I devoted the most recent issue of my newsletter to the subject of dubious historical claims in the marketing of American whiskey.
When you see a historical claim in a whiskey's marketing, are you inclined to believe it? Or do you usually dismiss it as marketing fluff? Either way, do you care if it's true or not?
My rationale for excusing many of these claims is that they were first made before anyone conceived of 'truth in advertising' as a value. To some extent they were grandfathered in when the government began to police product claims in the early 20th century. No one means any harm. It has simply become part of the brand's fabric, its background music.
I like knowing what's true and what's fluff, but I don't mind the fluff.