It’s ‘the Whisky Olympics’—Ultra-Rare and One-off Bottles Head to Auction at Sotheby’s
3 min
An ultra-rare whisky auction, known as the Distillers One of One, has announced its second edition will take place next month at Hopetoun House on the outskirts of Edinburgh, Scotland.
In partnership with Sotheby’s, the auction brings together a collection of one-off Scotch whiskies specially created and donated by leading distilleries across Scotland.
Headlining the sale is the highest valued lot, Bowmore STAC 55 Years Old, the oldest whisky the island distillery’s ever produced. It’s housed in a 1.5-litre hand-blown glass vessel that pays homage to Bowmore’s home on the island of Islay. The lot is estimated to sell for between £300,000 and £500,000 (roughly between US$371,900 and US$619,770).
The auction “represents all of the best elements of this industry: the community spirit, the rarity of the liquid, the creativity of the presentation, and, above all, the charitable nature,” says Jonny Fowle, global head of spirits at Sotheby’s.
Courtesy of Sotheby’s
Also of note is the 50-year-old Brora Iris (with an estimate between £200,000 and £400,000), the oldest Brora single malt that has ever been bottled and one that will never be made commercially available. The liquid is presented in a 1.5-litre decanter that’s suspended within a handcrafted stone sculpture. The bottle was designed to represent the eye of a Scottish Wildcat, the highly elusive native of the Scottish Highlands that is the emblem of the distillery.
Proceeds of the auction will be donated to the Distillers’ Charity, principally to the Youth Action Fund, which aims to improve the lives of disadvantaged young people in Scotch whisky-making communities.
The first Distillers One of One was held at Barnbougle Castle, also near Edinburgh, in December 2021. That auction featured more than 39 lots and achieved record-breaking hammer prices, with more than £2.4 million donated to The Distillers’ Charity.
“The success of the first auction was tremendous—the vision and work put in by the Distillers’ Charity supported by the contributions from the Scotch whisky industry has established a new force in Scotland to back our young people in extremely difficult times,” John Swinney, former deputy first minister of Scotland, said in the catalog notes.
Scheduled for Oct. 5, the auction—a ticketed event for which all attendees must be registered—will feature 39 lots with estimates ranging from £2,000 to £500,000. Collectors can place online bids in advance; a selection of lots is currently on view in Sotheby’s New Bond Street galleries in London through Sept. 20.
The entire operation is dependent on the generosity of some of the most revered brands in the field, with producers both new and old presenting exceptional whiskies, all in the name of charity. In addition to the rare bottles, casks and experiences donated for sale, the brands also provide support to make the event possible.
Courtesy of Sotheby’s
Other offerings at the sale include the Visionary (with an estimate between £50,000 and £90,000), a single malt that has been aged 68 years, making it one of the oldest whiskies to be released by Speyside’s historic Glen Grant Distillery.
Another unique item for sale is the Gordon & MacPhail Recollection Showcase (with an estimate between £80,000 and £160,000). Housed in a handcrafted cabinet made of elm and oak, the offering features five engraved Glencairn decanters. Each contains a one-off 70-cl single malt from five distilleries that have been lost or silent for decades.
“A wiser man than me described this as being ‘the whisky olympics,’ Fowle says. “I cannot wait to be on the rostrum for this auction and see how we can develop this project into 2025.”
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
Borrowers cannot control the Reserve Bank, but they can control how exposed their household budget is to its next decision. The RBA meets on 29 September with inflation concerns still elevated and major-bank economists increasingly bringing forward their rate-rise calls. Fixed mortgage rates have also been moving, reducing the value of waiting for perfect certainty. …
Continue reading “What mortgage holders should do before the next RBA decision”
Australian shares finished higher on Tuesday, September 22, as a technology rally and lower oil prices outweighed weakness in energy companies and continued anxiety about domestic interest rates. The S&P/ASX 200 closed 25.9 points, or 0.30 per cent, higher at 8,757.8. The All Ordinaries gained 0.36 per cent to 8,951.0, while the All Technology index …
Continue reading “ASX Wrap: Technology lifts the ASX as falling oil relieves inflation pressure”
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
From mud baths to herbal massages, Fiji’s heat rituals turned one winter escape into a soul-deep reset.
Pure Amazon has begun journeys deep into Peru’s Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve, combining contemporary design, Indigenous craftsmanship and intimate wildlife encounters in one of the richest ecosystems on Earth.
