Mike are you saying this is a fake ?
Printable View
The label reads "Weller's Original barreled in 1913" and "distilled and bottled by Stitzel-Weller Distillery Louisville, Kentucky". There also appears to be an upside down State of Tennessee 40 cent tax stamp on the left hand side. If this is at least 22 years old, it would have been bottled in 1935 or later, I suppose.
Anyone know about labels and tax stamps of the period?
Just another thought - who drops $250K on eBay on anything? You wouldn't want to inspect this bottle before making a bid? Seems a bit crazy - not exactly walking around money...
For sure if you were going to drop any kind of money in the 4 digit range I would drive there to inspect the bottle. Let a lone a quarter of a million which if I had I wouldn't spend on liquor. I can't even think of anything I would spend a quarter of a million on maybe staying out of prison if I did something wrong or was wrongly accused.
I got interested from Mike's post. Was this really barreled 1913? The seller thinks it was bottled in 1961 because of the glass bottling code only I think correct? I don't see it referenced anyway else. How did the seller know it was in a barrel from 1913 then bottled in 1961. That is a whole lot of time it was sitting there and did anyone plan to barrel something for that long?
From ORVW site - "His grandfather, who was known as "Pappy", started the family in the business back in the 1870s when he was a salesman for the W.L. Weller & Sons liquor wholesalers in Louisville. He later built and was president of the Stitzel-Weller Distillery in Louisville, which opened its doors on Derby day, 1935. Their prominent brands were W.L.Weller, Rebel Yell, Cabin Still and Old Fitzgerald bourbons."
I used this site to reference the glass bottling code and the tax stamp.
http://www.jdcollectorspage.com/TaxlabelsHistory.html
"In 1929 the Owens Bottle Co. and the Illinois Glass Co. merged into a new company called the Owens-Illinois Glass Company. The new company used a trademark of an "I" inside a diamond, with a circle around the "I" ."
"Starting sometime in 1945, the Federal Tax Seal Strips contained the word "SERIES" just to the left, and "111" just to the right of the Eagle's feet."
--Hugh
My two cents. I dont think this was bottled in 1935. In the very last photo the glass bottle has a bump that is sticking out. That would have been used to keep the bottle on a conveyor belt. I dont think they bottled in that fashion in 1935 ;). Also the sticker and it's design doesn't match with the times. The green sticker looks far older than the rest. The box it.comes in looks brand new.
My thought is, its completely fabricated. It's probably filled with actual modern WLW. Making stickers isnt that hard. Adding shrink wrap foil isnt hard either. That box could have held a cognac or scotch with the design patterns on the glasses and box.
Also, check out the seam in the glass on the third from last photo. In 1935, it should have been blown glass. Ultimately, the box is the biggest give away.
1935 is just the earliest it could have been bottled and been from Stitzel-Weller Distillery - Mike V. seemed to imply the bottle might not be legit because SW didn't exist until 1935 - however, the 1913 date references a barreling date, not a bottling date.
I think your other points about the bottle itself are interesting -
Doesn't the volume in the barrel reduce by 2% or so each year from evaporation? If it was sitting in the barrel for 48 years, 96% would have disappeared so they would have had what, 2-3 bottles? Amazing that one survived! Or not.
In a thread discussing the Weller wheated bourbon recipe, mention is made of a 1913 contract between Stitzel and WL Weller and Sons for production of 500 barrels of whiskey.
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forum...e-wheat-recipe
In 1912, Stitzel contracted to make 1,000 barrels of whiskey for WL Weller and Sons. Stitzel leased the distillery to Weller so that Weller could claim to be the distiller. In 1913, Stitzel produced 500 more barrels for Weller.
The whiskey in the eBay bottle could claim this provenance, I suppose.