Deconstructing Black Maple Hill.

[cowdery]

And contrary to what some people have said, it is not fun to try to guess who made this and that. It is a pain in the ass, and that's why I don't respect companies that won't tell us who made their whiskey. I consider that insulting and I don't do business with people who insult me. That includes KBD. I don't enjoy the game. I wish everyone would refuse to buy anonymous whiskey so it will go away.

[callmeox]

I am spectical.

Think about this, bourbon has to age for years.

Hey I ain't saying, but I'm just saying.

And, as luck would have it, the special KBD mashbill matches the HH mashbill EXACTLY! :grin:

[squire]

Scott you beat me to it.

[squire]

Ray your post struck me as a refreshing breeze wafting through this thread. There is a lot to be said for simply following your own tastes and interests.

I don't patronize the high priced non producing distributors because I am getting a recycled whisky at a cost sometimes much larger than what the real producer provides on the same shelf.

I don't have a problem with a distributor buying and reselling whisky, within reason, just don't try to convince me it's made by gnomes under the supervision of elves in a special little hollow known of only by a few and I should feel privileged to even have an opportunity to sample this nectar.

[Josh]

And, as luck would have it, the special KBD mashbill matches the HH mashbill EXACTLY! :grin:

Scott you beat me to it.

I don't get it.:fish2: :fish2: :fish2:

[dbk]

Actually that memo is correct, or at least I logically assume.

CVI gets bottles from KBD.

KBD gets whiskey from HH.

Therefore CVI and HH are clueless about each other.

My point exactly, literally true yet deliberately misleading.

If this is "literally true," then am I to understand that the word "associated" in "Black Maple Hill and Heaven Hill have never been associated with one another" is supposed to be taken as "there is no direct link between Black Maple Hill and Heaven Hill (though there might be an indirect one via a third party)"?

If so, this does violence to the word "associated." When two things are associated, they are connected. "Connected" implies nothing direct. If A covaries with B because A and B are independently caused by C, they are still associated in any meaningful sense of the word. Pardon my naivety here, but surely even legal analysis wouldn't butcher the word "associated" beyond all recognition?!

[squire]

dbk I doubt the argument, at least on the facts thus far, would stand up under legal analysis.

[squire]

Josh I was going to post regarding HH using a 'special' mashbill exclusively for KBD as implausible. Even if true what would be the benefit unless KBD also has space set aside in specific areas of specific warehouses at HH to provide aging continuity. Buying existing whisky within defined profiles makes more sense.

[dbk]

This illustrates my contention that although companies will rarely tell an outright lie, they will twist themselves into pretzels to mislead you or, at least, avoid telling you the whole truth.

dbk I doubt the argument, at least on the facts thus far, would stand up under legal analysis.

Well, if that's true, then how is this anything other than an "outright lie"? Sorry if I'm being forceful on this point, but I think some are actually being too soft on these guys. If this is their claim, and there is not one jot of truth to it, then how is it not an outright lie to the consumer?

[craigthom]

Josh I was going to post regarding HH using a 'special' mashbill exclusively for KBD as implausible. Even if true what would be the benefit unless KBD also has space set aside in specific areas of specific warehouses at HH to provide aging continuity. Buying existing whisky within defined profiles makes more sense.

I'm pretty sure KDB has their own warehouses. You can see them from the Bourbon Heritage Center parking lot. I'm not claiming they are aging whiskey there, but they certainly could be.

EDIT: I can't see the warehouses via Google Streetview, but I think I can on this Google Map, in the lower right. I think those are whiskey warehouses, although they are considerably smaller than the Heaven Hill ones in the upper right.

Near the middle are the ruins of DSP-KY 31.

[craigthom]

Well, if that's true, then how is this anything other than an "outright lie"? Sorry if I'm being forceful on this point, but I think some are actually being too soft on these guys. If this is their claim, and there is not one jot of truth to it, then how is it not an outright lie to the consumer?

How can companies have "distillery" in their name without owning an operating still?

[squire]

And they certainly may be. I didn't bash Drew when he presented on this Board and I don't now. My point is a partial statement is only that and not very disclosive. If the Kulsveens are having whisky custom made and aging it themselves I should think that would increase, not take away, prestige to their line. It would be easy enough for them to add to the comment, they know where we are.

[squire]

Well, they do own a distillery, whisky used to be made there.

[callmeox]

I don't get it.:fish2: :fish2: :fish2:

The photo is a grain of salt.

Not doubting that Tim had a conversation with Drew, but I can't believe that that there's a special mashbill or yeast making its way into the barrels at KBR.

[craigthom]

KBR.

[squire]

On the facts thus far dbk, enough to raise questions but not enough to proclaim a lie.

[dbk]

That's fine only insofar as the logic follows, squire. If BMH uses no whiskey from Heaven Hill, then no lie was told. If BMI uses any whiskey from Heaven Hill, however, then an outright lie was indeed told. What I'm baffled by is the notion that there could be something in between these two possibilities. There either is—or there isn't—an association between BMH and HH.

[squire]

dbk I don't think there's anything in between, it is or it isn't. I just don't have the facts and those who have them are not sharing.

[dbk]

But this is my point (and after this, I'll drop it). Chuck's statement

that although companies will rarely tell an outright lie, they will twist themselves into pretzels to mislead you or, at least, avoid telling you the whole truth

[Josh]

Josh I was going to post regarding HH using a 'special' mashbill exclusively for KBD as implausible. Even if true what would be the benefit unless KBD also has space set aside in specific areas of specific warehouses at HH to provide aging continuity. Buying existing whisky within defined profiles makes more sense.

[White Dog]

Man was that an ugly thread. I was quite wrong in my very first post, as the current Vintage 17 is actually a wheater from pre-HH Bernheim, so would we still call that HH??

And yes, KBD does age in their warehouses, and will say so. (Awesome use of that creepy Google map.)

The BMH letter is just more of the same when it comes to the BS that is practiced by American secondary and tertiary bottlers.

[squire]

Josh I read all the posts made during my absence before I began posting again and my reference was to exchanges between Drew and myself when he first became active here. I have no problem with any of the NDP(s) and their business is, well, their business.

If they want me as a customer however it will take more than a pretty story to get me to pay top dollar. If their whisky is special tell me why, otherwise don't expect me to pay special prices.

[cowdery]

It should be noted that none of us know who made the BMH whiskey. No one here can say one way or another if it's Heaven Hill. Someone raised the point, plausible to me, that CVI has no idea who made their whiskey, all they know is they paid KBD some money and they got some bottles with whiskey in them.

The CVI memo, for such a short one, is ridiculous on so many levels. They make this seemingly blanket denial regarding Heaven Hill, making no mention of KBD, although anyone who can look up a COLA knows KBD is their bottler, and the relationship between KBD and Heaven Hill is well known, so to act like people are CRAZY with their WILD SPECULATION about BMH and HH is disingenuous or worse.

And yes, dbk, you're right of course. If the whiskey is HH and they know it, but they think they can conceal that by making a legalistic distinction, well, I think that's called a Clinton, and it doesn't fly with me either.

[T Comp]

... KBD is really small. They don't need a lot of whiskey. They might pick up a little bit here and a little bit there. They are, among other things, the buyer of last resort for barrels that some people would say are over-oaked. They find customers for that sort of thing. ...

And based on my totally subjective observations, in the Chicago area, they could use a few more customers. More of their product seems to be sitting behind the glass and not being bought than most of their competitors. There was a run on the older make Vintage 17, a while back, probably fueled by a favorable NY Times mention. Some of their lesser products, are the only ones I have ever seen of bourbon actually make it to the extreme bargain close out bin at Binny's. I still passed.

[B.B. Babington]

My palate must be way off. I picked up a bottle month or so ago and finally cracked it. No age statement. It says "limited edition" with pre-printed proof statement made to look like hand print and lots of other little bits to make it look like a hand bottled product. This screams marketing games to anyone that's been around whiskey for a while. Anywho... this bottle tastes more like a heavier Wild Turkey. I tried it back to back with WT and it has some similarities. At least today. A repeat visit may give different impressions. It doesn't taste like it has any age at all. It says "bourbon" so it's at least four. The age old is it worth it? Basic impression is it is way overpriced. I forget, but maybe paid about $45 but I compare it to $20-$25 material and there's some $10 stuff that could give it competition. But this is just the first visit and I am having a bad day.