Do reviewers get honey barrels?

Wait, this thread has me confused. Do I HAVE to read Chuck's reviews or am I free to arrive at my own conclusions? If it is the former, then I am going to do my due diligence and make sure that he isn't biased/conflicted/only getting bottles from "honey" barrels. If it is the latter, I think I am just going to take a deep breath and move on with my life.

Sorry if this is a newbie question. I have only been on the site for a few months, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong.

My opinion is that the poll is, to paraphrase Marisa Tomei, a bullshit question. If you think this has happened even once in the entire history of single barrel samples and published reviews, then you must answer yes. I'm not polyanna (and I've not voted) but I would be inclined to say yes for the reason above.

At this time it is 42-3 for the affirmative but the illusion is that there's some overwhelming fraud being played by distillers and that's not what the poll number says at all.

There's an easy way to get this answer and the network here is broad enough to make that happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by callmeox

My opinion is that the poll is, to paraphrase Marisa Tomei, a bullshit question. If you think this has happened even once in the entire history of single barrel samples and published reviews, then you must answer yes. I'm not polyanna (and I've not voted) but I would be inclined to say yes for the reason above.

At this time it is 42-3 for the affirmative but the illusion is that there's some overwhelming fraud being played by distillers and that's not what the poll number says at all.

There's an easy way to get this answer and the network here is broad enough to make that happen.

---

He has not voted because he's in on it. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by callmeox

At this time it is 42-3 for the affirmative but the illusion is that there's some overwhelming fraud being played by distillers and that's not what the poll number says at all.

There's an easy way to get this answer and the network here is broad enough to make that happen.

---

Speaking for myself, it would be accurate to replace "fraud" with "putting their best foot forward." Again, I don't think this concept requires confirmation, it's fairly intuitive.

"Life is like a barrel of bourbon. You never know what pour you're gonna get." :22:

Just too much to go through to see if somebody already made this point but.........Would it not make more sense for a bottle to be taken right off the shelf and then reviewed. Just as the common man does it.????? By the way I voted YES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishnbowljoe

"Life is like a barrel of bourbon. You never know what pour you're gonna get." :22:

---

You are wise beyond your years sir and I nod accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishnbowljoe

"Life is like a barrel of bourbon. You never know what pour you're gonna get." :22:

---

Old Forrestgump. One of my favourite pours.

I think the answer is yes but do not concur with the extrapolation of this to unethical behaviour.

I don't have a dog in this hunt either way. However, I work in an industry that has a similar product to press relationship, and can guarantee without a doubt that the press gets "honey" products. Sometimes just at the higher end of the tolerance band, sometimes manipulated to a point beyond what a customer could ever hope to get.

Likewise, you can't really trust the reviewers either. They want to stay on the good side of the PR folks. Its rare to find a truly critical one anymore.

Think a barrels of bourbon on a bell curve. If I was a distiller, I'd be sending samples that are at the +1SD point on the curve. Not the absolute best but better than 2/3 of the lot.