your bottle is genuine, then in the face of all of the fakes your genuine old liquid will be worth far more. So much more, that the ounce burnt will be "a drop in the bucket".

      At any rate, give me a bottle of Boones' farm (strawberry), a six pack of Corona Extra (lime, of course), and Bacardi Limon w/ Cranberry. I'm not a picky alcoholic.

    3. Re:Such a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This can likely be done on the order of uL.

    4. Re:Such a waste by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

      If it turns out to be fake it could have been a $20,000 waste.

    5. Re:Such a waste by Chaymus · · Score: 1

      It's pounds, not USD (assuming that was the $ you meant) so it's a little more drastic than that.
      Also, I doubt they'd allow an ounce to be used, this should be able to be done with a drop or two, similar to paintings only needing the tiniest sliver off the side. It could be the lab guys ask for an ounce and test the remainder of their empty glass, I know I would...
      What I'm interested in is who would want to open a bottle that hasn't been opened in so long just to test it? I find it difficult to believe this test wouldn't require near immediate consumption after opening to not change the flavor. I don't drink the cheap stuff, but 20,000 for a bottle is a little hard to swallow ;)

    6. Re:Such a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it turns out to be fake it could have been a $20,000 waste.

      That's 20,000 _pounds_ which is considerably more than US dollars, right?

    7. Re:Such a waste by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      "At any rate, give me a bottle of Boones' farm (strawberry), a six pack of Corona Extra (lime, of course), and Bacardi Limon w/ Cranberry. I'm not a picky alcoholic."

      Really? How can you put those two sentences next to each other without seeing the irony?

      Or is this that internet sarcasm thing I'm always hearing about?

    8. Re:Such a waste by evanbd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A mass spectrometer can operate on a few milligrams of carbon. That means you need perhaps as much as 50 microliters of whiskey, or about 0.0017 oz.

      Burning $0.50 worth of whiskey makes sense to me when testing a $20,000 bottle that has a greater than 50% chance of being a fake.

    9. Re:Such a waste by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      Strawberry Boones farm, Corona extra lime, and Bacardi Limon w/Cranberry?

      It's always so sad to see 12 year old girls become alcoholics.

    10. Re:Such a waste by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Not much more these days :(

      20 000 British pounds = 29 966 U.S. dollars

      Used to be nearer 40k USD. Then someone pulled the plug on the world's money supply...

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    11. Re:Such a waste by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I suspect that onece the bottle is opened it's worth considerably less. But then I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about, in so far as I can spell "whisky", I've ben to Scotland (twice) and I can point ot it on a map.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Such a waste by crazybilly · · Score: 1

      mod parent up +1 Hysterical

    13. Re:Such a waste by tholomyes · · Score: 1

      Then you certainly already know that, in general, it certainly is Scotch and Canadian "whisky" but American and Irish whiskeys are spelled with that pesky extra "e". I should know, I've been to Ireland (once) *and* America and I'm still too drunk to even find a map.

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    14. Re:Such a waste by demonbug · · Score: 1

      I suspect that onece the bottle is opened it's worth considerably less. But then I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about, in so far as I can spell "whisky", I've ben to Scotland (twice) and I can point ot it on a map.

      Can't spell 'been', or 'or', or 'once', though, apparently.

      I'd guess they extract the material they need by inserting a syringe through the cork. When they pull it, it should seal up pretty much the same as it was before they collected the sample. Probably not pulling the cork and ruining the bottle.

      Just a guess. I have not been to Scotland, and I do not know how to spell whiskey.

    15. Re:Such a waste by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

      Eh, whatever, I didn't read the article.

    16. Re:Such a waste by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      LOL, because what you drink is a measure of manhood! I get it!

    17. Re:Such a waste by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Drink more, maybe you'll see alcoholics become 12 year old girls.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. carbon 14 useless after 1945 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Not because its so recent, but because its been contaminated by nukes. On the other hand,t he 2nd half of the 20th century will have a very distinctive stratigraphic signature in the far future from the atmospheric nuke tests.

    1. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by omnichad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And of course assuming that Carbon-14 had never spiked for any reason in the past before we knew what it was and measured it regularly.

    2. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      We have pretty good records going back a long way. My favourite is the core samples taken from the north & south poles etc. They contain atmospheric samples trapped in the ice going back a long way. They can be used to prove C14 CO2 and other stuff.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    3. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      We can compare C-14 dating to other known dates. For example, C-14 dating agrees with dating from dendrochronology(the fancy word for counting tree rings). C-14 dating also agrees with other forms of radioactive dating and known historical data. We can be very sure there hasn't been any spike in the last 9000 years or so. Sudden spikes would also show and make a lot of archaeology just not look like it made any sense. And if there were any form of spike we'd likely see an impact in the ratios of other isotopes. If there had been substantial nuclear detonations for example, we'd be able to tell.

      A spike won't add a uniform extension or contraction to dates. For most forms of spiking, you'll get a lot of stuff looking like it is from a very short time period or you'll get a very large period where you don't see almost anything (depending on whether you have a process adding too much C-14 or reducing C-14 levels). We can be pretty sure that C-14 dating is accurate.

    4. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by bothemeson · · Score: 1

      Unless you use the crappy calibration software that the Oxford lab produces! Seriously, check out the methodology :-(

    5. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by pbhj · · Score: 1

      Where are the 9000 year old trees growing?

    6. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      The oldest trees aren't that old. However, we can match up tree rings from different trees to extend the data past that. The primary way of doing this is that temperature and water levels effect how much growth occurs and thus alters ring thickness. So if for example we have a tree that goes back back say a thousand years and then we have at the end a big ring, 22 big rings, a short ring, 4 big rings and then 2 short rings. If we find a dead tree that has that pattern at one point we can tentatively match the two segments up as corresponding to the same years. We can also cross confirm this with multiple tree lines and agreement in levels of various isotopes in the individual ring or sets of rings (this agreement is independent of any concern about spikes or similar issues since we are just looking for agrement of current levels, not trying to figure out the initial levels). The Wikipedia article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology provides a good summary of the basics.

    7. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by jstott · · Score: 1

      And of course assuming that Carbon-14 had never spiked for any reason in the past before we knew what it was and measured it regularly.

      Umm... you do know that any living thing that died pre-war will have pre-war levels of C-14 in it. Finding samples from dead trees going back for the last 1000+ years isn't all that hard. And no, C-14 hasn't spiked significantly in the past.

      Climate change deniers to the contrary, we science types aren't total idiots — we do know what we're talking about most of the time.

      -JS

      --
      Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
    8. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Hey, that was a good summary, thanks! I never thought of tree-ring-counting as anything other than a kid's game.

      Now it sounds like recovering data from a whole bunch of bad harddrives which were overlap mirrors in the same array of non-uniform disks.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    9. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by ppanon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Somebody who is arguing about the non-existence of 9000 year-old trees is as likely to be a Biblical literalist as a climate change denier, although there's probably a good deal of overlap between the two (assuming the climate change denier isn't being paid off by the fossil fuel industry).

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    10. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by pbhj · · Score: 1

      O RLY?

    11. Re:carbon 14 useless after 1945 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, mod me flamebait if you want, but members of both groups have a tendency to place wishful thinking and trust in unsupported ideology above scientific theories that have been repeatedly supported by observable evidence. That's a mindset (and possibly a genetic disposition) that makes one subject to both memes. The 9000 year-old tree crack is a fine example of the straw man that extremists in both groups frequently use as rhetorical arguments to mislead the gullible.

  8. How old is old enough? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

    Hopefully the test doesn't require burning too much of the purchase ;)

    I'm not that experienced when it comes to whiskey, but is there a huge difference (a £20,000 difference) between a 50 year old bottle and a 150 year old bottle in terms of the actual quality of the whiskey or does the price simply reflect the rarity and status? Is there ever a point where the whiskey doesn't get better after more time?

    I think I'll stick with J&B.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:How old is old enough? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about this too. I recently attended a get-together with some old friends, and we shared a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue Label for the occasion. I'm not a Scotch connoisseur, so I think it was pretty much wasted on me, but everyone else seemed to think it was the greatest thing ever.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:How old is old enough? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Is there ever a point where the whiskey doesn't get better after more time? Is there ever a point where a little extra penis length doesn't matter in a bragging contest? Yes, at the point where it is already older or longer than every other example you are comparing it to. "So Bob, you say you have a bottle of fine 150 year old whiskey? Well, I've got a bottle of 151 year old whiskey! Suck on that loser!"

      Although I never win the whiskey age bragging contests, the penis length contests are a different matter...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:How old is old enough? by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

      I recently attended a get-together with some old friends, and we shared a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue Label for the occasion.n

      Ugh. Blended scotch.

      Presumably they weren't very good friends. ;-)

    4. Re:How old is old enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I never win the whiskey age bragging contests, the e-peen length contests are a different matter...

      There, fixed that for ya.

    5. Re:How old is old enough? by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whiskey (or any liquor that is aged for flavor) only ages "in the barrel". Once it is bottled, it does not age anymore, because glass is inert. So if your grandfather bought a bottle of 12 year old Chivas in 1960 and left it gathering dust in his liquor cabinet for the next 49 years, you do not have 61-year old scotch, you have 12 year old scotch that's been in the bottle for 49 years. The value in these old bottles is not necessarily in their age per se, it's in their rarity - many of these old distilleries have long since ceased production and gone out of business, their recipes are lost, and the old bottles represent a legacy of sorts for the regional producers who thrived before giant corporations took over the production of spirits. It's kind of like buying NOS (new old stock) stickers for your MAME cabinet or arcade build. Only in this case, the "relics", such as they are, are a link to the past that simply can't be recreated once they're gone. The process that's descibed in the article ensure that the unscrupulous among us don't try to take advantage of people's desire to connect with that which came before.

      --
      Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
    6. Re:How old is old enough? by subtr4ct · · Score: 1

      I discovered recently that I like Macallan 12 better than Macallan 18. For me at least, there is such a thing as too much time in the casks. I had always heard that unlike wine, whiskey does not really change after it is bottled (reference, anyone?). The appeal of the age would then just be that there was a qualitative difference in the process or ingredients way back when? Without extensive taste testing, I would tend to expect that any marginal improvement (if any) as bottled scotch gets really old is minimal. The crazy market prices can probably be attributed to status-seeking behavior on the part of the buyers.

    7. Re:How old is old enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there ever a point where the whiskey doesn't get better after more time?

      I can say with certainty that there is such a point somewhere between St. Patty's Day and the day that follows it. I would post my methods for peer review, but my notes don't make any sense.

      Which is a shame, as I even went to the trouble of avoiding other food and drink to avoid contaminating the results.

    8. Re:How old is old enough? by Kilroy · · Score: 1

      It is entirely status. The age labels on whiskey refers to how long it was in the barrel for.

    9. Re:How old is old enough? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Although I never win the whiskey age bragging contests, the penis length contests are a different matter...

      Perhaps you need to hang out at a different bar...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    10. Re:How old is old enough? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is absolutely a period where whisky doesn't get better after more time - when you take it out of the barrel and bottle it!

      An "1856" Macallan could just ba a "10 year old" that has sat in a bottle for 150 years. And likely wouldn't taste much different (though I do have to say, it would be interesting to see how the overall taste due to production differences may have changed in that time...)

    11. Re:How old is old enough? by denttford · · Score: 1

      God bless you, Mr. Master. Had I not already /. befriended you, that comment alone would have led me to do so.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    12. Re:How old is old enough? by profplump · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Blended scotch isn't necessarily bad. It gets the reputation because it's much easier to hide cheap scotch by blending it. But if you start out with good scotch you can make very nice blended scotch, and you can make blends with attributes that are all but impossible to obtain in a single-malt. I prefer The Macallan myself, but to dismiss all blended scotch as second-rate is pure snobbery.

      Also note that many single-malt distilleries are now selling their stock to other labels, and are intentionally "blending" it by adding a trivial amount of some other stock for no reason other than to prevent labeling of the end product as single-malt -- the perception of the single-malt label is much more valuable than any pragmatic product difference.

    13. Re:How old is old enough? by profplump · · Score: 1

      The Macallan 25 tastes more or less like liking the barrel directly. It's not bad per se -- I rather liked it -- but it's not something you'd drink every night, even if you were made of money. I think the lesson is not that whiskey is necessarily better with more age, but that after sufficient aging it's really a matter of taste than absolutely quality.

      But taste is only important if you're drinking whiskey because you like whiskey, rather than for status or other such reasons. It's particularly unimportant for people looking to collect rare bottles -- which may or may not have been aged long in the barrel -- because they're looking for rarity not quality.

      And yes, whiskey only ages in the barrel. It doesn't go bad in the bottle or anything, baring terrible storage circumstances, but it doesn't change much either.

    14. Re:How old is old enough? by archshade · · Score: 1

      Whiskeys don't change there flavour extremely once bottled and sealed. The age on the bottle represents the time spent in the cask(which has previously been used for sherry or bourbon) the bottled date then tells you how long its been in this sealed state.
      Citation: The Edinburgh whiskey museum via my memory

      The price of these old whiskeys is due to status, rarity and the lack of particularly tainted barrels (esp for sherry whiskeys)

      Personally I like 12yo Laphroaig Quarter cask which is even peatier than the reg stuff

      --
      Most Damage is done by people who are AWAKE
    15. Re:How old is old enough? by tholomyes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the post just above yours does mention that once bottled, it doesn't age further. The flavor generally comes from the barrels themselves; just as an example, Jameson's uses previously-used port, sherry, and bourbon barrels to age their whiskey, whereas those original barrel occupants got their flavor and character depending on the wood used.

      In a similar vein, I find that I prefer Johnnie Walker Red to any of their more aged stuff.

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    16. Re:How old is old enough? by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Other than the time spent in the cask, any aging that happens in the bottle matters mainly because the ingredients/process were a bit different N years earlier, and because of its rarity as a collector's item, somewhat like better-tasting Beanie Babies :-) Unlike wine, where there's a lot of chemical change as it ages even in the bottle, most of what happens to aging liquors is absorbing flavors from the wood cask and having alcohol slowly evaporate through the wood. There's probably still some change in the bottle, but the compounds are much more stable and the alcohol prevents anything bacterial from happening.

      Back when my father was alive, I got him a bottle of Macallan 18 for some occasion, and I at least was disappointed with it - the Macallan 25 is absolute magic, and the Macallan 12 is good solid stuff, but the 18 was, well, just Scotch. It was as good as the 12, and a little different, but I didn't think it tasted significantly better.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    17. Re:How old is old enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Oxygen exposure depends on how it is bottled. Corks let in minute amounts of oxygen over time. True, a 14 year scotch is a lot different than a 10 year scotch that was bottled 4 years ago. But even with modern air tight capping systems, it is not at all clear what happens in the bottle over time. My home brewed beers certainly age and develop after bottling. Wines are frequently bottle aged for years. To say that no aging happens in the bottle is flippant at best.

    18. Re:How old is old enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if your grandfather bought a bottle of 12 year old Chivas in 1960 and left it gathering dust in his liquor cabinet for the next 49 years, you do not have 61-year old scotch, you have 12 year old scotch that's been in the bottle for 49 years.

      Sure it wasn't "aged" that long, but it was sure fun to bring one of those out at a party with the tax stamps still in tact.

    19. Re:How old is old enough? by diablovision · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the aging process of wine is far more complicated than you state and continues even after bottling.

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    20. Re:How old is old enough? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      He never mentioned wine, wine aging, or anything at all to do with wine.

      We are talking whiskey/whisky here.

      You are the only one concerned with wine in this whisky discussion.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    21. Re:How old is old enough? by denttford · · Score: 1
      All true. If you saw my first post, I extolled the virtues of a $15 bottle of White Horse.

      I think the reaction i largely due to:
      • People drinking "known" scotches which are at best inoffensive and at worst pretty crappy - largely for appearance
        (similarly, note the rise in drinks served in cocktail glasses just to call them "martinis." Also: the Rise of the Cosmo)
      • The fact that blended scotch was born in an attempt to tap an export market (England) that was accustomed to a different, "weaker," taste (Dry Gin).
      • Certain singular or notable flavors are not found in blended scotch; for examples, mixing the product of a wheat or corn mash with barley will only weaken any smokiness.
      • Finally, as you point out, it is a lot easier and cheaper to make a blended scotch and maintain a constant flavor; flaws can be compensated for.
      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    22. Re:How old is old enough? by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      Second the beers aging in the bottles.

      I have Barleywines that have changed a significant amount in just 1 year, mainly a reduction in the amount of hops. Just because the container is inert doesn't mean that the contents don't change.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    23. Re:How old is old enough? by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 2, Informative

      Beers and wines have yeasts in them that react with sugars remaining from the liquid's previous life as wort / fruit juice. "Aging" in these products refer to flavor changes resulting from the actions of these yeasts. Hard liquor has been distilled, possibly filtered, and the alcohol content is high enough to kill the hardiest yeast. Whiskey is "aged" by storing in charred casks and allowing tannins from the wood to impart flavors to the liquor - the longer the whiskey is in the wood, the more tannins. Put the whiskey into glass bottles, and the aging stops. I stand by my original comment.

      --
      Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
    24. Re:How old is old enough? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      No shit! You mean wine isn't the same the whisky?

      Who knew???

    25. Re:How old is old enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I never win the whiskey age bragging contests, the penis length contests are a different matter...

      Perhaps you need to hang out at a different bar...

      If you read what he wrote, there's no mention of a bar. It appears that he and his friends simply have penis matching contests wherever they wish, as the whim strikes.

      Mind you, I'm no prude: If Locke2005 wishes to compare the length of his dick against that of other consenting human male adults in the privacy of his own home then I think he should be free to do so, I just don't care to ever meet him, nor his friends, and hope that they'd have the good sense not to do it in a public location.

      I admit to a certain horrified fascination: Do they measure them themselves, or is there an official measurer? Do they measure them flaccid, or when erect? The mind boggles, especially after reading "Suck on that loser!" in his post... awkward moment to miss a comma, or Freudian slip? I, for one, am grateful that I will never learn the truth from first-hand experience.

    26. Re:How old is old enough? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Scotch connoisseur, so I think it was pretty much wasted on me [...]

      And you, on it?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    27. Re:How old is old enough? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      No, not even close. I don't really like most alcoholic drinks, so I did a shot's worth to be social, and that was it. :-)

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    28. Re:How old is old enough? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      But are the bottles truly airtight, or just good enough for a few decades? I'm wondering what sort of aging might occur over centuries, through micro-exchanges and within the cork.

      Side note: couple years ago my neighbour bought some cheap wine that was... blech. Ugh. Harsh and tasted like underarm juice. Banged the cork back into the bottle and stuck it in the fridge. Forgot about it for close to a year.... One day, lacking other drinkables, we brought it forth in desperation, and were astonished to discover this neglect had turned it into a reasonably good wine!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    29. Re:How old is old enough? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You can stand by it, but you might want to say it's not yours if the cops ask.

      The yeast in a bottled wine or beer is generally dead (having poisoned itself by making so much alcohol) and/or filtered out. The changes over time in the bottle are not dependent on them but on the other impurities (aka flavor molecules) in them.

      Whiskies are not purified like vodkas. They have oils and complex molecules that can change over time. Especially if the bottle is opened, partially emptied (preferably drunk), closed, and left on the shelf for years. Oxygen likes to alter everything.

  9. What the hell.. by drewsup · · Score: 3, Funny

    They opened the bottle to test the whiskey and my cat disappeared.. where d he go????

    1. Re:What the hell.. by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      Shroedinger stole it.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  10. Send the "fakes" my way for proper disposal. by fotbr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Subject says it all, really. After all, alcohol abuse is bad.

    1. Re:Send the "fakes" my way for proper disposal. by billstewart · · Score: 1

      And certainly mixing it with anything other than a bit of water or maybe ice would constitute "abuse", and ought to be prevented. (Some friends of mine are even happy to drink theirs cask strength, but that's a bit much for me.)

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    2. Re:Send the "fakes" my way for proper disposal. by 5c11 · · Score: 1

      Water or ice in 59 year old whisky?
      People like you should be locked up for the good of society. :)

  11. Have they proved that the test is accurate? by kalirion · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall a bunch of other tests (fbi bullet matching, dna identification) which were assumed to work for decades. So how do you attempt to disprove this one? Test hundreds of bottles of "known" 150 year old whiskeys?

    1. Re:Have they proved that the test is accurate? by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      Carbon-14 testing is calibrated against other, trusted external indicators. One example is counting tree rings in trees in the vicinity of the sample.

      In this case it is actually simpler. Since the test is only verifying that the carbon-14 level is does not exhibit a spike caused by nuclear testing, it doesn't need full calibration. If the carbon-14 level is extraordinarily high, then it's post-1945, if not, then it's pre-1945. I don't think they are currently verifying exact ages.

      On a side note, while bullet matching is unreliable for a number of reasons, DNA testing is not nearly so unreliable as you posit. Granted, initial tests were less reliable, but they get more and more accurate every year. Yes, they do exhibit false matches, and corroborating evidence should be required for a conviction, but they are extremely useful for ruling out suspects that might otherwise be prosecuted.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    2. Re:Have they proved that the test is accurate? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      If the carbon-14 level is extraordinarily high, then it's post-1945, if not, then it's pre-1945.

      Aren't there some areas on Earth with sufficiently higher "naturally occuring" radioactivity than normal? Could that skew the results? Or how about places that were more or less shielded from the nuclear testing fallout?

      Yes, they do exhibit false matches, and corroborating evidence should be required for a conviction, but they are extremely useful for ruling out suspects that might otherwise be prosecuted.

      The first part's the problem. The jury is misled about the chances of a false match.

  12. Born on date? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    I gotta make sure my Budweiser is fresh!

    Just kidding, all Budweiser is crap that I would never let past my lips.

    1. Re:Born on date? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just kidding, all beer is crap that I would never let past my lips.

      Fixed that for you. ;)

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:Born on date? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Philistine.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Born on date? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      If it has never passed your lips, how do you know it's crap? ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  13. Worthless? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No spirit is worthless if it contains alcohol of the appropriate kind.

    1. Re:Worthless? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1


      No spirit is worthless if it contains alcohol of the appropriate kind.

      Now add a bit radioactivity, and you have an after taste like non-other.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Worthless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Safeway branded tequila. Don't drink it, don't cook with it, don't use it to disinfect a wound. Only good as paint thinner. Maybe. If you somehow had a paint-thinning emergency.

    3. Re:Worthless? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine at high school/college's response to "What's your drink?" was always "Anything that has '% alc/vol' on the label."

  14. At last! by Evildonald · · Score: 1

    Finally! After all these years we've found a useful application of science.

  15. In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sales of "fake" vintage whiskey at low prices have skyrocketted among the "scientists" involved.

  16. Ridiculous waste by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

    If you're going to shovel over a truck full of money for a single bottle of hooch, maybe it's time to consider what kind of ego problems you have and whether the money is better spent on therapy.

    1. Re:Ridiculous waste by borizz · · Score: 1

      You can make the same argument for expensive cars. People like to show off.

    2. Re:Ridiculous waste by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      You've seem to have some issues. For someone who earns ~$20m a year, it is only 1/1000th of their income. Roughly the same as someone who earns ~$40k a year spending $40.

      Do people that make ~$40k have issues for buying a $40 bottle of whisky?

      They dont have issues, they have too much money.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    3. Re:Ridiculous waste by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

      Do people that make ~$40k have issues for buying a $40 bottle of whisky?

      I'd say it's likely that a $40 bottle of whiskey tastes better than a $20 one, so maybe not. But it's very unlikely that a $40,000 bottle tastes better than a $1,000 bottle or even a $200 bottle. They're paying for imaginary quality to impress people.

      Just because you can afford something doesn't mean it's not a waste of money. I can afford to buy a single toothpick for $50, but given that I can buy a whole box of the same toothpicks for $1, the $50 toothpick would be a waste.

      And if my only motivation to do that were a need to impress people, then yes, I'd probably have issues. It would be hard to have healthy relationships with that strong a desire to impress people.

    4. Re:Ridiculous waste by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      What if you collected toothpicks and it was a toothpick made by a company in 1850 that has long since gone out of business. Would the $50 be so outrageous then? You said "whole box of the same toothpicks", but that does not compare. You cannot get a whole box of that bottle of whisky. Why? because the distiller has long since gone out of business. As many have mentioned, your purchasing a rare collectors item and a piece of history more so then just a simpel bottle of liquor.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    5. Re:Ridiculous waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What if you collected toothpicks and it was a toothpick made by a company in 1850 that has long since gone out of business"

      Then you are a moron

  17. Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by DomNF15 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do you really think there are $90,000 worth of parts and labor in an S-Class Mercedes (does the S stand for stupid, or stinking rich, or both)? Also, when I go to a restaurant and order a $60 bottle of wine, it makes me feel bad when I see that same bottle in Bottle King for $12...

    1. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      If you can't get the same caliber of parts and labor anywhere else then they can charge whatever they want. It's not entirely about image.

    2. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by superdave80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really think there are $90,000 worth of parts and labor in an S-Class Mercedes...

      For someone that likes to call others stupid, you don't know anything about cars, do you? You really think that a Ford Festiva and a Mercedes have the same performance and quality of parts? This isn't a case of "I THINK my car has better parts/performance". You can actually buy mechanical parts that have higher tolerances, better engineering and longer lasting materials. And you can prove it with testing methods.

    3. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a reason beyond marketing b.s. why an M-Class SUV costs about 1/2 as much as an S-Class Sedan. The latter is made in Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg. The former is made in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

      One can be assured, there is a significant difference in labor cost in addition to a substantially different method of production, which you may find unnecessary, but it is nonetheless legitimately present.

    4. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Laser_iCE · · Score: 1

      You paid $90k for a Ford Festiva? They saw you coming from a country mile away...

    5. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Your point still doesn't answer the question. Just because your Ford Festiva at $10k has $5k worth of parts and the rest is labor and profit doesn't mean that a $90k Mercedes only has $5k, It may have $25k in parts and be 5 times the quality, or even double those. The labor and profits are still much higher.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Spaham · · Score: 1

      all this guy said was "Do you really think there are $90,000 worth of parts and labor"

      90K
      worth
      parts and labor

      not "is as good as ford fiesta"

    7. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      all this guy said was "Do you really think there are $90,000 worth of parts and labor"

      ...During the discussion of "Are higher priced things perceived to be better than they really are?". He was implying (wrongly) that the Mercedes is only perceived to be a high quality car due to it's high price tag, and I pointed out that you can quantify the "betterness" (yeah, made up word) of the components used in the car. I only used the Festiva as an example of poor quality/performance relative to the Mercedes.

      Try to keep up on what we are talking about, Skippy.

    8. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Anenome · · Score: 1

      It's possible to make a pen that costs $90,000. Platinum base, studded with flawless diamond all around. Highest, rarest quality ink. Ruby-sphere tip. Signed by Tiger Woods. 30% markup by the manufacturer and seller. Done and done.

      --
      "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    9. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Spaham · · Score: 1

      woops

    10. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by inviolet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you really think there are $90,000 worth of parts and labor in an S-Class Mercedes (does the S stand for stupid, or stinking rich, or both)? Also, when I go to a restaurant and order a $60 bottle of wine, it makes me feel bad when I see that same bottle in Bottle King for $12...

      It is better for society if there isn't $90,000 worth of parts and labor in an S-Class Mercedes. The whole point of luxury items is to take a rich person's money and put it back into circulation, in the process reducing the concentration of power that his bankroll represents. The only question is, how much wealth will be consumed in the process?

      Selling him a $80,000 Rolex burns about $4,000 in actual wealth to liberate the $80,000. That's efficient.

      Him hiring a butler for $80,000 a year burns about $40,000 in actual wealth -- this is the wealth the butler could've created elsewhere, rather than scurrying around making the rich guy feel special. That's not efficient.

      So, never criticize super-expensive trinkets; they are far far better for society's total net wealth than servants.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    11. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Tillmann · · Score: 1

      Hi,

      Do you really think there are $90,000 worth of parts and labor in an S-Class Mercedes

      No, but several billion $ of development and testing...

      bye,
      Till

    12. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by quenda · · Score: 1

      You really think that a Ford Festiva and a Mercedes have the same performance and quality of parts?

      Who said anything about a Festiva? There are other cars more comparable in size, power and gadgets. Your average car at even a quarter the price has more than adequate performance, unless you are racing, or towing a large boat or trailer.

        And there is no point in making a part to finer tolerance than required. Do you think Mercedes make their petrol engines to the same tolerance as their deisel engines? No way. They could, but do not, as its not needed.

      In theory, you might expect a Mercedes to last longer than a Toyota, but in practice they get written off just as early due to the high cost of replacement parts.

      So what do you really get in the S-class that matters? Well, a badge, prestige, lots of cool gadgets, and the privilege of beta-testing new features that may or may not be in other cars in a few years.

    13. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the guys at Mercedes and Rolex share that cash back right?

      Dream on. The interest on the riches wealth is what's buying them this crap. Have a think about where's thats coming from..

      The rich take from what the poor needs to pay for their rediculously overpriced wants.

    14. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by adolf · · Score: 1

      The question, as I see it, is rather general: "Is a high-end brand of car worth more money than a low end brand of car?"

      And to answer that: Yes.

      I drive a 1995 BMW 325i. Someone, somewhere, bought this car for $47,000 -- enough money, at that time, for them to have bought one of a number of different Saabs, Volvos, Cadillacs, Lincolns, maybe even a Corvette instead.

      I've had the car about four years. I gave $6,500 for it with about 120k miles on it (it's up around 170k now). It has, so far, been the cheapest and most reliable vehicle I've ever driven, including purchase price and maintenance.

      My previous car was a 1995 Chevy Beretta, bought new for about $16,000. Various parts of that car would fall apart of you looked at them funny -- a rear spindle failed once, causing one of the rear wheels to suddenly and completely remove itself from the car. The ABS didn't work for a long time, due to a manufacturing fault which allowed the sensor wires to short against the rear axle. The cam-lock bits which held the doors open fell off, and landed at the bottom of each door. The hanger strap for the muffler rusted completely through. The head gasket failed at 130k. It liked to eat alternators, and water pumps. It once dumped the fluid contents of the power steering system on my feet one very cold night as I merely attempted to maneuver out of a driveway.

      On the BMW, it's different. It doesn't eat water pumps or alternators. It has never required any internal engine service. Most importantly, it has never tried to kill me or coated my feet in -5F power steering fluid. Various parts wear out at a predictable pace (ball joints and suspension bits, brakes, tires - it got its third battery recently), but otherwise the car has been very maintenance-free for me. The GM 4L30E automatic transmission it came with did die a few months ago, but even with the expense of swapping that out for a manual, it's still been cheaper than buying a new (lesser) car, and still works out far cheaper than maintaining that old Beretta.

      Hell: The BMW doesn't even rust. The Beretta was suffering serious paint failure, with everything above the primer coat flaking off, when I got rid of it. The seats in the Beretta had gone all sloppy, and the cloth was wearing out -- the BMW leather still looks and feels damn near new.

      And in terms of parts expense: It's not really much different. A new BMW alternator is expensive, but then so is a new Delco alternator. A new BMW water pump is expensive, but then so is a new GM water pump. There aren't as many third-party vendors selling cheap BMW parts as there are cheap domestic parts, but when the OEM articles seem to last forever -- why bother digging around for cut-rate products?

      Now, then: I am a pretty small sampleset. But in my experience and opinion: Yes, a better-designed car should be worth more, because the parts are better and they last longer. If I had the means, and a choice between a nice $50,000 BMW, or a nice $28,000 Ford (or a $5,000 BMW and a $2,800 Ford), I'd pick the BMW.

      Your mileage may very.

    15. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by fractoid · · Score: 1

      So the guys at Mercedes and Rolex share that cash back right?

      You don't think so? They live in the same society we do (well, maybe not in your hometown but still), and if business is good for them then they'll go out for drinks on the town and spend money at local bars, they'll spend more money on fashionable clothes, etc. Each fat cat pays the wages of maybe 50 people in the service industry. Do you really think it costs "the poor" that you're talking about $150 to make a fancy shirt? Hell no, but "the rich" pay that, and when they do, who's taking money from whom?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    16. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by fractoid · · Score: 1

      And even if the amount of testing is the same overall, it's amortised over 5000 vehicles per year rather than 500,000 a year.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    17. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what you're missing is that of that $76,000 of wealth liberated from the rich man, $70,000 of that is just going straight to an equally rich man.

    18. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...During the discussion of "Are higher priced things perceived to be better than they really are?". He was implying (wrongly) that the Mercedes is only perceived to be a high quality car due to it's high price tag

      No, he was implying that Mercedes is perceived to be higher quality than it actually is. That has nothing to do with a Ford. The Mercedes may be five times as high quality as the Ford, and be perceived as ten times as high. It will still be perceived to be higher quality than it actually is.

    19. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by Inda · · Score: 1

      I Was A Car Manufacturing Engineer... for Rover then BMW Rover.

      70% of the cost of our cars was labour. Across all ranges, the ratio was about the same.

      Thicker metals are used on higher end models. (My thoughts are that each panel has to be hand-reworked and the more you rework a panel, the thinner it becomes. You need thicker metal for the rework process, not for higher crash resistance, rust proofing etc). Everything else is the same. Newer, high-end models had increased costs for R&D. Later, smaller cars used technology filtered down from the high-end models. We've seen it all before from washing machines to everything else.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    20. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by yareckon · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, but the $80,000 goes to the butler, while most of the profit from the Rolex goes to the very wealthy people holding shares of the Rolex corp. It's questionable how "liberated" the profit from luxury items becomes - does it just go into another rich(er) man's pocket? In fact, the less your rolex costs to make in labor, the more profit goes into the pockets of Rolex co, which probably means wealthy men unless it's suddenly a worker owned cooperative.

      If 10 people put in a week and were paid well making that watch, suddenly it costs plenty more (less efficient in your terms), but the money is more liberated in your terms since it is less concentrated. Which do you prefer, efficiency or liberation of the result? Unless you introduce some other rules, you're not gonna get both.

      If you want people putting their time and resources into producing real wealth for all rather than making people feel special with luxury goods, why not just tax the $80,000 excess from the wealthy man and have the government hire people to produce food for the poor with that money? Sounds like the most efficient of all in the set of values you propose.

      Of course this is a discussion about whiskey, not about taxation, and there is something satisfying about laboring to produce a great bottle of scotch. Probably also something satisfying in running a household well as a butler would do.

    21. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by DomNF15 · · Score: 1
      1) I called the car stupid, not any particular person. If you feel stupid for buying one, sorry.
      2) I never said a Ford Festiva has the "same performance and quality of parts". I simply mentioned that the S-Class may not be worth the sum of its parts and labor.
      3)

      You can actually buy mechanical parts that have higher tolerances

      Why don't you go buy yourself an engineering degree, because the last time I checked, higher tolerances means a given part has a HIGHER variance in its dimensions and will generally fit together with other parts much worse than a part with LOWER tolerances.

      Please, enlighten yourself before claiming others don't know what they're talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance_(engineering)
      (see definition 4 and "Mechanical Component Tolerance", as these relate directly to automotive manufacturing)

      Furthermore, Ford's Crown Victoria (large sedan) got a better Overall JD Power & Associates Dependability rating than the S-Class.
      http://autos.yahoo.com/2004_mercedes_benz_s_class_s430_sedan-ratings/
      http://autos.yahoo.com/2004_ford_crown_victoria_standard-ratings/

      Now, go back to listening to your music via your "high quality" Monster cables...

    22. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Wine in restaurants generally has a 2x-3x markup over the grocery store. The best way to get the most value for a bottle of wine in a restaurant is not to buy the cheapest one since they tend to have the most mark up. Get something middle of the road and the mark up will be less.

      As for the car thing, if you think it's easy to make a S-class Mercedes and sell them for less than $90k go for it.

    23. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      That's short sighted. What makes someone 'rich'? The amount of money they can and do spend. I guess you could try and argue that rick people only spend money with their rich friends, but that does not make any sense either.

      When a person starts a small business who do you think buy their products? People without any money? In your world the business owner is probably considered rich. So who do you think people without any money hire people to work for them? How would they pay people?

      I don't understand this hate towards rich people who run 'successful' companies. Direct your hate towards those who lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want- for example, all politicians.

    24. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by DomNF15 · · Score: 1

      Agreed for the wine...
      As for the cars:
      2009 C63 AMG: $56,000
      2009 S63 AMG: $131,350
      Now, both of these cars have the same engine/transmission and likely similar suspension components. The major difference is that the S63 is about 10% bigger (using vehicle length as a guide since width and height are nearly the same) and probably has some fancy features like moving headlights and active cruise control. Let's be generous and say it has 25% more parts and labor in it than the C63, even though it is only 10% bigger and likely only has about 10% more parts and labor in it. Look at the cost disparity...the S63 is more than double the price, please don't try to tell me you think most of the $131,350 is parts and labor, it just doesn't add up.

    25. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Do you really think it costs "the poor" that you're talking about $150 to make a fancy shirt? Hell no, but "the rich" pay that, and when they do, who's taking money from whom?

      When "the rich" upper management of Mercedes pay $150 for a fancy shirt, $120 of that goes to some "rich" clothing designer, $25 to some "rich" upscale boutique, and $5 goes to shipping companies and the Chinese manufacturer of said shirt.
      When "the rich" clothing designer then needs a new car, he goes to his local Mercedes dealership, buys an expensive car, and puts money back into the pocket of "the rich" upper management of Mercedes.

      Rich people don't buy things at discount stores and family restaurants. They go to upscale boutiques, and $100 a plate ritzhouses.
      Discount store and family restaurant employees and owners don't buy Mercedes' and $100 a plate dinners. They go to family restaurants, fast food joints, and drive a used 1995 Chevy Beretta with leaking power steering and broken ABS.

      There's some leakage back and forth, in the form of service people, manufacturing employees, and such, but on the whole, they're two distinct, separate economies.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    26. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by fractoid · · Score: 1

      And what does that "the rich" clothing designer do when he needs a new lounge room table, hmm? Does he go to Giovotti, the renowned interior decorator? Or does he got Priovotti, his poor cousin who only charges 50% as much? It all trickles down. The very rich buy things from the sorta rich (because other sorta-rich can't afford it) and the sorta-rich buy things from the somewhat-rich, and everyone gets money from ($tier+1) and spends money at ($tier-1).

      (In the words of Jean-Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg): It's light. Handle's adjustable for easy carrying, good for righties and lefties. Breaks down into four parts, undetectable by x-ray, ideal for quick, discreet interventions. A word on firepower. Titanium recharger, three thousand round clip with bursts of three to three hundred, and with the Replay button - another Zorg invention - it's even easier.

      Um, I mean, : Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    27. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      I don't understand this hate towards rich people who run 'successful' companies. Direct your hate towards those who lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want- for example, all politicians.

      There isn't enough hate to go around for all the politicians in the world.

      But as for the hate towards the rich people who run successful companies?

      I can't
      imagine
      a company
      doing
      something
      unethical or
      illegal, that
      screws
      their
      customers
      for more
      profit...

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    28. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Ah yes, but the $80,000 goes to the butler, while most of the profit from the Rolex goes to the very wealthy people holding shares of the Rolex corp.

      And to the pension funds. There are an awful lot of institutions investing huge sums of money in the markets, which represents the collective retirement savings of a vast number of regular Joes. They get their cut of the Rolex profits too.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    29. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      The very rich buy things from the sorta rich (because other sorta-rich can't afford it) and the sorta-rich buy things from the somewhat-rich, and everyone gets money from ($tier+1) and spends money at ($tier-1).

      If that were true, the top tier of very rich would have noone to buy things from them, therefore rapidly becoming the bottom tier.

      This obviously doesn't happen. The rich get richer, and the sorta rich have to buy things from the very rich more than the other way around.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    30. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      please don't try to tell me you think most of the $131,350 is parts and labor,and design

      Emphasis mine. The cars are very similar. I have no idea how much labor went into designing the both the S and C class cars. I'm am sure that they did some estimates of sales and that's how they figured out prices. More than likely the S class buyers are paying for a larger majority of the overall design costs than the C class buyers. Much like how that government takes more taxes from the rich than those who are poor even though both receive similar services.

      I would be curious to see what their calculated margins are on each car though.

    31. Re:Anything "high end" is generally a rip off by DomNF15 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, that is an interesting consideration - I suppose there is also a slightly higher design cost associated with the S, since it has more gadgets stuffed inside than the C. But consider that these auto manufacturers are not reinventing the wheel every time they release a "new" model. It is an evolutionary and iterative process, with very small changes happening from year to year. The design is most likely done by free hand drawing and then in a computer aided design environment. They already know what kind of suspension tuning will yield that MB ride quality, and what kind of windshield angle, shape, etc. will increase/reduce wind noise. There is probably less and less real world prototyping done as computers are able to model and simulate things better. Furthermore, another thing auto manufacturers like to do is design chassis, engines, transmissions, etc. that can be used in the widest range of models possible, to reduce design costs. That is why the same engine/trans is used in both "AMG" models. And probably why the S class chassis is also underpinning a large MB SUV, and the C class chassis is probably underpinning some of their coupes or small SUVs. Toyota/Lexus is actually a better example of this as their 3.5 Liter V6 is used in the Toyota Camry, Avalon, Rav4, Highlander, 4 Runner, Sienna, and Lexus IS 350, GS350, ES350, and RX350. A Lexus RX350 is a Toyota Highlander in a nicer suit. The Highlander, in addition to not looking as nice, probably lacks a few high end features. The Lexus costs about 25% more. The margins are definitely higher for the Lexus considering both vehicles use the same engine, transmission, chassis, etc. I would tend to disagree with the gov't taxes example. I don't think the Lexus customers are paying for the design costs of the Toyota. I think it's more something along the lines of, hey, we have this engine, transmission, and chassis that would make a great luxury SUV, we just need a more attractive skin and some high end features like adaptive headlights and a fancy navigation system, and we could sell our fancy SUV at a Lexus price even though its made of Toyota priced parts.

  18. Whiskey and its age by skwang · · Score: 5, Informative
    As a whisk(e)y connoisseur let me add my 2 cents with following points.

    1. The older a whiskey is the more expensive it gets due to rarity, not quality. Many people have a bias toward older whiskeys (whiskies) because they think they are better. Like wine, some whiskeys age well, others don't.

    2. Whiskey must be stored in oak barrels to age. Once it is out of the barrel, and in a bottle or steel vat, it no longer ages. So a 10 year old whiskey sitting in a bottle for 50 years is still a 10 year old whiskey.

    3. Whiskeys in barrels lose about 2% a year due to evaporation, known as the angel's share. That 2% is mostly water in hotter climates, but in cooler ones, like Scotland, what is lost is mostly alcohol. Thus a spirit which is put into a barrel at 60% alcohol by volume (ABV) will be reduced to 50% ABV then 40% ABV as time goes one. This is important because once the produce drops below 40% ABV, it can no longer legally be named whiskey. Thus whiskeys are usually never older than 40 years of age to due the angle's share.

    4. Whiskey is how it's spelled in the USA (where I am writing this.) In Britain and Canada it is spelled whisky. Since the article discusses whisky from The Macallan distillery (yes the "T" is capitalized), the article's title and summary misspelled "whisky."

    1. Re:Whiskey and its age by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      2. Whiskey must be stored in oak barrels to age. Once it is out of the barrel, and in a bottle or steel vat, it no longer ages. So a 10 year old whiskey sitting in a bottle for 50 years is still a 10 year old whiskey.

      Are there any other laws of physics that whiskey violates? No wonder there are so many scottish physicists.

    2. Re:Whiskey and its age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC It's called Whisky if it comes from Scotland, anything else is Whiskey

    3. Re:Whiskey and its age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whiskey == irish whiskey
      whisky == scotch

    4. Re:Whiskey and its age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, thanks for that extremely artioculate, and educated post. lacking mod-points, or a way to mod things +6 informative, this thanks will have to do! best post i've seen today!

    5. Re:Whiskey and its age by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I distinguish the spelling based on where the whisk(e)y is from rather than where I am.
      Whiskey = American or Irish
      Whisky = Canadian or Scotch
      Bourbon = Kentucky (nonconformists)

    6. Re:Whiskey and its age by hlt32 · · Score: 1

      Whisky = Scottish
      Whiskey = Irish

      --
      à_à
    7. Re:Whiskey and its age by skwang · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aging can mean two things. 1) The passage of time. So a whiskey stored in any container gets physically older.

      2) But aging a whiskey is a specific process. Whiskey is created by the interaction of a spirit with the wood that it is in contact with. In effect you distill a "solvent" and that solvent dissolves chemicals in the wood. Thus when you remove the whiskey from a barrel you are in effect stopping the "aging process."

      When I said "[the whiskey] no longer ages." I mean this specific process (#2), not that the passage of time stops. :-)

      PS I do happen to a physicist though...

      PPS ...not from Scotland.

    8. Re:Whiskey and its age by confused+one · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tennessee Whiskey = Bourbon for the nonconforming nonconformist.

      But just to confuse matters:
      Jack Daniels spelled it whiskey
      George Dickel spelled it whisky

      I prefer the George Dickel No. 12 or the Barrel Select myself.

    9. Re:Whiskey and its age by skwang · · Score: 1

      Yes you are correct. My OP implied otherwise. It should be spelled based on where the product is from. I guess I was trying to make the point that since the article dealt with The Macallan, the spelling should have been whisky, with out an "e".

      Bourbon is a whiskey, with more strict definitions. It's like the adage that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

    10. Re:Whiskey and its age by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      A 10 year old whisky sitting in a bottle for 50 years will not be any "smoother" or such than a 10 year old whisky that is freshly bottled. It's 60 years old, but won't absorb anything more from the oak barrel it isn't in, and should thus taste effectively the same as if it were still 10 years old.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    11. Re:Whiskey and its age by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Bourbon is to whiskey as Bordeaux is to wine, give or take. As to The Macallan, of course I completely agree with you. I also don't know how anyone who's tasted the stuff could possibly not care enough to spell it right.

    12. Re:Whiskey and its age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Whiskey must be stored in oak barrels to age. Once it is out of the barrel, and in a bottle or steel vat, it no longer ages. So a 10 year old whiskey sitting in a bottle for 50 years is still a 10 year old whiskey.

      This is only partially true. Yes, aging in a bottle is far less than aging in a barrel (due to the fact that nothing evaporates out of the bottle.) However, this all depends on a number of factors, including air infiltration and heat infiltration. Bottles are airtight, but the caps are not necessarily so. As oxygen leaks into the bottle through the cap, oxygenation of the alcohol occurs which produces ethyl-aldehyde, which can turn whiskey into vinegar. Also, like other alcohols, whiskey can mellow (become less sharp,) over time due to other factors not associated with evaporation (such as diffusion of particles into suspension, or settling.) Evaporation is only one part of aging, although it is the part that produces the largest results to aging of whiskey and other alcohols, it isn't the whole solution.

    13. Re:Whiskey and its age by redelm · · Score: 1
      Agreed. Wine ages in bottles, spirits do _not_. To be "aged" they must be stored in wood.

      If this whiskey were in an old vat and still overproof, it might have been cut with water just prior to bottling.

      If that bottling were in the 1950-early 60s and that water filtered through some sort of activated carbon (not unusual), it could have picked up the C-14 that way.

      I think they should check the D/H and O-18/O-16 ratios as well. More data means better conclusions.

    14. Re:Whiskey and its age by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I was always taught that whisky was scotch and whiskey was American for 'rye'.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    15. Re:Whiskey and its age by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Close.

      In America whiskey can either be from rye or from corn. Corn whiskey aged in a charred oak barrel is more accurately termed bourbon, a subset of the whiskey family that makes up the majority of what's sold on shelves these days in the US.

    16. Re:Whiskey and its age by biovoid · · Score: 1

      In Britain and Canada it is spelled whisky.

      Japan also. Britain? You mean Scotland. It is spelled "whiskey" in Ireland.

    17. Re:Whiskey and its age by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Well Scotland is part of Britain, and England and Wales also have whisky distilleries now (one apiece I think). So technically correct.

    18. Re:Whiskey and its age by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      *that's* what bourbon is?

      Oh, so much more American television just made sense. I thought it was some kind of flat, fortified dark ale.

      I really should look these things up.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    19. Re:Whiskey and its age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not violating any laws of physics, you're only an engineer. That was always Scotty's problem.

    20. Re:Whiskey and its age by skwang · · Score: 1

      Pi_rules response to your post is correct, I just want to add some pedantic commentary.

      People think "whisk(e)y" refers to something specific. Instead whisk(e)y is the most generic term for a family of alcoholic beverages. I usually use a geometry analogy: whisk(e)y==quadrilateral. A quadrilateral is any four sided shape (in two-dimensions).

      If we start demanding more definitions on our quadrilateral we use different terms. If one pair of sides are parallel to each other, the shape is a trapezoid (trapezium). And if both pairs of sides are parallel to each other, this is a parallelogram. However, both trapezoids and parallelograms are still quadrilaterals.

      Parallelograms can be broken down even further. A parallelogram with four 90-degree/right angles is a rectangle. A parallelogram with four equal sized sides is a rhombus. Likewise, a rhombus with four right angles is a square. Squares are also rectangles by construction. And all these shapes are still quadrilaterals. I might not be 100% correct in my geometric definitions, but the point of my analogy is that there is a family of shapes, starting with a quadrilateral, and additional definitions result in different names.

      Whisk(e)y just means any grain that has been fermented, distilled, and then aged in wood barrels. Whisk(e)y can be made from wheat, corn, rye, barley, and malted barely. In fact it could be made of rice, oats, millet, etc. although I don't know if any whisk(e)ys that are made from these grains. (Aside: Sake is made from rice but not distilled and thus not a whisk(e)y). Not surprisingly, rye whisk(e)y is made from rye. Scotch whisky comes from Scotland. Single malt scotch whisky means that the whisky is made in Scotland and comes from a single distillery where malted barley was used as the grain. Bourbon is an American whiskey which is made from at least 51% corn which is aged in new barrels only (so barrels can't be reused). Bourbon must also be distilled in Kentucky.

      As you can see these definitions start to get myriad and confusing. Some of these terms are codified by law. To call a whiskey a bourbon you must follow a certain prescription by law, or else you cannot label it as bourbon.

      Perhaps to be explicit and answer multipart/mixed question, the term whisk(e)y is not dependent on the grain the product was made from nor where the product originated. There are American malt whiskeys, made from malted barley and even roasted over peat to give it a the smoky flavor some Scotch whiskies have. There are Scotch whiskies made from wheat and unmalted barley, named single/blended grain whiskies depending on whether the whisky comes from a single distillery or whether it is blended from many sources. Rye whiskey was historically distilled in large quantities in the USA. Today Canada is a major source of rye whisky. Ireland, Japan, Austraila, etc. There are distilleries in many European countries, even in Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, India, etc. etc. All make whisk(e)y.

      So in conclusion, please don't assume that the name whisk(e)y denotes what ingredient was used to distill the product or where it was made. Whisk(e)y can come from any grain, and is worldwide in production.

    21. Re:Whiskey and its age by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was primarily the relative humidity of where the barrels are stored that causes more/less water/ethanol to evaporate, not temperature.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    22. Re:Whiskey and its age by skwang · · Score: 1

      You are correct, humidity plays a larger role in barrel aging. But in my defense, temperature and humidity are not purely independent variables. Of course you can have high temperatures and low humidity and vice-versa, but for the most part there is a correlation between the two.

    23. Re:Whiskey and its age by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Tennessee and Bourbon are similar, but Tennessee has had an extra filtering through sugar maple charcoal.

      George Dickel and Jack Daniels are the only two companies making it (that I know of; there's probably a boutique brand or two).

      Every other grain whiskey made in America can call itself Bourbon if it doesn't want to call itself something more particular. It certainly doesn't have to come from Bourbon county.

    24. Re:Whiskey and its age by denttford · · Score: 1

      Rye, Corn (as Bourbon, Tennessee, or Corn Whiskey), Barley, or Wheat. Yeah, the last two are obscure, and it's the first time in a long time that someone in the U.S. has made a straight (i.e. more than half of) wheat whiskey, but as you know, most bourbon is a straight, not pure, corn whiskey, and has a significant amount of barley, wheat, and (sometimes) rye in the mash.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    25. Re:Whiskey and its age by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Yes on the Tennessee whiskey, no on the Bourbon. There are rules... (27 CFR 5)

      Not any whiskey made in America can call itself Bourbon. Bourbon is made, by law, with at least 51% corn (typically 70%) but can not be 100% corn. It can't be distilled to more than 160 proof. It must be aged in new charred oak barrels. It must be aged for at least four years. And so on. If it doesn't meet these definitions, it's not Bourbon.

      Tennessee Whiskey is, as you said, filtered over sugar maple charcoal. And yes, George Dickel and Jack Daniels are the only ones who mass produce it. They use different grain mixes and the methodology is different of course... Technically, I believe they meet the definition for bourbon otherwise.

      There are American whiskies, rye, single malt, corn (>80% corn), which do not meet the definition of Bourbon and can not, therefor, be called Bourbon.

  19. Another clue by tsstahl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another clue to the growing problem of fakes is the supply of hyper-aged whiskey _increasing_. Just a layman's observation.

  20. creationists by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Funny

    Creationists, however, deny the accuracy of carbon dating. Therefore, all the fake whiskey will be sold to them at full price.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:creationists by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      This is not technically "carbon dating", it's detecting the presence of a newer isotope that wasn't present in any quantities prior to a certain date.

      It's like detecting fake paintings because the paint uses modern pigments instead of what the contemporary artists used.

      So, try again.

    2. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therefore, all the fake whiskey will be sold to them at fake price.

      ftfy.

    3. Re:creationists by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is not technically "carbon dating", it's detecting the presence of a newer isotope that wasn't present in any quantities prior to a certain date.

      Nice try, but they're checking for Carbon-14, discovered five years before the first nuclear bomb was detonated and used for "carbon dating" materials up to about 60,000 years old. 14C is, in fact, the reason it's called "carbon dating".

    4. Re:creationists by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Yeah, that's what I get for relying on the summary which talks about "detecting" and not "measuring".

      So, there really is nothing significant in this "news", since C14 dating would show the liquor to be YOUNGER than it claims to be anyway. Higher levels of C14 would indicate less decay, younger sample.

    5. Re:creationists by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It won't work. They usually don't drink whiskey either.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:creationists by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      14C is, in fact, the reason it's called "carbon dating".

      My girlfriend is a burn victim, you insensitive clod!

      (Mmmm, barbecue...)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    7. Re:creationists by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "14C is, in fact, the reason it's called carbon
      dating."

      Crap, and here I thought it was the opposite of silicon dating!!

      (You should begin to wonder when your post garners not one but two utterly skewed thoughts :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  21. It's whisky the're testing, not whiskey by Anonymous+EPA · · Score: 2, Informative
    What they are testing is the stuff made in Scotland called "whisky".

    The brown spirit made in other countries (including Ireland, Japan, Canada and the country to the South of Canada) is called "whiskey". This is quite different.

    Only whisky attracts idiots to put silly values on bottles of the stuff they are never going to drink.

    The only proper thing to do to a bottle of whisky is drink it (not all at once ;-). The same applies to a bottle of whiskey, and after a few, you will no longer mind you don't actually have a bottle of whisky to drink.

    A

    1. Re:It's whisky the're testing, not whiskey by SalaSSin · · Score: 1

      Sorry dude, have to correct you there.

      Whiskey is Irish originally, american stuff is named whiskey after that, whisky is scottish by origin, and the liquid from japan is named after that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky

      And don't get me started on that garbage named scotch in america... It isn't scottish, and it isn't even worthy the name of whisk(e)y...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law
    2. Re:It's whisky the're testing, not whiskey by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Only whisky attracts idiots to put silly values on bottles of the stuff they are never going to drink.

      Because no-one ever heard of people doing that with antique wines, right? It's not like Christie's or Sotheby's thinks that selling wine at silly values is much of a market ...

    3. Re:It's whisky the're testing, not whiskey by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [eyeing prices]

      Good gods... antique whiskey is CHEAP!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  22. Not just whiskey by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Atmospheric contaminants are routinely used to date the age of groundwater (e.g., in wells) and even to measure the residence time for water in the watershed of rivers. The most commonly used radioactive element is the hydrogen isotope, tritium. You can see a curve for it here, where the tritium level peaks in 1964 or so. You measure how much tritium is in the groundwater, then you compare it to that curve to which I linked after accounting for the decay of the tritium (half-life = 12.32 years), the match shows when that water fell as rainfall. Lot's of different contaminants are that way: CFC's used in air conditioners were useful until they were banned, SF6 is used in industrial transformers and does the same job.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  23. It wasn't fake by olivier69 · · Score: 1

    scientists burn the liquid and bombard the resulting gas with electrically charged particles

    After the lab test :

    Yes, it was a real one !

  24. 50-60 years is still old for a whisky by SalaSSin · · Score: 1

    Hell, a bottle of whisky from the 1950's still is a nice old whisky!! The scottish single malts i usually buy are only around 15-20 years old.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law
  25. Charcoal Mellowed Isotope by Isotope by JackSpratts · · Score: 1

    I prefer my booze radioactive. The buzz is zippier, and my dates glow.

    A quick "age" in the hot pile does the trick.

    - js.

  26. It's whisk*y* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Macallan is a Scottish single malt whisky, not an Irish or American Whiskey.

    I know return you to your scheduled Mountain Dew and Cheetos.

  27. There's No Such Thing As "Worthless" Whiskey by tspauld98 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You insensitive clod!

    --
    "Ahhhh, best laid plans of mice and men... and Cookie Monster." -- Cookie Monster, Sesame Street
    1. Re:There's No Such Thing As "Worthless" Whiskey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course there is: J&B, Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, ...

  28. Old water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So.. if one were to produce the fake whisky using bottled water which is collected from glaciers and is 10000 years old, what does the c-14 test say then?

    1. Re:Old water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think a C-14 test measures? (Hint: not water.)

  29. why need a subject this aint an email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People pay how much for old whiskey? Wow, and there are starving babies in the world. God is going to judge us and no amount of good will erase the black marks people keep getting for humanity.

  30. It tastes like what you imagine it to taste by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It tastes like whatever you convince yourself that it should taste like.

    Probably a better example would be a better documented breed of self-deluded puppies: the kind of audiophiles who'd buy an audiophile-grade ethernet (i.e., digital!) cable for $500 and swear that they hear whatever difference you tell them they should hear, when they play MP3's (again: digital!) over that network. As if a 1 weren't just as much a 1 or a 0 as much a 0 over it. But no, if you tell them they should hear a fuller and richer bass, they'll actually hear it.

    There are wooden volume knobs sold out there as doing this or that magic for the music, and (the right kind of) people will actually hear that magic. Even though that volume knob isn't even part of the signal chain at all. It's just a wooden disc on the outside. The potentiometer (variable resistor) that actually controls the volume is something else on the same shaft. But they'll swear they hear the difference.

    Someone on another forum at one time actually heard the difference between MP3's played off different brands of hard drives. Once it got into his head that a magnetic disc is really coated in a magnetic layer like a cassette, and that there was this different between sound reproduction between different cassette coatings (e.g., iron versus chrome), he actually started hearing that one hard drive gives better bass and another gives better trebble. And he can hear that difference.

    So basically my bet is that it works just the same with anything. Sound, image, taste (since we're at whiskey), or whatever you wish. If the Grimm Brothers' "The Emperor's New Clothes" had happened IRL, people would have actually seen whatever clothes they got it into their head that really smart and superior people see. And no amount of children screaming "the emperor is naked" would change that. And even if you got the emperor and his guards out of the equation, if a hundred years later the country were a republic and the non-existent clothes were in an (empty) glass box at a museum, some people would still go and congratulate each other for being so superior as to see the fabulous clothes in the box.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:It tastes like what you imagine it to taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Grimm Brothers' "The Emperor's New Clothes" had happened IRL. . .

      Actually, Hans Cristian Andersen wrote that.

    2. Re:It tastes like what you imagine it to taste by fractoid · · Score: 1

      ...he actually started hearing that one hard drive gives better bass and another gives better trebble. And he can hear that difference.

      This guy (or a similar one) responded to one of my posts on a previous topic. (Holy shit, Google actually found it. O.o)

      Anyway he was thought it was reasonable to claim that the sound coming out of his Hi-Fi system was audibly different when the computer was sitting on the floor to when it was on pads, among other things.

      <flamebait>this will head asplode you</flamebait>

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    3. Re:It tastes like what you imagine it to taste by MrZako · · Score: 1

      Not that it matters much in this context, but "The Emperor's New Clothes" was written by H.C. Andersen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

    4. Re:It tastes like what you imagine it to taste by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      If the Grimm Brothers' "The Emperor's New Clothes" had happened IRL. . .

      Actually, Hans Cristian Andersen wrote that.

      Not if he really believes it was the Grimm Brothers!

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  31. I wonder if this is really the best way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fake "vintage" wines have been exposed by detecting Cs-137 (from all the post-war nuclear testing, and a little from Chernobyl) in a wine that should be older than that. This can be done non-destructively (just put the bottle in a rather sensitive Ge calorimeter, and detect the gamma peak). Philippe Hubert from CENBG Bordeaux is the expert (and has put several people in jail...)

  32. It's M*t*n Dew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They dropped the other letters.

  33. I understand to a certain point by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I will spend a few bucks more for a good beer. I love a good beer. In fact, I rather dislike beers like Coors, Miller and Budweiser and would rather drink plain tap water. But when it comes to spending ridiculous amounts of money on alcoholic drinks, there are limits. I am sure as hell not interested in spending R&D dollars to ensure that $200 bottles of something is actually as old as it's claimed to be. (I might have said "...that $200 bottles of something are actually worth $200" but no drink is worth that to me.)

  34. Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    if you do manage to invent the nuclear damper and accelerate the 1/2 life decay of carbon-14, let me know

    Very simple: grow your grain with the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels. Oil or coal that are millions of years old have very little C-14.

    1. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      Now that's an interesting thought. Carbon-14 is made in the upper atmosphere by nitrogen being hit by thermal neutrons so there is always a fairly constant amount aside from the nuclear testing thing. It's when things stop living and incorporating the carbon-14 and it starts decaying is how things are dated.

      But if you harvest the CO2 from fossil fuels, and do it right, you could blow these tester's minds when they find you have 300 million year old whiskey!

    2. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by Thiez · · Score: 5, Funny

      > But if you harvest the CO2 from fossil fuels, and do it right, you could blow these tester's minds when they find you have 300 million year old whiskey!

      Surely this problem can easily be solved by mixing the fossil-fuel CO2 with post 1950s CO2 until you have the desired Carbon-14 concentration.

      I like where this is going. Someone should create a "2000 year old" whiskey and claim it was made by Jesus himself, then market it as 'Holy Spirit'.

    3. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easier said than done.

    4. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      how hard is it to sort existing CO2 by isotope? i remember reading somewhere that artificial diamonds made from pure C12 have a much higher thermal conductivity than ones made from the natural mix of C (due to having a more regular crystal structure), so presumably it's possible at least in small amounts.

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    5. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Excuse my ignorance and my tiny brain, but surely something is not adding up with the fact that they are allowing for a change in C-14 levels in these calculations, but assume C-14 is constant when dating other, much older things?

      Surely this would mean that we can only use C-14 dating back as far as atmospheric C-14 levels have been getting recorded?

      I'm sure I'm off track but if someone could help with a simple explanation that'd be great.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    6. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      Sorting CO2 by isotope would probably have some issues. You wouldn't just be sorting the carbon. You would also be sorting the oxygen. Oxygen has a mass 18 isotope of small abundance. If you have a carbon-12, an oxygen-16, and an oxygen-18, that would have the same nominal mass as carbon-14 and two oxygen-16's.

      Without running the numbers, and more details on what you are proposing, it's hard to say how big the oxygen-18 interference would be.

      You could go with a high-resolution separation, but throughput would go way down and it would take much longer for a given mass of CO2 to come out the other end.

      Someone above said to mix whiskey made from fossil fuels with post-1950's whiskey to tailor the age. I think you would still need to use pre-nuclear testing whiskey because I'll bet there is more than just extra carbon-14 in post-testing whiskey. For example, strontium could show up wherever you would expect magnesium or calcium and if it was a radioactive isotope, it probably would indicate post-testing.

      I think to make sure the whiskey was free of anything produced in the testing, you would want to start with pre-testing whiskey and dilute it with isotopically "pure" ethanol (pretty sure that's available) and other materials made with the carbon-12 isotope.

      Overall I think it would be pretty expensive - possibly more expensive than the extreme cost of whatever whiskey was mimicked. That's also provided you could get a decent flavor and aroma.

    7. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      I don't know all the details, but carbon-14 is pretty much a constant in the atmosphere. It comes from cosmic rays through various processes making thermal (low-energy) neutrons. These hit nitrogen-14 atoms and up the mass by one. The new nitrogen-15 isotope is now unstable and eventually kicks out a proton (hydrogen ion) to become carbon-14.

      The process is fairly constant so an equilibrium level of carbon-14 builds up in the atmosphere. Living things are breathing in and eating this constant ratio of carbon-12 and carbon-14. When it dies, it stops maintaining the equilibrium ratio and the carbon-14 begins to decay with a specific rate constant / half life (5730 years).

      So if the carbon-14 in a sample has decreased by 1/2 of the original equilibrium level, it's 5730 years old.

      Carbon dating starts getting iffy with really old samples because of the uncertainty in the measurements of small numbers of carbon-14 atoms. The practical limit is around 10 half lives or 60,000 years.

      But the process that makes carbon-14 is pretty constant because the cosmic radiation is pretty constant and since it's basically inert, the concentration of nitrogen in the atmosphere is also basically a constant. So when rate of production equals rate of decay, the level of carbon-14 stabilzes and can be used as a starting point to see how old certain items are.

    8. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by Tycho · · Score: 1

      There is a problem with doing that however, unless you use water with no tritium in it it will be easily determined as a fake. Tritium was created during nuclear testing in the 1950's and is present in small quantities worldwide, even now. Before the 1950's there was essentially no Tritium in surface water. Using modern rainwater to water your plants would leave detectable amounts of Tritium in any "aged" product. Older groundwater that has been underground since the 1950's and has not been mixed with modern rainwater would work, however. Just avoid using or attempt to mask any unique chemical signature in the water. Also, a good deal of groundwater is saline and not potable for humans.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    9. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by thePig · · Score: 1

      You guys are geniuses.
      I first read the article - and thought - This is an amazing idea. A stroke of genius.
      And within an hour, mangu comes up with an idea which can mess this whole thing up. - It is difficult - but certainly doable - with a greenhouse. And it is also so simple and innovative, it is again a stroke of genius.
      Amazing, the wealth of knowledge and innovation world has.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    10. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by linzeal · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can just do electrolysis and make pure water.

    11. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Isotope sorting is done large-scale for carbon. I used to work in NMR-spectroscopy, where we used 13C-labelled proteins. The 13C-glucose for their biosynthesis is commercially available, albeit not exactly cheap. As far as I remember, the separation is done by cryogenic distillation of CO2 in some huge-ass columns.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    12. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by idontgno · · Score: 1

      You mean electrolysis, some kind of mass-distillation to fractionate the hydrogen into hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium, followed by burning just H2 (rather than D2 or T2).

      Well, actually, there are several different industrial techniques to isolate heavy water (deuterium or tritium oxides), but none of them would preserve the "branch water" distinction important in whisky. You may as well mix up a batch of colors, flavors, neutral grain spirits, and distilled water and call it whisky. Just don't expect to pass it off as whisky, and expect violence from anyone you try to pass it off on.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    13. Re:Carbon-14 and fossil fuels by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I spelled it correctly. I know what electrolysis is I built my own machine to capture hydrogen/oxygen as a kid to make explosive balloons with a 12v car batter and a 20 gallon tub of water, a plastic kitchen hood, an aquarium pump and some home-made double walled 2l bottles in a bath of liquid ice. Was nice working for home depot as a kid got a lot of that crap for free.

      Yes, just mix it up and make it taste like whatever is fine by me. The idea of branch water is insane when distilled water can be substituted for 90% of people and they would never even notice.

  35. I see your point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NUKE THE WHALES!

  36. Giving Budweiser some slack by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's not what I'd drink here in San Francisco weather, but Budweiser comes from St. Louis Missouri (though it's also bottled other places, like next to Newark NJ airport.) If you've ever been through a midwestern summer, and you've been out mowing your lawn in 100-degree weather with 99% humidity, a cold Budweiser is *exactly* the right thing to drink, and even an oilcan of Foster's works ok. Save the Guinness for more civilized conditions....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  37. In other news... by Anenome · · Score: 2, Funny

    In other news, representatives of whiskey maker, Jim Bean Corp. were arrested Monday trying to buy radioactive materials from radical elements in Darfur. Experts disagree whether this was a plot to produce counterfeit whiskey or to produce a nuclear bomb as part of some plan for world domination. Dr. Evil was unavailable for comment by press time.

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
  38. Care Package by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a gift for newgrouping a Usenet group (alt.archery.traditional, if I remember correctly), I was once sent a scotch whisky care package. In it were twelve baby food jars that were numbered but otherwise not labeled. Only after I had sampled each and given my opinion was I told what each one was. I do not know that you have twelve varieties at your disposal, but this was an enlightening experience for me and could possibly be for some of your friends as well.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:Care Package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such innocent days. I'd worry about being poisoned, or at least, being given something very unpleasant to drink.

    2. Re:Care Package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You drank liquid in unmarked bottles you got off Usenet?

      So, um, how does squirrel urine taste? Always been curious but not so brave.

    3. Re:Care Package by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      The person who sent me the care package initially wanted to send a single, unopened bottle, but when I could not tell him exactly what I wanted he decided the care package was more appropriate. Some small number (two or three) may as well have been squirrel piss, and ended up dumped after two tastes (one without water and one with). My review of those was typically "What is this shit?"

      Still I learned that age is not necessarily a good indicator of quality when comparing two different distilleries (though within a single distillery, it usually is). Also, blends tend toward the mediocre but are rarely awful, while single malts are all over the map. The "winner" in both absolute preference and in bang for the buck turned out to be The Balvine, 12 year. It was not a whole lot better than some of the 18 year varieties I've tasted (then and since), but it's half the price. I still like Laphroaig when I want to taste the ground where the barley was grown and the peat was dried, but it's not something I would drink on a regular basis (and a bottle spoils once opened).

      I have since added a desirable characteristic to my list -- whether water changes the character or not. Sometimes it does (Laphroaig, The Balvine), and sometimes it doesn't (Glenfiddich, Jura Superstition). I think it is a good thing when it does, as it allows two different tastes from the same, already opened bottle, depending on mood. It's not a deal breaker, especially if it's going to be consumed before oxygen can wreck the contents, so a bottle of Glenfiddich 12 is fine for taking to a party. If I do take a single-malt to a party, I ALSO take a bottle of Johnnie Walker Red Label or similar. That way if I see someone making a mixed drink out of the single malt I can ask that they use the other stuff.

      Obviously I did not get any squirrel urine, though undrinkable is undrinkable and a few of them were.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  39. excellent by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    I'll drink to that!

  40. The quickest way to spot fake Whisky... by Peet42 · · Score: 1

    ...is if some idiot spelled it with an "e".

    "Whiskey" is American, Irish or Japanese.

    1. Re:The quickest way to spot fake Whisky... by biovoid · · Score: 1

      "Whiskey" is American, Irish or Japanese.

      No, the Japanese spelling is also "Whisky". Canadian too.

  41. How to fund a science project by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

    1. Tell Whiskey Snob you need to verify his $20,000 bottle's value.
    2. Tell Whiskey Snob the bottle was brewed in the 80's, and you have since disposed of the "worthless spirits" after the intensive testing, but offer to buy him a bottle of Johnny Walker if it will be any condolence.
    3. Sell $20,000 bottle of whiskey to 3rd party.
    4. ?????
    5. Profit!

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  42. So no other method to distinguish age, then by thasmudyan · · Score: 1

    This basically means there is no way to distinguish whiskey age by taste, right? So, other than being an antiquity, there is no actual "gourmet" value associated with old whsikey - contrary to what many claim...

    1. Re:So no other method to distinguish age, then by biovoid · · Score: 1

      Correct. Whisky ages in the barrel and does not continue to age once bottled.

      These people are collecting, not drinking.

    2. Re:So no other method to distinguish age, then by denttford · · Score: 1

      No.

      As many have already said, aging in the barrel changes the flavor and the alcohol content. That is the age of the whisky. A 30 year old whisky bottled in 1969 is a 30 year old whisky today. Note that 30 years is also a rough practical limit for casking, though there are some expensive, rare single malts that have been casked twice as long. Aging does necessarily equal quality or befit the taste of given mash/water combination (this is a neat link), but it does equal rarity and, ceteris paribus, demands a greater price.

      Time spent in the bottle does not really change the flavor of a whisky; it certainly doesn't improve it. So yes, there is no gourmet value to an older bottle. Except when the distillery goes out of business. Or the distillery changed their process, or they did something special for a particular version. In fact, because whisky does not appreciably change over time in the bottle, tasting older expressions by a distillery allows you a rare taste of how things were done in the past. You can compare how the distillery has changed its approach over time and have a sense of what whisky tasted like for previous generations. For some people, that is worth spending money.

      And to be sure, there are people who simply collect, or want to brag. It's their money and their prerogative.

      Personally, if I had $30K to spend on a bottle (that I'm not going to resell or hold as an investment) I'm drinking the bitch.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    3. Re:So no other method to distinguish age, then by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if modern chemical analysis methods might be used to at least reasonably approximate the recipes for these lost brews? Considering that variables such as contaminants or burn residue variances are probably a good deal of the individual character, and are likely to stand out in such an analysis, thus could be identified... Seems to me that the market for "lost" brews might best be the breweries themselves who wish to take a stab at re-creating them.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:So no other method to distinguish age, then by denttford · · Score: 1

      Distilleries* do attempt this from time to time, such as Laphroaig's Quarter Cask Scotch. However, even when the process is older (and good distilleries keep fastidious notes on the process of each cask and subsequent bottling), other issues can crop up - is the water the same as in the past? What about the barley? So on and so on. Of course, the best way to gauge the success of the men working the stills... is for the distillery to pull an older bottle sample from 100 years ago and give it to a skilled taster to compare the two.

      *Yes, distilleries can collect the water, and do the malting, brewing, and bottling, but not always every step. I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out by now that Scotch, especially single malts, is in essence, double (or triple) distilled beer.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    5. Re:So no other method to distinguish age, then by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Very interesting recreation story! Especially about the influence of the sea climate and the quarter cask itself.

      I did wonder about that -- water changes over time as rainfall differs and erosion changes channels, and as ground water recharges in the case of springs. Same with crops. Without a chemist analysing every step, it's up to good guessing and judgment calls.

      Didn't know that about beer and single malts. Occurs to me to wonder how the discards from the process might affect aging per above -- as the distillery changes its own environment over time.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  43. Sucker born every minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people that pay that much for a bottle of booze must be the same people buying cables from Monster.

  44. Mod up by ppanon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dang. And me with no mod points.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  45. Half Life and Whisky by LesFerg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Personally I find that Half Life and Whisky make a good combination, up to a point, then I start fumbling the weapon reloads, missing the enemy, and eventually fall off my chair.

    --
    If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
  46. A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find this newsstory's title (and surely the news itself) sad on many, many levels...

  47. I, for one, will sleep much better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...knowing that some pinheads willing to drop 20 grand on a bottle of hooch aren't getting ripped off.

  48. Print you own labels bottle your own booze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If nobody can tell and the price is based on age....hold a bic pen up to the back of your bottle label to brown it. Slap it on and there you have it.

  49. science wins again by portscan · · Score: 1

    thank goodness the atomic bomb was invented, so that we could accurately tell the age of whiskey.

  50. Careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Matthew 12:31-32

  51. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    important to know

  52. It's sad to see anyone become alcoholic ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    ... Seen it, been there, didn't even got a t-shirt!

    And that was in the time all those superflavoured drinks weren't available.

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  53. Well maybe that is exactly by floydman · · Score: 1

    What Iran is doing...they just want to test their whiskey
    So just leave them alone!

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  54. This is also true for paintings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is also used for determining fake paintings as the organic material making up the pigments contain higher radiation since 1945. So if you are going to fake a painting, try to find some older pigments to use.

  55. Re:Taste Re: On the knowing of it. by Lucractius · · Score: 1

    This is one of the reasons I stick to a few trusted favorites. Glenlivet Nadura being top of the list.

    --
    XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.