High West Pioneer!

[silverfish]

David Perkins & High West awarded Malt Advocate's Pioneer of the Year Award.

[callmeox]

A pioneer?

The only way this makes sense is if he blends other peoples whiskey in the back of conestoga wagon while wearing clothing from the proper period.

Anyone on this board can take decent well aged whiskey and blend it to make something that tastes good. We do it all the time, but what we lack is financial backing.

It is like giving a DJ a Grammy for the way he plays other people's music on the radio.

[smokinjoe]

A pioneer?

The only way this makes sense is if he blends other peoples whiskey in the back of conestoga wagon while wearing clothing from the proper period.

Anyone on this board can take decent well aged whiskey and blend it to make something that tastes good. We do it all the time, but what we lack is financial backing.

It is like giving a DJ a Grammy for the way he plays other people's music on the radio.

[mberkow]

It is like giving a DJ a Grammy for the way he plays other people's music on the radio.

[macdeffe]

I think your critics are un-intelligent

If it so easy, why didn't You do it and not High West- Whenever someone is doing something great, there is always a group of sheeps saying "That was easy"... :-)

And comparing it to a DJ is just too lame..try to get some focus please

He didn't get an award for serving 6 whiskies in a brilliant order, but for MAKING some great whiskeys!

I think you lack some basic knowledge about whisky (whiskey) blending to be honest, but this could be due to this is a more typical artform this side of the pond!

Big congratulations from Denmark to High West for making some brilliant whiskeys, don't listen to the nay-sayers, they have done nothing for lifting the quality of my whiskey drinking, but I can honestly say High West have.

Steffen

[CorvallisCracker]

Anyone on this board can take decent well aged whiskey and blend it to make something that tastes good. We do it all the time, but what we lack is financial backing.

[macdeffe]

Well you also got access to all the raw materials any Michelin restaurant uses, now go cook as good food as they are doing

The fact it that High West did, You guys didn't. That's called PIONEERING when you do something others don't

Columbus "discovered" America..I guess anyone could have done that, if they had access to ships and sailed west..

If you think making good whiskey is as easy as you says, go make better stuff yourself..., and until then stfu

Steffen

[sku]

A pioneer?

Anyone on this board can take decent well aged whiskey and blend it to make something that tastes good. We do it all the time, but what we lack is financial backing.

[MarkEdwards]

Well you also got access to all the raw materials any Michelin restaurant uses, now go cook as good food as they are doing

[nor02lei]

Columbus "discovered" America..

Steffen

[CorvallisCracker]

Columbus "discovered" America...

[ILLfarmboy]

No Leif Eriksson from Sweden did. Or at least that is what we think.

Leif

I thought Erik 'The Red', Leif's father was a Norwegian.

[cowdery]

There may have been a spelling error. I think he was supposed to win "Potemkin of the Year."

(FYI, although I write for Malt Advocate I have no role in their awards.)

[smokinjoe]

"STFU...un-intelligent...sheep...lame..." Steff, did my wife put you up to this?? No wait, there would have been a dipshit, in there, too.

Anywho, I've tried some of the HW concoctions. And, I in fact, find them quite good. And, I really don't care how they got there....Really! It's just that when I think of the word "pioneer", I think of something more....substantive?...than, blending. I think of building things, making things from scratch, something from nothing, venturing into new areas (blending's been done, is being done, and will continue to be done. Even with whiskies from different distilleries), pushing the envelope of things that haven't been tried. I don't know, honoring the blending of someone else's investments just seems kinda...flat...to me. Maybe, it's our new love affair with everything "mixologist". Ya know, I would have been more OK if one of HW's whiskies was named "Whiskey of the Year", or "Rye whiskey of the year", or something like that. But, "pioneer", not so much.

[cowdery]

Okay, here's the real deal. Perkins got caught trying to pass off sourced whiskey as something he made. He quickly invented this story about the fine art of blending and his greatest accomplishment is that he got so many people to fall for it. "Hustler of the Year" is more like it.

Part of it is that people who have invested the considerable price for his product feel better about themselves if they cast themselves as defenders of an unfairly pilloried artisan instead of as what they really are, which is dupes.

But everybody is entitled to their opinion.

[macdeffe]

Sorry for the harsh words.

I think I should moderate my participation in discussions on this forum. Our basic definitions and approach to the world of whisk(e)y simply doesn't match. Nor does the logic of argumentation. And it's too hard to discuss matters with people if you don't share some kind of basic foundations

Steffen

[silverfish]

I think I should moderate my participation in discussions on this forum. Our basic definitions and approach to the world of whisk(e)y simply doesn't match. Nor does the logic of argumentation. And it's too hard to discuss matters with people if you don't share some kind of basic foundations

Don't limit your participation just because you may disagree with

someone's views/opinions. If everyone did that, there'd be no one

here.

[squire]

Chuck would you elaborate on 'got caught' part, within whatever limits of discretion to which you may be bound.

[cowdery]

By "caught" I mean "exposed." People like me started to write about how this great new rye from a little distillery in Utah was actually from a great big old distillery in Indiana. That's when he suddenly discovered his inner blender.

[sku]

Okay, here's the real deal. Perkins got caught trying to pass off sourced whiskey as something he made. He quickly invented this story about the fine art of blending and his greatest accomplishment is that he got so many people to fall for it. "Hustler of the Year" is more like it.

Part of it is that people who have invested the considerable price for his product feel better about themselves if they cast themselves as defenders of an unfairly pilloried artisan instead of as what they really are, which is dupes.

[cowdery]

Okay, Compass Box, now maybe I don't know a lot about scotch, don't have the vocabulary, you know. Just a dumb yank. Can't put things in the proper context, so here's my simple-minded American question. How many scotch blenders are lionized for their fabulous combination of two -- count 'em, two -- component whiskeys?

As for this basic disagreement we're having, we all have access to the same facts and have reached different conclusions. In this case, I'm okay with that. I've always been comfortable with ambiguity. This seems to me a case where two people can reach opposite conclusions from the same set of facts without either of them being wrong.

To me, the thing with Perkins is that from the moment Rendezvous was released, all the press about it talked about this rye whiskey 'made' by this little distillery in Utah. Nothing about blending, nothing about sourcing. The whole angle was that it was this Utah-made product. So we're left, as we often are, arguing about the definition of 'made.'

At that point the distillery didn't even exist. It was only after people like me started writing that he couldn't have 'made' this 14-year-old rye (or whatever it is) when he just got his license two months ago. Only then did we start to hear about this great blender.

I recount that to say, that's just me. And that was long before I tasted the stuff. That's how I came to it. Other people came to it differently. I don't see any point in me trying to convince you or you trying to convince me. I respect the conclusions of people who see this differently than I do. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I'm just writing this to offer an insight into why I feel as I do about it.

I am, in fact, sucking on some LDI whiskey right now (not David's) and it's having its way with me.

[macdeffe]

Okay, Compass Box, now maybe I don't know a lot about scotch, don't have the vocabulary, you know. Just a dumb yank. Can't put things in the proper context, so here's my simple-minded American question. How many scotch blenders are lionized for their fabulous combination of two -- count 'em, two -- component whiskeys?

Quite a lot

Compass Box for one. I named their Double Single my whisky of the year 2010. They have other 2 components whiskies out, one was a pure grain

Double Barrel by OMC

A lot of bottlings, especially IB's are vatting of two casks, a bit more rare is 3 casks, but this is done as much for pumping up the volume as for blending reasons

DTC Lonach series is vatting of understrength whiskies with stronger ones to make 40+ whiskies

There are other's out there, LapBeg etc. can't think of more right out of my head. In my opinion it's one of the hardest catagories of whiskies to excellence in, the two components has to work together and improve each other, not bland together and nullify.

Double Single by CB is an unusual whisky but probably the best example

Another example, but here I am stretching the catagory a lot, is Arran Peacock which is a vatting of ex-bourbon casks and ex-sherry casks. It's just a very good example of how two types of whisky works together, but I dont think it belongs in the mentioned catagory

Steffen

PS. I am with Sku here. I never got the idea that HW was making those Rye's themselves, and I always wondered how anyone could think that

[cowdery]

Another part of the issue here is how different the U.S. market is for bulk whiskey. Even if a scotch blender winds of making a blend of two components, I assume he has had the opportunity to taste many in order to select those two. In the U.S., you're lucky if you can find a source for two different whiskeys, let alone a broad portfolio to chose from. How much skill is being applied when you simply mix together the only two whiskeys you could get? I'm not saying that's what Perkins did (or didn't do), but that's the nature of the current bulk whiskey market in the USA.

And, sure, serendipity is always a factor, and I'm not saying you're wrong or trying to change your mind.

[Parkersback]

I've sort of been thinking this is like when someone on sports radio says, "I could be the General Manager of the local team if I had the opportunity, and be just as successful as the current guy."

And the thing is, the guy on sports radio is sort of right. If someone who has a good, working knowledge of baseball was the GM of a team, he (or she) could probably do much of what a GM does (analyze talent, try to build a team that fits together, etc.) And if you're the general manager of the Yankees (or Red Sox or some other organization with a huge budget), part of what you do is kind of a no-brainer: you're not really restricted financially. You just pick the best players you can find and try to hire them, then you sit back and watch. Their playing is not your product, even though you may get praised or criticized for it.

But being the GM of the Yankees or Red Sox is more than picking the most talented players. It consists of the politics of dealing with your owner, schmoozing with agents, negotiating contracts, dealing with the media, etc., etc.

Maybe there is some similarity here, in that David Perkins isn't just mixing whiskey. He had to set a long-term vision for the company, raise the money, deal with his employees, negotiate with distilleries, market his product, etc. etc, etc.

It could be he didn't do that as wisely as he might of, as Chuck alludes to. I'm not making a comment on him particularly, I have no idea. If he or the company ever tried to deceive anyone that they were making the whiskey in the bottles, that's bad form, sure. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, there seems to be some dispute on that point, and again, I do not know.

I'm just saying that maybe what John Hansell is recognizing him for is wider than simply mixing two whiskeys in a bottle. When it comes to vatting whiskeys, I'm sure there are many folks on SB who are just as skilled at it as David Perkins, maybe even moreso. (I'd love to try some of Gillman's concoctions). But there's more to it than just that.

And just to be clear: I do not know any of the people involved here, and I've never had any High West products. No dog in this hunt, just some thoughts.

[trumpstylz]

Just thought I'd chime in: I'm not really sure whether they deserved distiller/pioneer of the year.

But I do know one thing: they hunt down/source/bottle/sell some damn fine rye (rezendevous rye) and have an interesting brewpub type thing that they seem to have done well with (maybe not pioneered, but navigated through foggy seas).

And I also like the idea of putting a distillery in a place where you wouldn't normally think one might flourish (nothing against mormons or skiiers).