Caretaker accused of drinking $102K worth of historic whiskey

[lsiberian]

All of it?

Well I didn't want him to catch on.

 

[Grador]

Well I didn't want him to catch on.

If I can get insurance to give me some favorable values for it, SURE WHY NOT, have some fun with it.

 

[lsiberian]

If I can get insurance to give me some favorable values for it, SURE WHY NOT, have some fun with it.

Yeah get that some appraiser for the article to do it and I'll be right over. You will be upgrading that theater very soon I suspect.

 

[Grador]

I didn't catch that it was someone else saying that, but I agree, his assessment of the value was ridiculous. Which also leads me to believe he didn't know what he was talking about regarding the botulism. Apparently it IS possible though, but as I said, not real likely with proper production:
Notes from the Field: Botulism From Drinking Prison-Made Illicit Alcohol — Arizona, 2012

Most likely if this contaminated ...toilet wine.... would have been made safe to drink if you added some good old everclear till it was 40% abv.

 

[j_garcia]

Most likely if this contaminated ...toilet wine.... would have been made safe to drink if you added some good old everclear till it was 40% abv.

If they had everclear they wouldn't have been making toilet-shine

 

[Pyrrho]

I didn't catch that it was someone else saying that, but I agree, his assessment of the value was ridiculous. Which also leads me to believe he didn't know what he was talking about regarding the botulism. Apparently it IS possible though, but as I said, not real likely with proper production:
Notes from the Field: Botulism From Drinking Prison-Made Illicit Alcohol — Arizona, 2012

That is not really comparable, as that was improperly made (and probably low alcohol content), whereas the article is about whisky that, presumably, was properly made. It is one thing to make something that in the making of it creates poison, and it is an entirely different thing to break the seal on something that is properly made. And it is one thing to have botulism in a low alcohol setting, and another to have it in something that is likely 40% or more alcohol. So that makes two ways that that is not a good analogy for old whisky. I would not hesitate to drink whisky that was 100 years old and did not appear to be contaminated. If you find some in your walls and do not want it, give it to me.

 

[j_garcia]

That is not really comparable, as that was improperly made (and probably low alcohol content), whereas the article is about whisky that, presumably, was properly made. It is one thing to make something that in the making of it creates poison, and it is an entirely different thing to break the seal on something that is properly made. And it is one thing to have botulism in a low alcohol setting, and another to have it in something that is likely 40% or more alcohol. So that makes two ways that that is not a good analogy for old whisky. I would not hesitate to drink whisky that was 100 years old and did not appear to be contaminated. If you find some in your walls and do not want it, give it to me.

If I do find some, some of it will be for sale (I have to taste it...) My house is only 30yrs old and one owner in that time, so the chances of pre-prohibition whiskey being in it are pretty slim.