Jim Murray's Classic Bourbon, Tennessee & Rye Whiskey

[**DONOTDELETE**]

John,
Your point is very well made. When the Regans wrote their book there was very little material out there on the subject. The Regans are also friends of mine and they are a class act. At least I never heard them being insulting or rude about other authors and their book. I can't say the same for Jim Murray.
Mike Veach

[RyanStotz]

John:

> Well, I guess that will serve as a good enough example of not sucking up to
> the subject.

I do try to be educational when I can.

> I don't suppose you could have come up with anything negative to say, to
> offset all that praise?

I could've picked on Gary's beard. Looks like he's almost finished eating Don King feet-first. But given my hair -- or severe lack thereof -- I've no room for talking about hair no matter where it is.

But really, I do have both their books, do use them frequently (that chocolate bourbon pecan pie recipe in the big book is worth the purchase price alone) and would recommend them to people who just want a cursory knowledge of bourbon. Their enthusiasm for the subject shows, especially in the historical parts of the book, and can be fun to read. But the writing...yeesh. As a former journo, maybe I'm being too picky, but their reliance on clunky/cutesy phrases like referring to prohibition as "the noble experiment" over and over again drives me nuts. And the factual errors are just plain inexcusable in a second (paperback) edition.

Stotz

[RyanStotz]

Chuck:

> Their fault, as I see it (and the rye article cited is an even better example
> of this than their books) is that they play to the preconceptions of their
> editors in order to sell articles.

And as a former journo myself, I realize this and should have said it. In fact, the reason there's a "former" in front of that "journo" in the previous sentence is primarily for this reason; my editors, for the most part, were idiots and their preconceptions were ones which I couldn't play to in good conscience. My field of writing was mainly music, so there were a lot of audience types for whom I could write; with the Regans writing for a much narrower range of people, it must make their job that much harder. If they can stomach all that and make a living doing it, more power to them.

Still doesn't excuse the poor writing skills, though.

Stotz

[RyanStotz]

John:

> I looked at the Wine Enthusiast piece that Stotz pointed out. I thought it
> was done well. Obviously, the assignment was to work up an article to
> spotlight Old Potrero and Sazerac Rye, since they're both expanding their
> marketing right now and most likely the editor received back-to-back press
> releases just recently.

Yep, obviously a one-sheet-driven story. That's not necessarily what bothers me, given the nature of the industry and the magazine. What bothered me were some of the factual errors and such. I don't think I need to explain what's wrong with the sentence "High proof usually makes for high flavor, and this whiskey is no exception to the rule." They also fail to note that one of the stars of the article, Old Potrero, is a 100% malted rye which, IMO, is a very significant omission. Some of the blame must fall on their editor(s), but as for the above sentences...I mean, really.

> And if it were really my magazine, there'd be one by Linn Spencer in there,
> too.

In there? Hell, any magazine with the word "enthusiast" in the title ought to have Linn on the cover...or maybe more likely a centerfold.

Stotz

[**DONOTDELETE**]

"I could've picked on Gary's beard. Looks like he's almost finished eating Don King feet-first."

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

"But given my hair -- or severe lack thereof -- " Alas, I'm afraid I've also given my hair, I just can't remember to whom...

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

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Stotz said, "...I don't think I need to explain what's wrong with the sentence 'High proof usually makes for high flavor, and this whiskey is no exception to the rule'... "

That's kinda what I mean by different interpretations. Of course you don't need to explain that to a technical expert.

But for most of us, well...

Suppose you name for us a single bourbon which is bottled above 100 proof which is NOT high in flavor?

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

[kitzg]

I hate to wade in here but here I go. This is NOT meant as criticism of ANY posts in this forum. It is meant as perspective.

As someone who writes (for love and money) I simply don't criticize other writers. I'd remind everyone that we have several different sources from several different authors about bourbon. Each has a different perspecive and each must satisfy an editor.

Without Chuck, the Regans, Jim Murray, Waymack, Sam Cecil, and Paul Jeffers we'd have no source to turn to other than ourselves and a few magazine. God bless those (or may the gods shine on them) who've taken the time to write about bourbon.

I'd include Sally VanWinkle Campbell in the list since I LOVE her book and will plug it every chance I get but it is a family story, not a book on bourbon like those above.

Greg

[kitzg]

Gold bless editors, too, who proofread and keep "perspective" from appearing as "perspecive" as it did in my previous post!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

That's what I like best about this forum Greg, it's just like live radio & TV used to be! Oh and by the way God bless editors and not Gold bless, :-)

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Come on, guys. This is really getting oat of hand.

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