Pet Peeves

[funknik]

I saw the earlier thread titled Pet Peeves from a few years ago and it was entertaining, but all over the map. I'd like to devote this one to American Whiskey related pet peeves. I'm not talking about the mismanagement/ruination of brands or any other drastic Crimes Against Whiskey, but rather the little things that could be avoided that just annoy the heck out of you. I may think of others, but here a couple that have been weighing on my mind:

Single-Barrel and/or BIB expressions with No Age Statement: There's no reason to leave this off! I guess there's no marketing value in admitting that a BIB bottle is young, so that is less offensive to me, but pricey SB expressions touting themselves as premium whiskey, should be revealing how old the product is. Period.

Single-Barrel expressions that don't list barrel #: Come on, throw us a bone here! Not that it may make a huge difference to a lot of people, but once again, I see no reason to omit this information! If I'm going to buy two bottles of something, maybe I'll want to buy from the same barrel, maybe different barrels. I think that from a marketing point, this could only increase the desirability of the drink -- especially to geeks like the present company -- am I right? Eagle Rare, for example, would seem a little more premium with barrel info.

That's one man's opinion -- I'm curious to see what little things get under your skin.

[kickert]

I hate fake distillery information. That includes the bogus stories about a distillery's origins and using fake names for each product (for instance, we all know there is no is now Elijah Craig distillery or Old Charter distillery.

[Josh]

Single-Barrel and/or BIB expressions with No Age Statement: There's no reason to leave this off! I guess there's no marketing value in admitting that a BIB bottle is young, so that is less offensive to me, but pricey SB expressions touting themselves as premium whiskey, should be revealing how old the product is. Period.

Single-Barrel expressions that don't list barrel #: Come on, throw us a bone here! Not that it may make a huge difference to a lot of people, but once again, I see no reason to omit this information! If I'm going to buy two bottles of something, maybe I'll want to buy from the same barrel, maybe different barrels. I think that from a marketing point, this could only increase the desirability of the drink -- especially to geeks like the present company -- am I right? Eagle Rare, for example, would seem a little more premium with barrel info.

That's one man's opinion -- I'm curious to see what little things get under your skin.

I completely agree with you on both counts. If I don't like a particular barrel I want to try to avoid that barrel in the future or I may feel like buying stuff from different barrels. And yeah, Four Roses, seriously, put an age statement on the SB. I don't care if it's only 5 or 6 years, I would just like to know how old it is.

What irks me is 80 proof expressions. What is the point? Have some cajones and stick to (or go back to) an 86 or higher proof. 80 just tastes like nothing. Yeah, this means you too corn whiskeys.:stickpoke: You think b/c you don't sell as well, you can get away with it. Stop the madness. Especially the micro-distilled corns. You distinguish yourself from GM when you sell an 80 proof product exactly how?:skep:

Speaking of, how come it seems that almost every new micro-distilled whiskey is Barley malt? I had a taste of New Holland's Zeppelin Whisky (sic) at a bar yesterday and it was fine...for a malt. Why aren't more of these folks trying a rye or a other american style?

Finally, I'm all for experimenting, just ask my college girlfriend, but please sell your experiment at a reasonable price! This means you WR Sweet Mash and Bernheim Wheat! At least make 350 ml's available so I can give it a try without sleeping on the couch for a week.

:fish2: Sorry, I've just always wanted to use that fish smiley.

UPDATE: I'm with you on the fake distillery info too Ben. The worst example I've seen is the "Ezra Brooks" distillery pictured on their bottles. It's a pic of the old HH Bardstown distillery. Really?

[kickert]

Finally, I'm all for experimenting, just as my college girlfriend, but please sell your experiment at a reasonable price! This means you WR Sweet Mash and Bernheim Wheat! At least make 350 ml's available so I can give it a try without sleeping on the couch for a week.

I agree... I would be willing to pay more per ounce for a 375 just to not have to risk paying full price on a 750 I might not like.

:fish2: Sorry, I've just always wanted to use that fish smiley.

:horseshit:

[funknik]

I hate fake distillery information. That includes the bogus stories about a distillery's origins and using fake names for each product (for instance, we all know there is no is now Elijah Craig distillery or Old Charter distillery.

Ben, that's a great one -- distillery shenannigans are just plain dumb.

:pope:

[DowntownD]

I'm with you guys...

I loathe, yes - literally loathe, the fake bullshit offered up by some. As I've said before, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot by diluting the real history and obfuscating the real people and places behind it. The Beams, Van Winkles, Noes (and others) and their families are real people, real American History (whiskey or otherwise).

Honestly, I want to see the addition of strict federal standards with respect to full disclosure regarding all American whiskey... where was it cooked and by whom, where was it aged - and for exactly how long, and so on. No more fake Distilleries, no more bullshit stories with made up people... end it all, and pronto... at least that's my opinion.

Granted, I understand true trade secrets and the need to protect them... I'm certainly not asking for the nitty gritty details of some secret recipe (Coke for example), but what we have here is pure greed and some supposedly clever marketing folks riding on the backs of the real people and places in order to make more money, by confusing the public.

[sku]

I heartily agree with all of the above. I've long wanted full disclosure of disitlleries and I also think that companies that don't distill anything shouldn't be able to call themsevles distilleries (I'm looking at you KBD).

There are a lot of issues with micros, including MMS (mediocre malt syndrome), though there seem to be a some micro Bourbons and ryes coming down the pike now, and most of their prices are ridiculosu. I would also say that a micro shouldn't be allowed to put a website until they at least have something in barrels. There seem to be a lot of micros that have big dreams and a website, but that's about it.

Lastly, I'd love to see more minis. I don't always want to buy a whole bottle and I'd love to see more diverse brands using minis.

[ILLfarmboy]

....If I don't like a particular barrel I want to try to avoid that barrel in the future or I may feel like buying stuff from different barrels.

Agree 100%

What irks me is 80 proof expressions. What is the point? Have some cajones and stick to (or go back to) an 86 or higher proof. 80 just tastes like nothing. Yeah, this means you too corn whiskeys.:stickpoke: You think b/c you don't sell as well, you can get away with it. Stop the madness. Especially the micro-distilled corns. You distinguish yourself from GM when you sell an 80 proof product exactly how?:skep:

Exactly. What's the point. I can understand bottom shelf stuff that's going to get mixed with Coke, But why a premium at 80 proof? Templeton rye with its nice cotton candy notes would be so much better at 90+ and may actualy be worth its current asking price.

Speaking of, how come it seems that almost every new micro-distilled whiskey is Barley malt? I had a taste of New Holland's Zeppelin Whisky (sic) at a bar yesterday and it was fine...for a malt. Why aren't more of these folks trying a rye or a other american style?

I think a lot of that is an outgrowth of the fact that so many of those micro-distilleries are made up of folks who have a back round in micro-brewing. A rye or bourbon may be outside their comfort zone.

[WsmataU]

When I ask what bourbon is available and the first thing out of the bartenders mouth is, "We have Jack...":rolleyes:

[squire]

I would like to see the back label disclose where the whiskey was actually made.

[callmeox]

I've read the whole list and none of the peeves that I've read would be on my list. Perhaps I'm just more laid back than the rest of ya.

What bothers me is that Ohio is practically Kentucky's hat and due to our antiquated liquor laws, the bourbon selection at the top sucks. :smiley_acbt:

[jburlowski]

I've read the whole list and none of the peeves that I've read would be on my list. Perhaps I'm just more laid back than the rest of ya.

I'm with you... minor irritants at worst. If you don't like 80 proof spirits don't buy them --- it's disclosed right on the label. Same for malt whisk(e)ys.

The legends, lore, and other marketing crap --- well it's all around us from consumer products to media to religion to politicians... deal with it or get a better BS detector.

[SBOmarc]

When I ask what bourbon is available and the first thing out of the bartenders mouth is, "We have Jack...":rolleyes:

This is true, but what's worse is when they say "we have Dewar's"

[cowdery]

I guess it's also fair to say that if you don't want to hear people's pet peeves, you shouldn't read a thread called "pet peeves."

[gothbat]

I agree with pretty much all that was posted except for the fake distillery information. I like reading this and the inevitable fact that some believe it amuses me. Even before I started reading anything, except the back of the bottle, I knew that most of this information was fictional (Still, tbh, I did believe some bottle legends that were later disproved by knowledge acquired further down the road...). However, while I don't care what they put on the label it annoys me when people who don't even distill won't tell you where the stuff they bottled comes from. It's OK to lie on the bottle, imo, it's just marketing and even real distillers do this but to not be willing to answer a simple question from the consumer annoys me. This shady behavior, however rationalized, will often make me unwilling to buy any of their products, especially if they're $30+ (and they usually are...).

[p_elliott]

I

What bothers me is that Ohio is practically Kentucky's hat and due to our antiquated liquor laws, the bourbon selection at the top sucks. :smiley_acbt:

Scott

I'll join you there Iowa is a control state too and the pickings just suck not even much in the mid shelf let alone the top shelf.

[mozilla]

I guess it's also fair to say that if you don't want to hear people's pet peeves, you shouldn't read a thread called "pet peeves."

That's hittin' below the belt, IMO.

This is a "read/write only" website. There is no other way to communicate.

When a person expresses a thought that goes against the original topic...the common reaction is to tell them not to read it. What a laugh!

JB didn't go off topic or anything. He just disagrees with some of the opinions expressed, already. I believe that everyone has a right to their opinion...and to deny him the right to express his, on this subject....would be incorrect.

JB just doesn't feel as strongly in one direction. Where is the problem? Why exclude his opinion?

[cowdery]

Mostly I was having a laugh, because both Ox and John were complaining about exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see in a "Pet Peeves" thread.

There are a lot of threads I don't read because the thread title doesn't interest me. Perhaps I miss the occasional gem, but I can live with that.

[ILLfarmboy]

Mostly I was having a laugh, because both Ox and John were complaining about exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see in a "Pet Peeves" thread.

Wow, we do agree about some things. I found it a little amusing, also.

Under "pet Peeves" I might list members who claim to eschew negative reviews and then complain that WT Rye is "like a punch to the throat". Would that be too peevish of me? :cool:

I don't mean to start a contentious discussion here. I reckon I already do more of that than I should in the "politics" forum so I promise that is the last I shall say on that head.

[theDon]

I can't stand the liquor store chains in Texas like Centennial, Goody, and Sigels. All have jacked up prices from $5 - $15 more per bottle for example WT Rare Breed at $45 when I can go to the independent guy down the street and get it for $28.99. I have only been to each of those stores once, sometimes multiple locations just to compare and they are all the same. I have never bought one thing from any of those chains, but what gets me is somebody must be buying from them because they remain in business. They are ripping off people who don't know any better.

[TroyM]

My pet peeve is common for a lot of spirits. I hate it when a company deletes an item, repackages it and sells it at an inflated price compared to its previous incantation.

[funknik]

My pet peeve is common for a lot of spirits. I hate it when a company deletes an item, repackages it and sells it at an inflated price compared to its previous incantation.

Ditto! Especially at a lower proof or age!

[jburlowski]

Mostly I was having a laugh, because both Ox and John were complaining about exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see in a "Pet Peeves" thread.

There are a lot of threads I don't read because the thread title doesn't interest me. Perhaps I miss the occasional gem, but I can live with that.

I didn't think I as complaining about anything... merely concuring that I didn't feel any of the "peeves" cited were a big deal to me. In my world view, anyone can rail / complain / comment about whatever they want.

Appears I violated some unwritten rule... I respectfully retire from this thread. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[callmeox]

Mostly I was having a laugh, because both Ox and John were complaining about exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see in a "Pet Peeves" thread.

There are a lot of threads I don't read because the thread title doesn't interest me. Perhaps I miss the occasional gem, but I can live with that.

Yes, I was doing what one would consider "participating" in the thread.

I imagine that there are two ways to participate here. One would be to say that you agree with what the previous posters have said and possibly add another peeve. Another would be to say that the other things don't bother me, but here's one that does.

I chose option 2.

Where did I say that there was a problem with the thread?

[callmeox]

Wow, we do agree about some things. I found it a little amusing, also.

Under "pet Peeves" I might list members who claim to eschew negative reviews and then complain that WT Rye is "like a punch to the throat". Would that be too peevish of me? :cool:

I don't mean to start a contentious discussion here. I reckon I already do more of that than I should in the "politics" forum so I promise that is the last I shall say on that head.

I don't know how any native speaker of English could misinterpret what I said, but let me simplify it.

None of the other things listed bother me, but Ohio's liquor laws do.

How's that? Any questions??