<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Luxist - Comments for The Dalmore 50</title>
<link>http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/03/the-dalmore-50/</link>
<description>Luxist Comments for The Dalmore 50</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2013 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on The Dalmore 50]]></title><link>http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/03/the-dalmore-50/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/03/the-dalmore-50/</guid><description><![CDATA[These ultra premium and ultra old whisky doesn't make sense anymore!<br>Also what does that mean, that one of the malts of the blend is first distilled 140 years ago???<br>If it is a malt, which is 140 years old [highly unlikely] it wouldn't be a vintage malt as stated!<br><br>Anyway premium makes perfectly sense - but 700 Pound Sterling for 10cl? Not really!<br><br>At least they were clever - not selling in an usual bottle size of 75cl [which would make a price of more than 5000 Pounds...]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dominik MJ]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Nov 5th 2008 5:02PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on The Dalmore 50]]></title><link>http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/03/the-dalmore-50/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.luxist.com/2008/11/03/the-dalmore-50/</guid><description><![CDATA[It makes perfect sense to me, I have actually bought one recently and am proud to be one of a select few owners that owns one of these.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Anton Muller]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Nov 15th 2008 12:43AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>