High West Pioneer!

[callmeox]

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

Gosh, that is a shame. Your "agree with me or STFU" attitude will be missed.

[doubleblank]

Well, it's John's award to give out, so he can define the term "pioneer" any way he wants to. But I don't think what David Perkins is doing meets even a broad definition of "pioneer". To wit

1. Blending whiskies has long been practiced in the US both prior and following Prohibition. I agree that we haven't seen much blending of straights and/or other whiskies in our lifetimes, but it was very common prior to the '50's. By definition a "pioneer" is the first (or amongst the first) to do things in any enterprise/endeavor/etc. David has "resurrected" the practice of blending, not created it.

2. "Pioneers" generally "blaze new trails", "develop new methods", etc that others may ultimately use to their betterment. What David (and others like him) have done is to take advantage of a very limited supply of surplus stocks of whiskey and got them to the market. Enterprising.....absolutely.....pioneering.....no.

I have enjoyed David's products in the past and wish him luck in his current distilling operations. But if asked about the term "pioneer", David's operations would not have come to mind.

Oh wait.......High West......."pioneer"......maybe there is a tie-in.

Randy

[Josh]

Well, it's John's award to give out, so he can define the term "pioneer" any way he wants to. But I don't think what David Perkins is doing meets even a broad definition of "pioneer". To wit

1. Blending whiskies has long been practiced in the US both prior and following Prohibition. I agree that we haven't seen much blending of straights and/or other whiskies in our lifetimes, but it was very common prior to the '50's. By definition a "pioneer" is the first (or amongst the first) to do things in any enterprise/endeavor/etc. David has "resurrected" the practice of blending, not created it.

2. "Pioneers" generally "blaze new trails", "develop new methods", etc that others may ultimately use to their betterment. What David (and others like him) have done is to take advantage of a very limited supply of surplus stocks of whiskey and got them to the market. Enterprising.....absolutely.....pioneering.....no.

I have enjoyed David's products in the past and wish him luck in his current distilling operations. But if asked about the term "pioneer", David's operations would not have come to mind.

Oh wait.......High West......."pioneer"......maybe there is a tie-in.

Randy

[p_elliott]

[quote name=macdeffe;235566

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

Steffen

Steffen

I hate to see you holding back like this why don't you tell us how you really feel. :slappin:

Paul

[nor02lei]

As to being a pioneer, who else is making high quality blends of straight American whiskey from different distillery? No one that I know of. David practically created this category in American whiskey.

quote]

I have seen several old-timers in auctions that are blends of straight ryes. I have bought 1 or 2 miniatures. I did find one empty bottle and it say Melrose blended straight rye whiskies, 6 years old and it seem to have been bottled 1947. Thereby it’s not anything new, but rather taking up something that has been asleep for a long time. Making whiskey from oatmeal that many micro distilleries are making is another example of the same. A dammed good thing if you ask me.

Leif

[nor02lei]

I do agree partly with both sides. I don’t doubt that many members here cold do as good or better blends with the same material. However you have to get this material and do it in a commercial level. None of the big American blending firms (many of them members here) have got assess to this much different ryes as it seems to me and made blends of them. David did do that so that’s the thing that makes him a pioneer as I see it.

Leif

[trumpstylz]

Im still not sure they necessarily deserved pioneer of the year. But, that being said, I feel that of all the small operations going on right now (notice I didn't use the word "distillery"), they seem to be getting the best results.

Just my humble opinion (I don't claim to be anywhere near the expert others on here seem to be).

Also- I kind of like all the controversy that this award has stirred up.

[kickert]

What High West is doing doesn't bother me, but it is hardly pioneering.

[Josh]

Also- I kind of like all the controversy that this award has stirred up.

I get the feeling that Malt Advocate does too.:grin:

[sailor22]

All you grumpy grouches are missing some good juice if you pass on HW products because of some PR flacks over enthusiasm awhile ago.

Without his determined enthusiasm most that tasty stuff he bottles would be flavoring some milktoast Canadian whiskey and I never would have had the opportunity to taste it.

I have always found David to be a straight up honest and willing to answer any question I asked.

Congrats on the award David.

[Rughi]

The person who puts the good whiskey into a bottle that I can buy gets my vote. High West has been doing a great job of doing exactly that.

High West is a pioneer for the same reason that Van Winkle and KBD are: they get the great whiskey out of hidden corners of warehouses and away from mediocre vattings to let us have taste experiences the stodgy old marketing didn't think anyone would or even should want.

The distilleries are starting to catch up, first with timid, limited releases (BTAC, Parker's) that are now in full bloom and soon perhaps whole product lines (Four Roses Private Selection) to do battle with the tiny producers who are leading the way.

That is why High West is a pioneer.

[smokinjoe]

The person who puts the good whiskey into a bottle that I can buy gets my vote. High West has been doing a great job of doing exactly that.

High West is a pioneer for the same reason that Van Winkle and KBD are: they get the great whiskey out of hidden corners of warehouses and away from mediocre vattings to let us have taste experiences the stodgy old marketing didn't think anyone would or even should want.

The distilleries are starting to catch up, first with timid, limited releases (BTAC, Parker's) that are now in full bloom and soon perhaps whole product lines (Four Roses Private Selection) to do battle with the tiny producers who are leading the way.

That is why High West is a pioneer.

But, Roger, if as you say "High West is a pioneer for the same reason that Van Winkle and KBD are"...doesn't that run counter to the idea of "pioneer"? Particulary, since both, (and as you rightly include BT's BTAC) were around years before HW even existed?

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced...No way. I just don't see anything "pioneering" about what High West does. But, it ain't my award to give. But...BUT....my opinion and 99 cents will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.

[ErichPryde]

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.

[Josh]

I buy and enjoy HW products and bear no ill will toward David Perkins. But what Perkins is doing is no different than what Parker & Craig Beam do or Jimmy Russell does. They all take whiskeys of different ages from the same distillery and blend them together to produce a yummy product. I don't see the difference, really. OK, so Perkins also blended a bourbon and a rye together to make a yummy product. That's something. But again, I don't think that qualfies him as a pioneer.

What I don't understand is why so many people jump to his defense when the least bit of skeptism is shot his way. It's almost as bad as the Justin Bieber fans jumping on Esperanza Spaulding a couple weeks ago.

[kickert]

Josh, I think you are right on.

The best analogy is probably what is going on at Four Rose every day. 10 recipes, and countless phenomenal products. The folks there have the ability to make good whiskey AND the ability to blend across diverse offerings to create stunning whiskeys.

[Halifax]

Is this any different from Austin, Nichols. Didn't they source their bourbon before buying a distillery? Seems like if you enjoy the product... then why the fuss. It's just money. If you like it... Buy it. Who gives a shit that someone else thinks your pissing your money away?

[kickert]

Is this any different from Austin, Nichols. Didn't they source their bourbon before buying a distillery? Seems like if you enjoy the product... then why the fuss. It's just money. If you like it... Buy it. Who gives a shit that someone else thinks your pissing your money away?

[Halifax]

I haven't heard anyone critique the actual products being produced by HW... far from it actually... I just think most of us disagree what is going on there is pioneering in anyway.

[ErichPryde]

What I don't understand is why so many people jump to his defense when the least bit of skeptism is shot his way. It's almost as bad as the Justin Bieber fans jumping on Esperanza Spaulding a couple weeks ago.

[kickert]

Skepticism is fine.... But do you think Chuck's posts both here and on his blog are the least bit of skepticism?

Ahh.... Chuck is crotchety... we all know that.

[cowdery]

Since ErichPriyde wants to put such a fine point on it, here is what happened way back when.

When I made my first posts about High West, prompted by some inquiry I received about "this new rye from Utah," the only information I could find about them was in articles in Utah lifestyle publications, all of which either stated or strongly implied that the whiskey was made in Utah. Though I don't recall if I ever found the actual press release, the pieces were all obviously based on one.

I posted, pointing out that a brand new distillery in Utah couldn't have made a 16-year-old rye, and that this sounded like Templeton, which was also in my sights for the same thing. High West had a URL but it linked to the host's "Under Construction" page. A few days later the first, single-page web site for High West appeared and acknowledged that they had sourced this whiskey to sell, you know, until their own whiskey was ready. I acknowledged the web site's appearance and issued a correction.

At that point I was under attack from Templeton's sock puppets. Soon Perkins and his sock puppets joined in. It was all very defensive and wasn't I just a meany, and a shill for Big Whiskey, and all that.

The whole Master Blender thing came much later.

I have since had several pleasant conversations with both David Perkins and Scott Bush but that's how it began. So if that's backing off big time, fine.

And I am like Esperanza Spaulding in so many ways.

[ErichPryde]

Put such a fine point on it?

I wasn't around when Perkins first started selling his product, so I don't know what was claimed. Maybe he did try to pull one over everybody's eyes and sell a 16 year old whiskey as something he made himself. Maybe the first run of labels were different than the current ones. Maybe when Perkins said that you didn't try very hard to track him down he was lying.

Maybe. but since then he's been very, very transparent with his information. Significantly more transparent than many of the rectifiers out there.

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.

Because the whiskey isn't good, or because he didn't make it himself? Because it's too expensive? California costco has Rendevous available for under 40 bucks. Is that too much to pay for that type of thing?

I guess with your logic we should also feel sorry for all of the people buying PVW, man are they getting ripped off. And after the Van Winkles sold the distillery, all the stuff they were bottling then (including some late runs of Very Old Fitzgerald), well those must have been garbage too, right?

Your posts in this thread alone make it very clear what you think of Perkins and High West. You've got a lot of transparency from Perkins now... is the potemkin horse dead?

[cowdery]

Your posts in this thread alone make it very clear what you think of Perkins and High West.

Agreed.

You've got a lot of transparency from Perkins now... is the potemkin horse dead?

You're beating it too, my man. I'm the one saying, "this is just me, I get where y'all are coming from."

[Josh]

Skepticism is fine.... But do you think Chuck's posts both here and on his blog are the least bit of skepticism?

I'm not talking about Chuck's posts, I'm talking about when I or others say "I like HW stuff but I don't think they're that innovative" or "I like HW stuff but you can't compare them to Compass Box b/c the Scotch world is totally different" or something mild like that and I get a bunch of people jumping down my throat.

[wadewood]

John Hansell started out this award by saying it was going to be controversial. It is his award so he can give to anyone he wants. However, we are free to bash him on his blog and these boards. I don't think David Perkins is a "Pioneer" and thought this was a terrible choice. I know John reads this board, I called him a sell out on his blog for this selection - which was just plain mean - John - sorry for that, but hey still think you made a dumb decision on this award.