Bruiting Bonded Bourbon

[Gillman]

I mentioned this incidentally in another thread, but thought I'd put it here, more upfront that is, for any views/discussion:

"Just a further thought, why shouldn't the next big thing in bourbon be bonded bourbon? The name is evocative, has history and status, the stuff would be just 4 years old, thus suitable for a market in which well-aged bourbon is at a premium. It seems a natural for line extensions or revivals of old brands".

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,

You should say the the bourbon would be "at least four years old" since it can be older if all from the same distillery, made during the same season. I have always said that "vintage" bourbon has been around a long time, but it was simply called "bonded bourbon".

Mike Veach

[Gillman]

Mike, good to hear from you.

I understand what you are saying, and suggested 4 years on the dot simply because in a time of shortage of aged stocks, I thought it would offer a way to producers to claim an advantage but without the need to age more than the statutory time.

Gary

[jburlowski]

I think Chuck had it right in another thread: most folks don't know what bonded means. It "is evocative, has history and status" only for a dying (literally) segment of the population that equates it with "the good stuff".

Us bourbon geeks understand, but are less likely to be impressed by any (otherwise undistinguished) 4 yo.

[Gillman]

Definitely a point of view, but one I don't share. The term bond has a unique set of associations, some historical, some not. In other industries, we hear of beers "triple-hopped" and most consumers have only a vague idea what that means. Bonded whiskey suggests so much more (IMO), even to those who don't know the history.

Gary

[squire]

I suppose I could do the research but would rather ask. If a producer printed the year of distillation couldn't it be labeled 'Vintage Bottled In Bond'?

[cowdery]

The term 'vintage' isn't controlled.

There are definitely people in the industry who think about making more of the term 'bond.' The fact that the new Taylor is BIB is an example of this. It sums up a set of attributes in a single word and is controlled, so people can't misuse it unlike terms such as 'small batch,' that mean essentially nothing.

Part of the issue now, I think, is that with a few exceptions bonds tend to be 'legacy' brands (the 'olds,' e.g., Old Grand-Dad) or cheap (Dant, Brown) or both.

[Robmo]

As a newbie I appreciate this thread. Anything that leads one to think about the terms that are used/not used on bottle labels helps consumers better understand the dizzying array of options faced when looking at the bourbon section of the liquor stores. (If lucky enough to be in a place with such options.)

Interesting to think about what marketers think about.

[craigthom]

In other industries, we hear of beers "triple-hopped" and most consumers have only a vague idea what that means.

Most beer drinkers don't even know what hops are or what they contribute to the taste and aroma of beer.

Several times when I was working in Milwaukee people told me that they could "smell the hops" when the wind was right from the Miller brewery.

I drove by there a lot, and I often smelled the wort cooking. I sometimes smelled it fermenting. I never, ever smelled hops. And why would I? It was Miller, and they were making Miller (or Pabst or something similar).

They just know beer is made from hops, because they keep hearing it in commercials.

[jinenjo]

Part of the issue now, I think, is that with a few exceptions bonds tend to be 'legacy' brands (the 'olds,' e.g., Old Grand-Dad) or cheap (Dant, Brown) or both.

Are you saying that if, say, Four Roses produced a bonded version (something I'd personally like to see) they'd be competing with some others "legacies" that would essentially equate this newer bond with cheap, outdated, uninteresting labels?

Hard to say if this could take off, but the romantic in me would like to see a revival of bonds--especially at non-premium prices. However, I can't think of some KY brands other than FR or BT that would excite me--HH already has McKenna, WT might need to be older than 4 yrs to get my attention, and Brown Forman does little for me.

[p_elliott]

As a newbie I appreciate this thread. Anything that leads one to think about the terms that are used/not used on bottle labels helps consumers better understand the dizzying array of options faced when looking at the bourbon section of the liquor stores. (If lucky enough to be in a place with such options.)

Interesting to think about what marketers think about.

[p_elliott]

Most beer drinkers don't even know what hops are or what they contribute to the taste and aroma of beer.

Several times when I was working in Milwaukee people told me that they could "smell the hops" when the wind was right from the Miller brewery.

I drove by there a lot, and I often smelled the wort cooking. I sometimes smelled it fermenting. I never, ever smelled hops. And why would I? It was Miller, and they were making Miller (or Pabst or something similar).

They just know beer is made from hops, because they keep hearing it in commercials.

[Gillman]

I think a Four Roses bond would be great. They could even do it from the ten whiskies currently used for regular Four Roses, provided all are produced in one season, i.e., just cut the proof off at 100.

Gary

[jburlowski]

Isn't the standard-issue FR single-barrel effectively BiB? IIRC, they (at least the US releases) have been 100 proof and, of course, 4yo or older.

[Gillman]

True John, but I would do it at 4 years old from the group of ten, or not much over. To be bonded, a certain consistency would be necessary, which wouldn't occur with single barrel bottlings even though they meet the test legally speaking.

Gary

[nivto]

True John, but I would do it at 4 years old from the group of ten, or not much over. To be bonded, a certain consistency would be necessary, which wouldn't occur with single barrel bottlings even though they meet the test legally speaking.

Gary

I agree. I'm speaking from memory because it's been a while since I've had an open bottle, but I think a bonded yellow label would be quite good.

[dbk]

To be bonded, a certain consistency would be necessary, which wouldn't occur with single barrel bottlings even though they meet the test legally speaking.

Vintage Single Barrel Bottled in Bond? I smell a new niche...

[Gillman]

A good point, as was John's. There are many ways to look at it from a branding standpoint.

Gary

[squire]

Which was my point though I was being half facetious.

[BMartin42]

Just a relative newcomer's take on the "bottled on bond" terminology. As a late thirty something I rely on the internet for a lot of information. I am sure that most people younger (and many more seasoned than I) do as well. When I bought my first BIB bottle (HM 10 Year) my thought was "What the hell does that mean?" I simply googled it and basically learned the term means nothing/nada/zilch in today's day and age for all practical purposes. As more and more younger generation drinkers come on board the Bourbon train, they will do the exact same thing and realize that in today's terms, BIB is just marketing and will treat it as such. The internet has allowed us to become much more savvy consumers than we were a decade ago, and the trend is just going to continue. Marketers better be aware of that. I think they are and this is why you are seeing more "experimental" type offerings and limited edition releases. Things that actually do seem to be "special" or limited are much more appealing than traditional terminolgy to the younger generation.

[dbk]

When I bought my first BIB bottle (HM 10 Year) my thought was "What the hell does that mean?" I simply googled it and basically learned the term means nothing/nada/zilch in today's day and age for all practical purposes.

[squire]

Yes, what dbk said.

[BMartin42]

I appreciate your points dbk. On the other hand, I still disagree with many of them. Of course, I am basing this only on a very limited sample size. My bourbon group consists of about 6-8 guys ranging in age from 60+ to 28. I am the median age in the group. Based on the discussions that take place within our sample I hold by the surface observation that the more seasoned among us prefer the traditional terminology (e.g. BIB) and view it as "the good stuff", while the younger in the group who look up what the term actually means realize that it is not necessarily "the good stuff" ans has no meaning as to the QUALITY. Maybe I should have made that more clear in my previous post. The youngest four in the group are much more excited about the limited & new releases (i.e. FR, EH Taylor, KCSBR, etc.), while the older three to four view those releases as "marketing gimmicks" and hold that their traditional brands are the best.

I do agree with you that historical references in marketing are vitally important to the industry. The younger in the group are excited about the historical references as they view it as something "different" to try, while the older poo poo those releases as "nothing really new" except the bottle and label.

Maybe our group is just a bunch of outliers. As a fellow researcher, I appreciate the dangers of drawing definitive conclusions based on extremely small and potentially biased sample sizes. It is also possible that we don't disagree as much as it seems, and it is simply my poor writing skills that make it seem that way.

[cowdery]

Maybe BMartin42 just hasn't expressed himself very well, but his posts are an almost perfect illustration of how the internet can be used to support complete ignorance as well as be a source for useful knowledge. Almost everything BMartin42 has 'learned' from the internet is wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean his conclusion is wrong -- BIB is not a very meaningful term to most consumers today, especially younger ones -- yet his statement of the 'facts' regarding both BIB and marketing in general are almost perfectly incorrect.

[squire]

Certainly the internet is a vast resource but just because the information is there doesn't make it correct. Research has always been a double edged sword used to prove or disprove.

For instance over 30 years ago a seniour partner handed a young associate (me) a piece of paper saying, "This is our position now go do the research to prove it".

A lot of youthful enthusiasms have dimmed over the years but one belief I held then I still hold now, which is when it comes to comparing whiskys the only thing that counts is whats in the bottle.