Printable View
I mentioned this incidentally in another thread, but thought I'd put it here, more upfront that is, for any views/discussion:
"Just a further thought, why shouldn't the next big thing in bourbon be bonded bourbon? The name is evocative, has history and status, the stuff would be just 4 years old, thus suitable for a market in which well-aged bourbon is at a premium. It seems a natural for line extensions or revivals of old brands".
Gary
Gary,
You should say the the bourbon would be "at least four years old" since it can be older if all from the same distillery, made during the same season. I have always said that "vintage" bourbon has been around a long time, but it was simply called "bonded bourbon".
Mike Veach
Mike, good to hear from you.
I understand what you are saying, and suggested 4 years on the dot simply because in a time of shortage of aged stocks, I thought it would offer a way to producers to claim an advantage but without the need to age more than the statutory time.
Gary
I think Chuck had it right in another thread: most folks don't know what bonded means. It "is evocative, has history and status" only for a dying (literally) segment of the population that equates it with "the good stuff".
Us bourbon geeks understand, but are less likely to be impressed by any (otherwise undistinguished) 4 yo.
Definitely a point of view, but one I don't share. The term bond has a unique set of associations, some historical, some not. In other industries, we hear of beers "triple-hopped" and most consumers have only a vague idea what that means. Bonded whiskey suggests so much more (IMO), even to those who don't know the history.
Gary
I suppose I could do the research but would rather ask. If a producer printed the year of distillation couldn't it be labeled 'Vintage Bottled In Bond'?
The term 'vintage' isn't controlled.
There are definitely people in the industry who think about making more of the term 'bond.' The fact that the new Taylor is BIB is an example of this. It sums up a set of attributes in a single word and is controlled, so people can't misuse it unlike terms such as 'small batch,' that mean essentially nothing.
Part of the issue now, I think, is that with a few exceptions bonds tend to be 'legacy' brands (the 'olds,' e.g., Old Grand-Dad) or cheap (Dant, Brown) or both.
As a newbie I appreciate this thread. Anything that leads one to think about the terms that are used/not used on bottle labels helps consumers better understand the dizzying array of options faced when looking at the bourbon section of the liquor stores. (If lucky enough to be in a place with such options.)
Interesting to think about what marketers think about.
Most beer drinkers don't even know what hops are or what they contribute to the taste and aroma of beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillman
Several times when I was working in Milwaukee people told me that they could "smell the hops" when the wind was right from the Miller brewery.
I drove by there a lot, and I often smelled the wort cooking. I sometimes smelled it fermenting. I never, ever smelled hops. And why would I? It was Miller, and they were making Miller (or Pabst or something similar).
They just know beer is made from hops, because they keep hearing it in commercials.
Are you saying that if, say, Four Roses produced a bonded version (something I'd personally like to see) they'd be competing with some others "legacies" that would essentially equate this newer bond with cheap, outdated, uninteresting labels?Quote:
Originally Posted by cowdery
Hard to say if this could take off, but the romantic in me would like to see a revival of bonds--especially at non-premium prices. However, I can't think of some KY brands other than FR or BT that would excite me--HH already has McKenna, WT might need to be older than 4 yrs to get my attention, and Brown Forman does little for me.