I've got this one, pretty much the same as DCTrips, maybe 10-ish years older. A couple things confuse me, pardon me if these are a bit asinine, but my scotch background is pretty limited so far...

1) The label uses the term "liqueur". My understanding of that is an alcohol which contains some non-alcoholic additive and with a proof of less than 80. Is that accurate? If so, this bottle does not seem to meet those criteria.

2) It's also called a "blended scotch whisky", which I thought to mean a mix of scotch and grain neutral spirits. But this is also billed as "100% scotch whiskies". Is this basically what would be called today a vatted, or pure, malt? Or does it mean that the only whisky in here is scotch and other, non-whisky alcohol could be used?

3) In general, does scotch follow the bourbon trend of older bottlings being better? Can I expect this to be significantly superior to a current Ballentine's bottle?

I'm also interested in any other info or opinions anyone may have on this bottling. The seller indicates it's a circa-1950's release. I guess the "in use for over 125 years, established 1827" would peg it at no older than 1952 but who knows how often they updated their labels? Any reason to believe otherwise?

Anyone tried Ballantine's from this era? Any thoughts?