Do reviewers get honey barrels?

[CoMobourbon]

This thread made me ask "what happened to SB.com since yesterday?"

Others could say more on this, but I can say that between Dec 2011 (my join date) and Dec 2012 this has happened multiple times.

[wadewood]

Clearly, Chuck (as a writer, public figure, and generally on-top-of-his-small-niche-world professional) cares a lot about his reputation and is pretty sensitive to insinuations and criticisms.

good post and points. This was not an attack on Chuck or any whiskey writers/bloggers; if anything it's attacking the distillers for a questionable practice. It's a topic that has not really been discussed here on SB (at least that I recall) so I think it's worthy of post count. Plus, unlike BarrelChar, I've known Chuck for a long time and I know he has my email. If I offended him, I'm sure we will work it out.

[Vosgar]

Congratulations Wade . You're the master at proving how easy it is to get SB'ers to rant and get pissed at each other. It's almost too easy, isn't it?

My hat's off to you sir!

[ErichPryde]

SERIOUSLY Erik? I can't be serious and drink whisky at the same time. That sort of thing will get you to propose marriage or something.

If I split a bottle of VOVR Barton with you, will you accept?

For the record, I said current Lot B is as good as ever and remains one of my favorites. I never said it's better than it used to be. I also haven't said anything about John Hansell and see no reason to. John and I don't agree about everything but we've known each other for 20 years and I've never known him to be insincere about anything.

I'm not being dismissive of this idea. I'm taking it seriously and saying that in my opinion, based on my knowledge and experience, it has no merit.

But what do I know? I'm just a lying shill who talks out his ass and who's too drunk on free whiskey to know it.

Firstly, your last sentence there is going to be my new quote. love it. secondly, you're right:

While I haven't had any Bernheim-distilled Pappy 15, the Bernheim-distilled Lot B is terrific. But by all means, people, continue to be crazy for the Pappy Vans. More Lot B for me.

This was in the S-W all gone thread, and I think perhaps I was projecting, considering that the last of the truly S-W/S-W/s-w lot b was, in my head, not as good as the newer stuff. Please forgive me; I stopped drinking bourbon regularly for a year and that made me a bit forgetful and crazy.

I'm just trying to figure out if this thread tallied more posts in 6 hours or the "shut down Ebay liquor sales" thread? Good work as always Wade...

Everyone knows the "super duper money honey" batches are kept in Kentucky (and sent to reviewers) to keep the natives from becoming restless.

super duper money, honey? I like it. I'm thirsty. hook me up.

What really gets me is how asinine people are being about the topic. Clearly, Chuck (as a writer, public figure, and generally on-top-of-his-small-niche-world professional) cares a lot about his reputation and is pretty sensitive to insinuations and criticisms. Clearly, this thread has racked up so many responses so quickly in part because people want to see Chuck angry. This has all happened before (BarrelChar). I don't post on here as regularly as some, and even to me this whole routine is getting pretty tiring.

I don't think he's as sensitive as you think. just, crotchety.

[michaelturtle1]

I am not sure how someone would think a distiller wouldn't send a "honey" barrel out for review, would Burger King put a picture of an average sandwich served in their restaurant on a national commercial? In my eyes professional reviews are nothing more than advertising for a brand, even if the reviewer is "independent" of the brand. Given that, I generally pay zero attention to reviews or tasting notes as my palette is most certainly different than anyone else's and I know my palate changes day to day so a review can be skewed simply by an off day or the reviewers general attitude/excitement towards a product or release.

[HighInTheMtns]

When it comes to EW1B, I doubt a huge number of barrels have been vetted when the 1st barrel is released. Perhaps 100 out of the 1000+ for the vintage. So, a good barrel may have been selected, but it's very unlikely to be the best.

Truth here, I think. And even if all barrels had been selected, some have several more (summer) months of aging left before they're bottled - both EWSBs I have in my possession right now were bottled in August. Barrel #1 was bottled much earlier in the year. No way of knowing exactly what it will all taste like at that time.

[LostBottle]

I am sure that distilleries take steps to ensure that the reviewers don't get the worst barrels - believing anything else would be naive.

However, there may be an even bigger factor at play. It seems the livelihood of many professional reviewers depends on distillery relationships and free samples from the very people they are reviewing - this sure seems like it could present conflict of interest concerns. If some of these reviewers were to start giving more realistic ratings (Ever see anything rated below 80 on a 100 point scale? How about a bottle rated C+ on a A-F scale?), they just might see their ability to review rare and unreleased products dry up along with their review career. This is one of the reasons I tend to trust SB members over reviewers - they will tell me when something sucks.

[Barclay Beach]

I am not sure how someone would think a distiller wouldn't send a "honey" barrel out for review, would Burger King put a picture of an average sandwich served in their restaurant on a national commercial?

My thoughts exactly. I am nearly certain that every distillery would be very deliberate in their selection process to ensure sending their best stuff to reviewers. Why wouldn't they? It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's business 101!

It's a good thing that the variation between EW1B sample bottles and random bottles wasn't detectable on Chuck's palate. That might speak to that particular product's consistency. But business is business, and *trying* to influence key opinion leaders is standard fare. I can't believe that's even an argument.

[ChainWhip]

[CoMobourbon]

good post and points. This was not an attack on Chuck or any whiskey writers/bloggers; if anything it's attacking the distillers for a questionable practice. It's a topic that has not really been discussed here on SB (at least that I recall) so I think it's worthy of post count. Plus, unlike BarrelChar, I've known Chuck for a long time and I know he has my email. If I offended him, I'm sure we will work it out.

Oh no, I really am willing to believe that you did not intend an attack on Chuck or other whiskey writers. I am not conflating you with BarrelChar in any case. It just happens that you ask provocative, sometimes edgy to the point of cynical questions leveled at the industry, and inevitably those questions draw out both criticisms of Chuck and Chuck's responses. THAT is the cycle which I think is getting a little old. The questions are interesting and often thought-inducing; the responses are becoming predictable.