Originally Posted By: SC
Originally Posted By: olivant
SC, you are usually better at reading posts than many Board members. This is one of those unusual times, however. You might note the phrase "at least" in my previous post. Now, I don't mind pointing our such things to you, but I draw the line at explaining them.

Your original post also included a reference of four year old scotch:

Originally Posted By: olivant )in his original post on this subject)
True Scotch is aged for at least 3 years. So Bruno's offer would have been for possibly 4 year old scotch which would not have been all that unusual.

That leads me to believe you are referring to a four year old scotch. That's still horse-piss.



Originally Posted By: olivant
By the way, to carry the "scotch" applellation, one requirement is the three year ageing in a cask. And a good scotch can be had having aged only three years.


See above.


Hell yeah. If, in 1945, he offered Luca pre-war scotch then he could have been offering him scotch that was four years old. What's so hard about figuring that out? Again, those that appellate scotch only require that it be aged three years to be so appellated. Given the variables associated with the distillation process, a scotch aged beyond three years is no guarantee of a better scotch.

"Generosity. That was my first mistake."
"Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us."
"Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."