"Straight" vs. "Bonded"

[Creggor]

Hello, John. Thanks so much for your insight it's right to the point and probably very acurate.It has got me to wondering. Am I getting what I am paying for or getting something else.. Oh well, No need to loose sleep over something I have no control over. Until I decide to buy or not buy the product again. That I guess is how I can send my message to the distillers. I agree bonding make not make a product any better but as you mentioned it assures you are getting what your paying for. Creggor.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Sure thing John I agree that bonding makes those things certain. You know exactly where the bourbon came from and where it was bottled. We agree that bonding dosen't make the bourbon any better. I've been playing the devil's advocate just for that very reason so the you Mike and Chuck would show logically that there is a reasonable amount of demand for BIB's and why.
Most of the bourbons that I drink would easily qualify, and those that don't could with small alterations met the requirements. Just don't ask me to pay more for it.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[cowdery]

"Better" is subjective. I'm talking about something objective. It doesn't necessarily make the whiskey better, much like single-barreling, but the "bond" designation provides assurance that what you are drinking is a pure expression of the distiller's art, not the blender's.

--Chuck Cowdery

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Just so! Now you're getting to the point! As I told John elsewhere in this thread I've been playing the devil's advocate on this issue hoping to get a logical explanation for why bonding is important to the consumer. Consumer awareness eventually will drive the market. Your three sentances have said more than the hundred already written.I've agreed with y'all all along and hope I haven't been too irritating.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[cowdery]

Linn,

Irritating maybe, but never too irritating.

--Chuck Cowdery

[jbutler]

Linn irritates the livin sh&% out of me, but I still love him ;-)

Cheers,

Jim Butler
Straightbourbon.com

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I only do it to provoke thought. Like the grain of sand in an oyster that irritates it into producing a pearl, so do I likewise in helping produce the pearls of wisdom found here on this forum.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Linn, irritating as you can be at times, yours often ARE the pearls of wisdom around here.

=John=
http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

[Ken Weber]

John,
Actually I agree with many of the points you are making here. We are not going to loose money on the Antique Collection, however, if Sazerac had shareholders, they would be sorely disappointed with the ROI on the entire line. The bottom line is that we wanted the Weller 19 to get good reviews and hope that the rest of the brand (Special Reserve, 107, Centennial) would benefit from a "halo effect". Certainly the 19 year old is the subjective best of the lot, but I think the other brands are outstanding in the niche they occupy. As for the 110 proof versions that were tasted at the Bourbon Festival, they were experimental. No one from Buffalo Trace should have said that they would be released at barrel proof. I have also checked with John Hansel and he has confirmed that the products he scored were in fact 90 proof. I now understand the confusion. If we gave him 110 proof and used the score for our 90 proof, that is tantamount to lying. I can understand your outrage. Also, as an FYI, for the next 3-5 years, our yearly production of 17, 18, and 19 year old whiskies will remain in short supply. Afterwards, the supply will increase as each year goes by.

As it pertains to bonded whiskey, your point is very well made. We made wheated whiskey for other distilleries long before we marketed any under one of our brand names. The Weller 19 could have been made by us or by UDV, I honestly don't know. We have long produced award winning bourbons for other people, however, we have decided that it is in our best interest to withdrawl from this arena and market those same bourbons under our own brand names.

Finally, the bonded issue. Bottles of BIB product are languishing on the shelves. In the 1980s, there was a move to lighter bourbons. While at Brown-Forman, I was acquainted with Frost 8/80. This clear bourbon was a tremendous flop, however, it was created because consumers were demanding lighter, lower calorie products. You and I both know that consumers can add water to barrel strength whiskey to make it whatever strength they want. The reality is that the majority of people want you to do it for them. This may be offensive to our fellow Bourbonians, since they do NOT follow the crowd.

I look forward to visiting with you and Linda this Friday. I also look forward to discussing in greater detail the many topics that have come up over the year. Too often it is difficult to fully explain one's ideas and positions via short notes on the board.

Ken

[cowdery]

While at Brown-Forman, I was acquainted with Frost 8/80.

When I was calling on Brown-Forman, you knew you were in trouble if the subject of Frost 8/80 was even raised. It usually meant they were going to compare what you were proposing with Frost, which meant it was not going to happen. I'm not sure when that product was sold, probably in the 60s (certainly before my time there), but its failure and the lessons learned from that experience continued to be part of the company's culture for a long time thereafter.

--Chuck Cowdery