Diageo evil?

[OscarV]

Stop and think about what sort of mindset will put out a 100 proof Bottled in Bond whiskey, then offer an 80 proof expression as a *premium* version. This was clearly a decision arrived at by marketers, not distillers....

[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Maybe, maybe not.

All that Old Grand-Dad stands on it's own "two feet".

[shoshani]

Do you think it would be possible for Beam to revive the old Old Crow recipe/mashbill?

I think it is to late, Old crow is dead and to reintroduce it with that name I think it would be DOA.

I don't know if Beam even has the old Old Crow mashbill; I believe conventional history has it that when Old Crow expanded their distillery in the early 1960s they somehow Schlitzed* their recipe, and despite a few protests continued to make a noticeably inferior version. There is a website with oodles of magazine ads that has some Old Crow ads, and curiously in the late 1950s or early 60s, the Bottled in Bond version simply disappeared....the ads are all for the 80 or 86 proof version (I forget which one it is.)

Then there's this curiosity: http://graphic-design.tjs-labs.com/show-picture?id=1192238600&size=FULL .... this is a 1936 ad for National Distillers Old Crow, which was being bottled at 93 proof at 3 1/2 years old, ie distilled just after Prohibition. Old Crow was available as a bourbon and a rye as well.

Jim Murray's "Classic Bourbon Tennessee and Rye" has a section that quotes a legal paper from 1904 in which one Van Johnson gave the recipe and process for making Old Crow, having gotten both from William Mitchell who had actually worked with James Crow. His version calls for 75 to 80 percent corn, 8 to 10 percent rye and 12 to 15 percent barley malt.

*The Schlitz brewery is famous for taking their highly-regarded brewing process and introducing significant shortcuts in the 1970s that ruined the quality of their beer.

[Slob]

*The Schlitz brewery is famous for taking their highly-regarded brewing process and introducing significant shortcuts in the 1970s that ruined the quality of their beer.

Schlitz is in the process of rectifying that situation. They have reverted to their 1960's formula.

[bourbonv]

Josh,

You got my point exactly - If you are going to call Diageo evil for closing distilleries during bad economic times for the industry, then you have to say the same for Beam. It is the same thing for the most part. In both cases though, it was short sighted decisions that led to some of the worse abuses and closings. Neither are evil, just short sighted... and need I say again pretty stupid.

The story about "Old" being a bad term dates to the 1960's and personally I think that it is that generation that keeps the stigma alive. Most of the younger people I know have no problem with the term "Old" in the brand name. I do not think that reviving the Old Crow brand would be any harder than reviving Four Roses. The first step would be to put a decent whiskey in the bottle. I personally think that a Beam "Bonded Classics" collection with Old Crow at 6yo, Old Taylor at 8yo and Old Grand Dad at 10yo would sell well. You could throw in a bonded 8yo Old Overholt rye and a 10yo Mount Vernon rye for the complete American Whiskey Bonded Classics Collection.

Mike Veach

[shoshani]

I personally think that a Beam "Bonded Classics" collection with Old Crow at 6yo, Old Taylor at 8yo and Old Grand Dad at 10yo would sell well. You could throw in a bonded 8yo Old Overholt rye and a 10yo Mount Vernon rye for the complete American Whiskey Bonded Classics Collection.

Someone's been drooling over vintage National Distillers ads where all their major BiB brands were showcased. And I think it's an excellent idea, but it will never fly. The "brand portfolio managers" at Beam have their hands full with takers of shelf space; they probably won't welcome this sort of idea at all because where would they PUT it?

[ILLfarmboy]

I have no problem with the word "Old" in a name and I never understood why anyone would. Being hung up on such a thing seems absurdly vain.

[OscarV]

Schlitz is in the process of rectifying that situation. They have reverted to their 1960's formula.

Is this recent news?

Where did you get this info?

I loved Schlitz before they screwed it up.

Of course there is no Schlitz Brewery so who ever makes it now dug up the old recipe?

[boss302]

Port Ellen gets that SW stigma as well.

It is disturbing when you list them all out what Diageo has done to some fine distilleries.

I didn't know Port Ellen was a distiller-- I thought they were just a malter who supplied peated malt to the Islay distilleries, occasionally releasing a spirit under their own name, but likely distilled by Lagavulin?

[barturtle]

Is this recent news?

Where did you get this info?

I loved Schlitz before they screwed it up.

Of course there is no Schlitz Brewery so who ever makes it now dug up the old recipe?

Here's a decent link on it.

http://beeradvocate.com/news/1312036

[cowdery]

In 1991, I had a conversation with a man who was then employed by Beam at the Old Grand-Dad plant in Frankfort. He identified himself as the last master distiller at Old Crow. He said that when they expanded they changed (reduced) the percentage of backset in the mash and that changed the product's taste. They got complaints from consumers and even their own internal taste panel raised an alarm, but the bosses just wanted to produce as much as possible as fast as possible. Self-servingly, perhaps, he told me that under his tenure they had set things right and for several years prior to the 1987 closing, they were making good whiskey again.

As for the term "old," maketers are pretty simple creatures. When sales of American whiskey started to collapse, they looked at the different brands and how much their sales and market share had declined. The biggest losers all had the word "old" in their name. The brighter lights--Jack Daniel's, Jim Beam, Early Times--did not. Ergo, "old" is the kiss of death.

By the way, no brand fell harder than Old Crow.

Also, you can't really point to an old brand that has been successfully revived. The success stories in the industry--Maker's Mark, Knob Creek, Woodford Reserve--are all new brands, not revivals of historical brands.

[Josh]

Self-servingly, perhaps, he told me that under his tenure they had set things right and for several years prior to the 1987 closing, they were making good whiskey again.

So maybe Beam's evil-ness could be mitagated by the fact that the Crow being produced at the time of the acquisition wasn't all that great anyway? Or are they doubly evil for scrapping the "newly improved" mash that the man above spoke of?

[cowdery]

Note that I'm participating in this discussion without agreeing that any company is evil, especially if the measure of evil is closing distilleries. We're talking about businesses, not charities. Why shouldn't they close distilleries that are no longer productive?

One thing you have to remember about Beam's acquisition of National is that if they could have picked and chosen, they wouldn't have taken the National bourbons at all. In 1987, the last thing any beverage company wanted was another bourbon. Likewise they didn't want the distilleries, but they didn't have a choice. They bought the whole company, which was selling something like 40 different brands of American whiskey alone at the time. It was a real culture shock because, at that time, Beam had something like ten brands of any kind, period.

Beam did sell some of the brands for whatever they could get and simply discontinued others. I suspect that if anyone made them an even remotely reasonable offer for Crow, Grand-Dad or Taylor they would take it, even today.

The funniest part of this story is what Beam did want out of the National acquisition: the DeKuyper liqueurs line, specifically DeKuyper Peachtree Schnapps.

[OscarV]

Also, you can't really point to an old brand that has been successfully revived.

How about Four Roses (rot-gut) Blended Whiskey and today's Four Roses Single Barrel?

Yes the Blended is different than the Single Barrel but they both share the Four Roses name.

[barturtle]

How about Four Roses (rot-gut) Blended Whiskey and today's Four Roses Single Barrel?

Yes the Blended is different than the Single Barrel but they both share the Four Roses name.

Actually, Stagg is an old, discontinued brand that was revived, and wasn't Weller on a downward slide before BT got hold of it, as was Eagle Rare getting to be a run down brand before the SB and 17yo versions got released...

[Josh]

Actually, Stagg is an old, discontinued brand that was revived, and wasn't Weller on a downward slide before BT got hold of it, as was Eagle Rare getting to be a run down brand before the SB and 17yo versions got released...

Was the old Stagg anything like the new Stagg? Four Roses I think could be the best example, but even it is not fully revived yet, as most of the country still can't find it on their liquor store shelves.

Still, Chuck's point is a good one. Beam and Diageo aren't charities. There's no good reason from an economic standpoint to keep the old distilleries open just for sentimental reasons. Again, that's not to say Old Crow and Old Taylor should have been left to fall into ruin.

The same goes for Old Crow and the other whiskeys themselves. The example that comes to mind is GM. They've announced that they're basically scrapping Pontiac & Saturn, and they've already gotten rid of Olds. They realized that it's no good competing with yourself, and unless there's some brand (like Cadillac or OGD) that brings something special to the table, then you should stick to one basic line of products.

[cowdery]

I concede Four Roses as a good example, but when it was reintroduced into the United States only people above a certain age had any memory of it, and it had a good reputation in non-U.S. markets upon which to build.

A perhaps more instructive example is Evan Williams, a value brand for which Heaven Hill was able to successfully introduce an upmarket line extension.

[Dramiel McHinson]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the extensive education into the corporate side of our beloved bourbon. One of the things that appeals to me about scotch and bourbon is the artisanal approach to making it. There is still a master at the helm directing our bourbon into the barrel and out to the bottle. In the whole process of making bourbon there is art and craftsmanship. Intertwined with this age old making of spirits is technology and corporate business.

Here is where I believe our beloved bourbon begins to suffer. History is littered with the skeletal remains of distilleries. It appears finances were often the root cause of demise. A bottle may have, "Since 1825" on it but since 1825 multiple companies have owned it. The great whiskey in that bottle is at the mercy of the company leadership of the moment, often, more so than at the hands of the master distiller.

The huge uptick in premium and super premium brands is good spirits with premium or super premium marketing and prices. They'll be there as long as we spend enough money to own it and drink it. When sales drop below a certain ROI, more skeletons will haunt those that loved the bourbon that came out of that once proud distillery.

Are they evil or is it just business as usual? Only our tastebuds and wallets know for sure.

Disclaimer: Just my opinion. No research, analysis, or mathmatical algorythms were used. No animals were harmed and no bourbon was spilled.