Decanter.com –
Twenty-one ‘rare’ Scotch whiskies out of 55 tested over a period of more than nine months were either ‘outright fakes’ or not distilled in the year declared on the label, according to analysis by the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC).
‘It is our genuine belief that every purported pre-1900 – and in many cases much later – bottle should be assumed fake until proven genuine, certainly if the bottle claims to be a single malt Scotch whisky.’
*hic*
Is fake scotch like fake titties?
Either you can’t tell or you don’t care …
Being facetious – I guess pre-1900 scotch is pretty expensive.
izlamo delenda est …
As opposed to pre-1900 titties!!!
Like a women, put it on a shelf and let it age, how would that work out for you?
Vanity is expensive… even moreso if what you buy is fake or has a faked label.
I’d bet most oenophiles couldn’t pick out a $100 bottle from $10 to $15 bottles in a blind taste test.
I don’t know about Scotch… Never drank it.
Periodically I find rare food in my refrigerator and pantry.
Carbon dating, within the last century. Cool science.
Fake collectible “food”? I’m happier they’re being ripped off, than not. Almost nobody buys “collectible” food to consume it. It’s to find a bigger sucker, in due time. Or to convince your audience how great you are, because you wasted so much money, without just burning it in front of them (that would only prove you’re gutter, instead of classy). As for the few that claim “Oh no! My palate is so magical that I can taste the difference!”, I’ll say a prayer for your loss, after you prove that.
All high end products have fakes because people can’t tell the difference between it and a mid-end mass produced product. But the wallet sure can.