StevieC started a discussion
12 years ago
Discussions
Whisky missing the Royal Warrant?
0 3
3 replies
Discussion search
Use the filters above to search this discussion.
PMessinger replied
@StevieC You pose an interesting question. Royal Brackla recieved it's first Warrant in 1835 and the second in 1838. As to why Signatory doesn't use Royal in the 18yr old that you purchased I can only guess that Signatory being an independant bottler might not be able to use the phrase Royal. Maybe only whisky bottled at Royal Brackla distillery can be labled as Royal. However the fact that you are giving this wonderful gift for your brother-in-law weather it is Signatory or Royal Brackla is very generous. :)
12 years ago 0
YakLord replied
@StevieC - I'd say that @PMessinger is probably right, as an IB, Signatory wouldn't have the right to use the 'Royal' designation, so it would have to label it as 'Brackla'.
12 years ago 0
I'm hoping someone can clarify this for me........I recently bought a bottle of Signatory Brackla 1993 as a gift for my brother-in-law, as it was an 18 year old whisky aged in bourbon oak, figuring that it is fairly limited. I did some research as I have limited knowledge of Brackla. To my surprise, I found that most bottles are designated with "Royal Brackla". Does this mean that Brackla is a cheaper version than the "Royal Brackla's", OR, is the "Royal" merely a designation that is loosely used, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the finished product?