Donald Duck

[nor02lei]

I did have an13 years old uncut, unfiltered HH bottled by Cadenheads before a restaurant dinner today. It did taste excellent and on the label I could read that it was distilled at HH in Bardstown, bottled May 2005, the strength was 118,2 proof and that the barrel produced 174 bottles. This kind of information has been on all the Cadenheads bourbon bottling I have had and also on the13 years uncut and unfiltered bottling of Barton’s that Ian Macleod, also from Scotland made a coupe of years ago.

Can anybody tell my how come the “bottled by Donald Duck distillery†type of labels and the “contract bullshit†are so common on bourbon bottled in the homeland. This is not meant as any kind of criticism, but it makes no sense to me and I would like some kind of explanation.

Leif

[cowdery]

It's something that evolved over time and isn't limited to whiskey. General Electric, for example, sells a line of appliances under the GE brand and a virtually identical line under the Hotpoint brand. The idea is that dealers like to have a brand that is "theirs." The major auto companies do the same thing and not just the American ones. BMW makes the Mini Cooper, but they don't put the BMW brand on it.

It got so crazy with American whiskey because of consolidation. As the industry contracted and consolidated, some companies (Heaven Hill, Buffalo Trace) wound up with dozens of different brands with long heritages associated with other companies. The law allows 'assumed business names,' so the new producers just kept the names of the old producers on the label.

As for other information, the distilleries don't think very many consumers care about that stuff and they are mostly right, although the companies have in recent years responded to the enthusiasts who want that kind of information. Buffalo Trace routinely provides it for the Antiques. Four Roses provides it for their special editions.

More difficult to understand, and more offensive, are the producers who buy bulk whiskey but instead of being honest about it they contrive elaborate fictions about "their" distillery, "their" master distiller, etc. They even contrive fictional "contractual agreements" that they claim prevent them from revealing their sources.

Part of the explanation for this is that, unlike the U.K., the U.S. doesn't have a similar independent bottler tradition.

[Virus_Of_Life]

They even contrive fictional "contractual agreements" that they claim prevent them from revealing their sources.

:slappin: Thanks Chuck! I got a kick out of that comment.

[nor02lei]

:slappin: Thanks Chuck! I got a kick out of that comment.

The same goes for me Christian!

Leif

[mrviognier]

More difficult to understand, and more offensive, are the producers who buy bulk whiskey but instead of being honest about it they contrive elaborate fictions about "their" distillery, "their" master distiller, etc. They even contrive fictional "contractual agreements" that they claim prevent them from revealing their sources.

You think the whiskey business is bad in this way? It's nothing compared to the U.S. wine business.