Bruiting Bonded Bourbon

[BMartin42]

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]

BMartin I do not consider your post in any way difficult it's just your perspective. After all, this sub forum is titled General Bourbon Discussion and that's why I'm here, to discuss.

[BMartin42]

Bonded whiskies undoubtedly still tend to be higher quality than your run of the mill whiskey release.

Thanks Squire. I know how things can be taken badly when you can't speak face-to-face. The internet has no inflection after all. I'm just trying to learn and am really enjoying this discussion.

That being said, the comment from dbk above is still what is confusing me. I see no evidence of this in my experience. A lot of today's BIB's tend to be bottom shelf in my experience. I am just not getting how it is CURRENTLY a mark of quality. I get that it was right after prohibition, but currently, I just don't see it. HELP! I'm confused I guess.

[dbk]

It is a PERSONAL opinion as well as with the other younger members in my group that BIB is not indicative of quality (e.g. the current Old Fitz BIB).

Fair enough, your personal opinion is perfectly valid, and despite the tone, nobody thinks you're wrong for expressing yourself. Nonetheless, your language belies a misunderstanding. You claim that "BIB is not indicative of quality" (emphasis mine), but then point to only one whiskey that fails your test. (Perhaps HM BIB does too, but you didn't pass judgment on this one.) "Indicative" means predictive, not a guarantee of quality. This is why I chose the word "tend" in my statement "Bonded whiskies undoubtedly still tend to be higher quality than your run of the mill whiskey release."

A lot of today's BIB's tend to be bottom shelf in my experience. I am just not getting how it is CURRENTLY a mark of quality. I get that it was right after prohibition, but currently, I just don't see it.

BIBs are at minimum four years, and many bottom shelf whiskeys are less. BIBs are minimum 100 proof, and many bottom shelf whiskeys are less. Many members like the BIBs they've had, like Rittenhouse BIB. If you're going to compare BIBs to any and all releases out there, then fine, there are plenty of better whiskeys than most BIBs. But there are also plenty worse. BIB simply raises the bar, and is therefore indicative. Is BIB status as indicative as it once was? Certainly not. Nonetheless, most BIBs are much better than the rest of the bottom shelf.

Can you explain exactly what information of mine is inaccurate or misleading? I ask simply because I am trying to learn.

Sure. Perhaps your most significant error is viewing the association between age and taste in your bourbon group as representative of whiskey drinkers at large. To be fair to you, you acknowledged this in a later post. The whiskey industry has tried very hard for many years to entice young drinkers, but they aren't joining the fold very quickly. When they do, they're usually interested in the stuff that gets you drunk, not the stuff that tastes good. And they're certainly not interested in doing their homework. They usually aren't interested in the good stuff until they get older (and their tastes change), and they usually can't afford the good stuff until then either. I'm in my early thirties, and I love "good" whiskey, but I'm an exception, and I know it.

Plenty of the "old guys" will be stuck in their ways and see BIB as a larger mark of quality than it currently deserves. In the same way, I hear one older consumer after another crowing about the glories of "the single malt," not knowing that there is no a priori reason why vatted ("blended") malt wouldn't be just as good. They just don't know what "single malt" actually means. While that ignorance might be typical in the whiskey world in general, the ones buying the top shelf stuff are typically more experienced and (at least slightly) wealthier: still the old guys, just not your old guys.

[BMartin42]

Nonetheless, most BIBs are much better than the rest of the bottom shelf.

No argument at all there. I didn't realize we were limiting the discussion to only bottom shelfers. As far as providing only one example, I could list several more that I have tried if you like: JW DANT BIB, HH BIB, JTS Brown, TW Samuels. All of those I have considered to be "not good" by my standards. Then again, I really only like bourbon neat at this point in my life. On the other hand there are BIB's that I do really enjoy(OGD, HM10). Like I said, I didn't realize the conversation was only bottom shelf. For just a couple of $s more there are many low shelf bourbons that are not BIB that I prefer to the list of BIBs that I do not care for. Just a few examples would Weller SR, OF 86, EW Black.

I'm in my early thirties, and I love "good" whiskey, but I'm an exception, and I know it.

I wonder about that statement. I wonder if there has been any recent research done as to what age people go from drinking to get drunk to drinking to enjoy? I am 38 and I guees I consider myself young for a bourbon drinker. While there are times I like to imbibe freely, even then I want to drink something that tastes good. I wonder if there is a significant difference between 25 & 35 in that regards? There may be more of us 30 somethings enjoying "good" whiskey than we realize. It seems like it has become much more popular recently.

[dbk]

No argument at all there. I didn't realize we were limiting the discussion to only bottom shelfers.

I wasn't limiting the discussion to bottom shelf releases per se, but I was responding to this:

A lot of today's BIB's tend to be bottom shelf in my experience.

Again, though, we are talking about BIB being predictive of quality. If you include the entire range of American whiskey available, and especially if you weight it by volume of production, BIB is absolutely an indication of quality. Not a guarantee, but an indication.

I wonder if there has been any recent research done as to what age people go from drinking to get drunk to drinking to enjoy? [...] There may be more of us 30 somethings enjoying "good" whiskey than we realize. It seems like it has become much more popular recently.

If the age distribution of this board and the other forums I'm involved with is any indication of interest in quality whiskey, then I would suggest that thirty-something is on the young end of the spectrum. The research is almost certainly being done by marketing firms on behalf of the big producers, and from what I understand (though I could be wrong), it is not the young'uns who are typically buying the premium and "special" releases.

[BMartin42]

I

Again, though, we are talking about BIB being predictive of quality. If you include the entire range of American whiskey available, and especially if you weight it by volume of production, BIB is absolutely an indication of quality. Not a guarantee, but an indication.

Could you explain this point more thoroughly. I am not following the volume of production argument. Including all american whiskeys means comparing the majority of BIB's to JBW, JD, etc. My understanding is that BIB volume is relatively very low. I am not understanding this argument.

I still fail to see how BIB is indicative of quality. Picture the newbie who walks into a liquor store and studies the bourbon section. Most bottles he sees that are labeled as BIB are on the bottom shelf (there are exceptions of course). If anything, to that person, I would think BIB would have a negative connotation. He would incorrectly think BIB generally means "the cheap stuff" on the bottom shelf. To the more informed consumer, BIB just means at least four years old and 100 proof. He knows that if it says straight bourbon and does not list an age, then it has to be at least four years old. Therefore I don't see how BIB would indicate quality to him either. Maybe I should just give up, because I am just not seeing how BIB trends towards/is predictive of/ or otherwise indicates quality at all.

[Brisko]

not to speak for dbk, but I think the point is that compared to American blended whiskies, other non-bourbons, non-straight bourbons, and under 4 y/o straight bourbons, BiB is a significant step up regardless of shelf position.

A subtler point, but one that strikes my interest, is hat BiB is a good snapshot of a distillery's abilities. Because it has to be all from one season, there's no mingling of older barrels to shore up an overall weak vatting. What you see is what you get.

[Gillman]

In my view, the main significance of bottled-in-bond is bottling at 100 proof. Most bourbon is bottled under. The four year guarantee is also one of quality since bourbon can be sold under that age and a number of brands today are.

What about as compared to a 6 year old bourbon at 90 proof, say? Well, some might view the extra years as an offset to the lower proof, but traditionally alcohol level was seen as important to quality, not just to the intoxicating factor, but the taste.

What about bourbons more than 100 proof and more than 4 years old? Well, these may well be superior to bonds, but perhaps not, perhaps the "single whiskey" taste is more pristine when not mingled from different years' production or different plants and when offered at exactly 100 proof. Or maybe not, but the customer is given a specific type, via the bond, to compare.

I invited the debate originally, not really to inquire about the relative quality of bonded whiskey, but just to wonder why the firms, who are always looking for a marketing angle, weren't cottoning faster to the bonded designation. Now I see (thanks Chuck for that) that the new Taylor is bonded, so things may be changing. But I do feel bonding still retains in fact a core of justification, quality if you will.

That said some good points were made in rebuttal, there is no bright line here...

Gary

[squire]

Thanks Gary, you saved me the time of posting though I doubt mine would have been as well expressed.

[Brisko]

Gary,

I remember once reading an article or maybe ad copy (probably from the 1950's) where a distillery big-wig (maybe the owner, even) explained why whiskey bottled higher proof was superior to lower proof product, in terms of flavor, even if you cut it with water to drink it.

It had to do with how the congeners interact with the water over time, I think... I wish I could find it again. I don't remember enough details to find it on the web.

Ring any bells?

[cowdery]

BMartin42,

I don't want to go chapter-and-verse with you because I think it was just an issue of expression and perception. What you said that set me off was: "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." (emphasis mine.) That is an incorrect statement on its face, but I now see that what you meant was that BIB isn't motivating for you nor, in your opinion, for your age cohort. Fair enough, though I would argue that perhaps you should reconsider.

Where I'm close but not exactly in agreement with dbk is that I have, from personal experience, found that BIB products -- especially in the low price segment -- are generally better than their non-BIB counterparts. I don't know that there is a clear reason for this, it just happens to be what I've experienced, so I feel very confident in grabbing a BIB even if it's one I haven't had before.

With the handful of premium and super-premium BIBs on the market, I don't think that advantage is necessarily there. Henry McKenna 10-year-old is single barrel so BIB doesn't really get you anything, other than age and proof, that single barrel doesn't get you already.

Where I think you and your friends should give some consideration to BIB is in the proof, which in my opinion is the ideal proof for American-style whiskey, and in the 'singularity' requirements which make BIB a 'single batch bourbon,' because while the barrel are typically mixed together, they will all always be from the same distiller, distillery and season, so it's not possible to fix the profile by adding, typically, some amount of older whiskey. In fact, with cheap standard bourbons it's common to use a little bit of older whiskey to mask the immaturity of the overall dump, which may be why cheap BIBs generally seem superior to cheap standard straights.

With BIB, as with single barrel, the distiller has to select the barrels carefully since what you can do to improve the profile after dumping is so limited. That makes it a good indication of the distillery's distilling and maturation, as opposed to its blending skill.

But it's perfectly legitimate for you to say, "there are things I look for in a bourbon, but BIB isn't one of them."

[cowdery]

Gary,

I remember once reading an article or maybe ad copy (probably from the 1950's) where a distillery big-wig (maybe the owner, even) explained why whiskey bottled higher proof was superior to lower proof product, in terms of flavor, even if you cut it with water to drink it.

It had to do with how the congeners interact with the water over time, I think... I wish I could find it again. I don't remember enough details to find it on the web.

Ring any bells?

That was a Pappy Van Winkle ad for Old Fitzgerald. The title was something like "is bottled in bond bourbon really too strong?" Some of what he says you need to take with a grain of salt.

[Brisko]

Thanks, Chuck. That's the one.

[BMartin42]

Very interesting discussion, and one that reiterates to me why I like this forum so much. No matter how many magazines, books, and blogs I read, there is always something to learn here.

[Gillman]

"Where I'm close but not exactly in agreement with dbk is that I have, from personal experience, found that BIB products -- especially in the low price segment -- are generally better than their non-BIB counterparts. I don't know that there is a clear reason for this, it just happens to be what I've experienced, so I feel very confident in grabbing a BIB even if it's one I haven't had before".

Key comments by Chuck.

Gary

P.S. Thx Squire for your comments.

[CaptainQ]

That was a Pappy Van Winkle ad for Old Fitzgerald. The title was something like "is bottled in bond bourbon really too strong?" Some of what he says you need to take with a grain of salt.

"I see no sense in shipping water all the way around the country." -Pappy Van Winkle

[squire]

Presupposes we have something to say but, to a degree, we do.

[dbk]

Well said, Chuck. I'm in complete agreement.

[cowdery]

Another thought is that an independent bottler is rarely going to go to the considerable trouble to produce a BIB so, again, that makes unfamiliar BIBs a pretty safe buy.

Back a couple of generations ago, when there were more distilleries, more BIB brands, more brands overall, and many more house brands and distributor brands, as well as more blended whiskeys, and just generally a lot of distractions for the whiskey customer, the words 'bonded' and 'bottled in bond' were words you could look for when you couldn't find your usual brands, or when you were trying to save a few bucks, or for some other reason had to make a selection from among a bunch of products you didn't really know. The words 'bonded' and 'bottled in bond' provided a minimum standard. At least you knew the whiskey would be full proof, at least four years in wood, and a straight whiskey of some kind, i.e., not a blend. It wasn't an assurance that the whiskey would be great -- nobody thought it was -- but it was a pretty good indication that it wouldn't be awful, and that's worth something. To some extent that hasn't changed, it's just that most people don't know about it and, depending on where you live, you may not even be able to find many bonds.

I also think the popularity of Rittenhouse Rye Bottled in Bond, which is much more popular than the 80° proof version, is introducing the term to a lot of people.

[jburlowski]

I also think the popularity of Rittenhouse Rye Bottled in Bond, which is much more popular than the 80° proof version, is introducing the term to a lot of people.

Without deprecating or disagreeing with the other things you've said, I think the Ritt BiB is more popular because it is a much better whiskey. Now, while we can disagree why it is a much better whiskey, I'm not convinced that the label "BiB" is a significant factor.

BTW, Ritt BiB, is my favorite rye. But, as you have mentioned, rye is still a very, very small category. So, it is hard to imagine that the BiB is a significant factor.

[dbk]

Without deprecating or disagreeing with the other things you've said, I think the Ritt BiB is more popular because it is a much better whiskey. Now, while we can disagree why it is a much better whiskey, I'm not convinced that the label "BiB" is a significant factor.

Is there any reason to believe that the difference between Rittenhouse BIB and Rittenhouse 80 is anything other than the higher proof, longer aging, and/or that more care was put in to making it a better batch given that it couldn't be rectified with older whiskey?

[cowdery]

Without deprecating or disagreeing with the other things you've said, I think the Ritt BiB is more popular because it is a much better whiskey. Now, while we can disagree why it is a much better whiskey, I'm not convinced that the label "BiB" is a significant factor.

BTW, Ritt BiB, is my favorite rye. But, as you have mentioned, rye is still a very, very small category. So, it is hard to imagine that the BiB is a significant factor.

Talk about a straw man argument! I said nothing remotely like that. What I said is that Rit BIB is very popular, much more popular than Rit 80, and the fact that it is a BIB is introducing a lot of new people to the term BIB. I never said or implied that it is successful because it is BIB, or really good (which it is) because it's BIB, which I wouldn't say because neither is the case.

I would never say either of those things because the real reason Rit BIB has become so popular is because I have been its tireless champion for the last five or six years. And what thanks do I get? I actually have to buy the stuff!

But what can happen as a result of this is that people who like Rit BIB and noticed the words 'bottled in bond' on the bottle might someday see those words on a different bottle and think "the last BIB I had was really good, maybe this will be really good too." That would not be a bad thing.

[Rughi]

...the real reason Rit BIB has become so popular is because I have been its tireless champion for the last five or six years. And what thanks do I get? I actually have to buy the stuff!

Jumping the Shark!

:slappin: :slappin: :slappin: :slappin: :slappin: :slappin: :slappin: :slappin:

[Robmo]

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... The internet has allowed us to become much more savvy consumers than we were a decade ago... 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.

BMartin 42, I'm in your same age bracket and might agree that BIB is to an extent "just marketing" although it actually does have a legal definition whereas--correct me if I'm wrong--terms like "small batch" and "premium" and ---oh, how I adore this one, "VIP"--can legally be used by anyone to mean anything. Ditto "quality" or "special reserve" or the ubiquitous "old". I saw on this board that Jim Beam is going to start saying that the black label bourbon is "triple aged" --also meaningless or confusing at best.

Most BIB products are not readily available in my area but I wish they were because of the history of that term. You try one those products and you know, to a certain extent, what those bonded whiskeys were like at the time when the term actually was--again correct me if I'm wrong-- one of the few quality indicators there were at the time. You get a history lesson in a bottle, and to me that has some charm worth seeking out.

OK, enough rambling here. I just wanted to chime in because although I'm close to your age I don't see things quite the same way. I don't know that age group is the sole determiner of how one thinks about whiskey or chooses a bottle off the liquor store shelf. On another note, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm attacking you personally. I just wanted to express a slightly different take on things.