Curb Your Enthusiasm

[ebo]

But neither of those should be factors. If it tastes like fifty bucks, that's what matters.

[CorvallisCracker]

So, what does 50 bucks taste like?

[Ultra]

I'd tell ya, but I haven't had that much money in my wallet since...well, I don't know when...

But, just guessing, probably dry, papery, with inky notes and a trace of cocaine.

[ebo]

I'd tell ya, but I haven't had that much money in my wallet since...well, I don't know when...

But, just guessing, probably dry, papery, with inky notes and a trace of cocaine.

[nblair]

I can understand both viewpoints. However, I have never had whiskey from a micro-distiller so maybe that's why.

I want to hear Kickert's take on this.

[Dramiel McHinson]

This is a great thread because it shines the light on something that's probably been buggin' a few of us. Bang for the Buck Bourbon...or scotch or wine or beer.

For all that money, where's the bang :searching:

What is the hook that unlocks our wallet and lays the contents at the feet of the well labeled spirit.

[Ultra]

What is the hook that unlocks our wallet and lays the contents at the feet of the well labeled spirit.

[kickert]

I can understand both viewpoints. However, I have never had whiskey from a micro-distiller so maybe that's why.

I want to hear Kickert's take on this.

Ha...

I have been following the thread, but I wanted to let it run its course before I chimed in.

I think all the points brought up so far are valid (both in favor and opposed).

Micro-distilling is a business and as such it has to make money (or at least break even). Small scale distilleries have substantially more costs than the big guys per volume. Any artisan product whether its whiskey or brooms or pottery or culinary arts is going to cost more to make than the mass produced stuff... that is how the market works. Micros can't just eat those costs.

I think it easy to think that the small guys are trying to make bank on their early releases. In all actuality, they are probably trying to cut their losses. Because of the size of runs, labor costs are substantially higher. Add to that higher costs charged by supplies and the larger cuts taken by distributors and things start getting really out of whack.

Simply put, small distilleries simply can't afford to put out $20 750 bottles of aged whiskey.

Now... on to the criticisms... There is a lot of shitty whiskey being put out by micros, (just like there is a lot of shitty fruit wine being put out by the small wineries)I won't deny that. If micros want to survive, they have to produce products people want. If the small guys expect people to buy nasty whiskey just to support "the local guy" then they are going to be deeply disappointed (and out of business). There is no way I am going to defend inferior products that are being sold at premium prices. Again, it is like any craft product: you might be able to get away with poor quality sympathy sales early on, but people won't put up with it on a large scale if the quality is not there.

So where does that leave us? Is there a place in the long term for micros? I think absolutely... but not in the role that many on this forum are expecting them to fill. There will never be a micro who can sell a 12 year old wheater for under $25.

If micros are going to succeed it is going to be because they offer the market things the big guys can't (or won't do). Again, it just like brooms and pottery and cooking. People buy hand thrown pots because they are unique and original and have "character." Whiskey needs to be the same way. You won't be tasting whiskeys made from oatmeal and millet and 100% rye from the big guys anytime soon, but you will from the small guys. You aren't going to get the unique taste small barrels gives (not better or worse, but definitely different) from the big guys (partly because they cost almost 10X more per volume) but micros are going to continue to use these techniques.

Of course if those products taste like shit, then they will never succeed in the long run.

I do see the micro distillery movement following the micro brewery movement. Early micro breweries tried to emulate the big guys in the styles of beers the produced. Pretty early on they figured out that wasn't going to work so you saw them take up more innovative product lines... things the large guys were not pursing. Now the companies like InBev are emulating the small guys and the small breweries are really pushing the limits on what is possible (some may even say desirable).

I would venture to say that many, if not most, of SB.com members are not the type of people who will get into the micro movement any time soon. I think that is largely because those of us here have a pretty good idea of what we think a whiskey is supposed to taste like. In a large part micros aren't going to fit that mold.

So in summary: Are there a lot of micros releasing inferior product? Yes. Is that acceptable? No. Will micros always cost more than other whiskeys? Yes. Is there a place for them in the market? I think absolutely, and I think their place is providing unique products that are "full of character."

DISCLOSER: I do work for a local micro-distillery, but just so you know, I am call "The Traditionalist" because of my involvement on this forum. :grin:

[cowdery]

My point in starting this was neither to praise micro-distilleries nor to bury them, and not so much trying to support the skeptics as to tamp down irrational exuberance.

Any business that doesn't give good value for the money is doomed. End of story. The only justification for any price is the willingness of the customer to pay it.

But this micro-distillery thing is so new, we don't know yet what micros can excel at. One thing they seem to do very well is flavor neutral spirits. I'm not kidding. Some of their best products are their gins and absinthes.

As micro-distilled whiskeys are starting to roll out, we can better understand why micro-distillers have been afraid of whiskey. It's not easy. Look at how long it took Old Potrero to go from 'interesting' to 'good.'

The attached just arrived a little while ago. It is the results of the (supposedly) craft whiskey judging in which I participated last week. The winners here are as good a products as any to try, as you can find them.

Be sure to read the whole thing, especially the story right after the results. Where it says "Chuck Cowdery noted a serious problem," substitute "Chuck Cowdery went postal," to get a better sense of what really happened.

ADI 2010 .pdf

[Enabler]

Well, I have not had any micro-distiller's whiskey of any type, although I have driven 9 hours to support a micro-distiller's gin (Bendis). However, microdistillers have to rely on idiots (i count myself in this class) to overpay for the product they are getting in the early years. Then, in the fullness of time they have to prove themselves. Those who can prove themselves in the long haul survive, those who do not fall by the wayside.

Many are called, but few are chosen.

So, to those idiots who pay 50 bucks for a 25 dollar bottle of booze, you do the Lord's work. In the end, you may feel the fool, but your sacrifice is not in vain. That special distillery may rise from the ashes of your foolishness and enrich us all.

[callmeox]

So the big winners in the blind tasting were from High West? LDI beat all of the little guys in a taste test?

[nblair]

Be sure to read the whole thing, especially the story right after the results. Where it says "Chuck Cowdery noted a serious problem," substitute "Chuck Cowdery went postal," to get a better sense of what really happened.

Good for you Chuck. It doesn't make much sense to give an American DISTILLING Institute award to a whiskey that wasn't distilled by the winner?!? I'd be pretty upset if I had actually distilled a product, entered it in the blind tasting, and some rectified whiskey came out on top.

To go along with the thread though, John Hansell gave it a positive review. In the comments section David Perkins, who I think is the owner of High West, hints that Four Roses (which I guess could possibly be the old Lawrenceburg, IN Seagram's plant) is the source of bourbon used in the Bourye.

So I haven't had a micro-distilled (or rectified) bourbon from a small producer, but I think the Bourye still shows why handing over a few more $$$ could be worth it. They get to experiment however they want. In this case mixing straight bourbons and straight rye to come up with a well reviewed, quality product. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I can't say I wouldn't try a bottle.

[bourbonv]

Chuck did "go postal" over the results when it was discovered that the winner was a whiskey purchased on the bulk market, but cooler heads prevailed. Since the whiskey was entered and accepted in good faith and met the requirements set, it was decided the standards of competition was flawed, not the results.

I agreed with Chuck's arguement and the final result.

Mike Veach

[jburlowski]

Of what I've tasted so far, I only like one micro-distillery product enough to try / buy it a second time. And that was a fully-aged (5+ years), straight bourbon ---- Woodstone Creek. Because it uses a minimum (51%) corn mash bill, it has a different taste profile than the bourbons we are all used to. But at least it is the real deal.

[p_elliott]

It would agree with Chuck, the rules were flawed from the get go. But the rules are rules lets hope they change them before next year.

[Josh]

The categories in the contest were odd too. They seem to be using "blended" in a different sense than the legal one.

Anyway, I've already put my two cents in, but I wanted to tell Ben that his post was great. It's great to hear a candid analysis of the micro-distilling movement from the inside. And you broke it down better than I've ever read. Well done.

[kickert]

The categories in the contest were odd too. They seem to be using "blended" in a different sense than the legal one.

Anyway, I've already put my two cents in, but I wanted to tell Ben that his post was great. It's great to hear a candid analysis of the micro-distilling movement from the inside. And you broke it down better than I've ever read. Well done.

[p_elliott]

Actually I thought Ben hit on something these craft whiskies are being sold more to the novice whiskey drinkers than to the experienced ones. It's more like a fad thing whats in or what's chic. They could care less how it taste they will all say it taste great to be in the in crowd.

[DeanSheen]

"Chuck Cowdery went postal,"

[Hawg73]

I have purchased the Tuthilltown Bourbon and Rye, Stranahan's, The HW Rendezvous Rye. They are all a bit on the pricey side but I would buy them again.

[OscarV]

It's all about time in the barrel.

[Josh]

ADI can be pretty idiosyncratic. I found it very odd they had a "moonshine" category and a "unaged whiskey" category. Of course neither are legal categories.

Josh, I appreciate it, but I actually expected you to say something about my "shitty fruit wines" comment. ;-)

[callmeox]

Wake me when these craftsmen bottle something that has been aged in oak for at least 6 years.

I believe that Woodstone Creek has two different 6yo bourbon bottlings on the market and each is distinct and enjoyable.

They just don't taste like 91 bucks to me.

[OscarV]

You should try the following fruit wines,

So are you going to name them?

[kickert]

Rather than saying that micros appeal to novices, I would say that micros will appeal more to people who are open to more variety in their drinks. By that, I mean people like Josh (who can appreciate good fruit wines and corn whiskey). Micros appeal to the gin drinkers who are willing to enjoy something other than just juniper flavoring their spirit, and to whiskey drinkers who are willing to try spirits made with something other than just the two main bourbon mashbills (Wheat and Rye). People who get into Woodford's Master Distiller's collection and BT Experimental collection are the people most likely to appreciate the work of micros.

If you are looking for a micro to produce something that tastes like it came from one of the big guys, why even bother... you will always be able to get it cheaper from them.

I don't mind the criticisms, especially when they are valid. But... sometimes discussions like these remind me of bourbon drinkers criticizing scotch. Just because it is not your cup of tea, doesn't mean its wrong.

Going back to the comparison to micro breweries... not everyone likes an IPA (and I would argue most "regular" beer drinkers don't like them at all), but that doesn't make the product inferior.