Giving short shrift to blenders...

[mrviognier]

Why is it that some Bourbon enthusiasts look down their noses at folks who blend and/or bottle whiskey that they've purchased from distilleries? There seems to be a consensus of 'if you didn't distill it, you're not legit', or that bottling something you didn't make is somehow less of an accomplishment, qualitatively speaking. Take, for example, the polarizing reaction to David Perkins of High West getting the “Innovator of the Year†award from Malt Advocate. Many purists derided Dave’s award by saying, ‘He didn’t make the spirit, he just blended it’.

To my point of view both distillers and blenders practice very important crafts. And, in my experience, it takes a whole lot more talent to take a multitude of barrels - some of varying mashbills, ages and characteristics- and make a compelling, layered, nuanced bottle of whiskey. Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that there's no art to distillation. There certainly is; however, if forced to come down on which of the two is more important, I'll choose the blender.

In the wine industry there is a whole category of producers known as negociants. They neither grow the grapes nor process them into wine. They purchased finished wines from wineries, and (most often) blend them with wines purchased from other producers to craft a finished product. And some of those products are damn good. The general consensus in the wine trade is that negociants aren’t as ‘good’ as a winemaker…and I’d agree with that sentiment on the whole. I’m not taking away anything from their talent to blend a complex wine, it’s just that – when it comes to wine – the grower and winemaker are every bit as important in the finished product.

With selling whiskey you do need to have a good distillate base…but the maturation and blending of the product is really where the rubber meets the road. You can make the finest white dog in the world, but it pales in comparison to a well-crafted Bourbon. If you don’t know how to blend – what to add, what not, and in what proportions – then you’re toast.

I make this observation not to piss any of you off, it’s really to get some honest feedback as to why some here think that folks who purchase barrels from distilleries and then bottle under their own label are not (or somehow less than) ‘real’. I’d welcome your input…thanks!

[callmeox]

To me it is like the difference between a singer/songwriter and an "artist" who takes the finished musical product of another and remixes it and calls it their own.

Weird Al Yankovic has made a career of taking popular songs, penning brilliant parodies and selling boatloads of albums. Nobody that I know looks at him as a serious musician.

Successful rectifiers are the Al Yankovic's of the spirits world. At least with Al, we know 100% of the time where he sourced his blending stock.

[BFerguson]

Single barrel, Small batch, multi-thousand gallon batch blending to achieve the "company profile"..........as long as what is coming out of the bottle into my glass is fine tasting to my taste, I'm happy.

No doubt, it takes real skill and dedication to master the craft of distillation, but equal skill is needed to take multiple taste profiles, noses, barrels, years, etc..... .and combine them into something greeter than the sum of their parts.

Not that I drink much of the other stuff that comes in from across the pond, but the scotch industry has some very talented folks in the blending business, The guy from Compass Box, whose name escapes me at the moment, comes to mind.

Not to mention our own members who have come up with some great "blending" recipes of their own.

B

[mrviognier]

Knowing where the base distillate was sourced from is a completely different issue (and, for the record, I'm all for transparency).

And while I'm not a fan of Weird Al, it does take a serious musician to do what he did/does. If you follow that line, you'd have to say that Itzak Perlman isn't a serious musician...after all, he didn't write that Tchaikovsky piece.

[MarkEdwards]

To me it is like the difference between a singer/songwriter and an "artist" who takes the finished musical product of another and remixes it and calls it their own.

Weird Al Yankovic has made a career of taking popular songs, penning brilliant parodies and selling boatloads of albums. Nobody that I know looks at him as a serious musician.

Successful rectifiers are the Al Yankovic's of the spirits world. At least with Al, we know 100% of the time where he sourced his blending stock.

Okay, now, wait a cotton-pickin' minute.

Weird Al and his band have got boatloads of musical talent just on the basis of the sheer range of music they are able to play, imitate and parody. Not to mention the amount of non-parodied, original music he releases on each album.

Not only is Weird Al, and each member of his band, a serious musician, but they are all damn fine musicians. :smiley_acbt:

[MarkEdwards]

Not only is Weird Al, and each member of his band, a serious musician, but they are all damn fine musicians. :smiley_acbt:

Also, where else can you find the Rolling Stones done polka style?

[callmeox]

Knowing where the base distillate was sourced from is a completely different issue (and, for the record, I'm all for transparency).

And while I'm not a fan of Weird Al, it does take a serious musician to do what he did/does. If you follow that line, you'd have to say that Itzak Perlman isn't a serious musician...after all, he didn't write that Tchaikovsky piece.

I think that Weird Al would be very happy to be compared to Itzhak Perlman, but strawmen aside...

When has Itzhak Perlman recorded a Tchaikovsky piece and sold it without crediting the composer? Typically, the composer gets top billing with classical artists.

It's not the perfect analogy, but I remain unswayed. Those who take the finished product of others and modify it to sell as their own creation are many levels below craftsmen who create from end to end.

(all of this is IMO of course)

Now, when does this guy come out?

:deadhorse:

[mrviognier]

But - like callmeox - you're missing the point. I'm not talking about those who have issues who rectify and are reluctant to discuss where the product was distilled...or, worse, those who make up some cock-n-bull story about the origins of the whiskey. And, yes, those that can do BOTH are truly talented.

I'm wondering why folks feel that those who blend and don't distill lack real talent.

[mrviognier]

Also, where else can you find the Rolling Stones done polka style?

Hmmm. Brave Combo comes to mind. :grin:

[Josh]

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum, my nauseum anyway. But here I go again...

Speaking for myself, and I am unanimous in this, I have no problem with those who mix and marry stuff they bought elsewhere. I took issue with Perkins being called a pioneer b/c I don't think what he does is pioneering, not b/c I think there's no skill involved. Yes, that's a double negative.

What annoys me is when a company claims or implies (either on the bottle or elsewhere) that they distilled a whiskey when they didn't. This includes putting the name "Distillers" or "Distillery" in the company name when no distilling is going on. Or implying that the product was made somewhere it wasn't.

[callmeox]

Also, where else can you find the Rolling Stones done polka style?

I think this is a supply/demand question, no?

:grin:

[White Dog]

For me, it's all in the honesty in labeling and presentation. As soon as I smell bullshit, it bugs me.

I've yet to see a secondary bottler be as honest and transparent as a Duncan Taylor or Gordon MacPhail. Both of those negociants are fine by me.

With Templeton you have outright lies. And while I don't have as much of an issue with Perkins, and indeed I enjoy much of his stuff, why not state where those distillates came from on the back label? He's stated it on this site, so why not on the label as any honest Scotch bottler would do?

You always here the claim, "If I told you, I would lose the contract." Really?!? I would think that LDI and HH have other things to worry about.

[mosugoji64]

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum, my nauseum anyway. But here I go again...

Speaking for myself, and I am unanimous in this, I have no problem with those who mix and marry stuff they bought elsewhere. I took issue with Perkins being called a pioneer b/c I don't think what he does is pioneering, not b/c I think there's no skill involved. Yes, that's a double negative.

What annoys me is when a company claims or implies (either on the bottle or elsewhere) that they distilled a whiskey when they didn't. This includes putting the name "Distillers" or "Distillery" in the company name when no distilling is going on. Or implying that the product was made somewhere it wasn't.

Good points, Josh, and I totally agree. A case in point is the W.H. Harrison bottlings. I have no problem with the company buying some product to come up with their own unique blend and selling it. But when they start implying or stating that they distilled the juice, they're going too far.

I like knowing where the whiskey comes from just from a geekiness point of view. If the company doesn't want to tell me, fine, but don't imply that it comes from somewhere it doesn't.

And back to the original point - I think blenders are definitely artists. As anyone who has tried a single-barrel version of any whiskey can attest, the consistency achieved by the master distillers/blenders in any product line is quite an achievement and the work of someone who knows what they're doing.

[MarkEdwards]

What annoys me is when a company claims or implies (either on the bottle or elsewhere) that they distilled a whiskey when they didn't. This includes putting the name "Distillers" or "Distillery" in the company name when no distilling is going on. Or implying that the product was made somewhere it wasn't.

This pretty much falls under the heading of outright lying as a marketing ploy. Personally, whenever I catch a company outright lying to me, I try to never do business with them again.

[DeanSheen]

As anyone who has tried a single-barrel version of any whiskey can attest, the consistency achieved by the master distillers/blenders in any product line is quite an achievement

I do love me some single barrel blends! Yum!

[sailor22]

I'm also surprised blenders don't get more credit.

As an example, HH has bourbon aging at a number of different locations and for different amounts of time consequently coming out of the barrel with different taste characteristics. They "blend" those flavors to get the profiles that match the label the juice is going to. The fact that they get a reasonably standardized product is quite an accomplishment. It's the blender that makes it happen. When they release an annual like Parkers Heritage it represents a different blend than anything previously sold and so far at least it has been excellent. Likewise a blending success but on a different scale. Granted they are using their own juice but the case could be made that not being able to include profiles from other houses and aging campuses only limits the possible recipes and consequently the product. That's where an independent may well have an advantage.

This pretty much falls under the heading of outright lying as a marketing ploy. Personally, whenever I catch a company outright lying to me, I try to never do business with them again.

On a recent tour of HH I noted that their movie states that Parker Beam personally tastes every barrel before it is used for one of their products to insure its quality. They went on to state and underline that they only use one (1) mash bill and the same yeast that they have been using forever...... and yet the latest PH10yr is a wheater. Clearly a couple of whoppers. I suppose all HH products are off limits then.

[mosugoji64]

I do love me some single barrel blends! Yum!

:slappin: :slappin:

Hey, it was late when I wrote that :grin: Anyway, if you sample the single-barrel version of any bourbon vs. the standard version, you'll see that there's usually a huge difference. The fact that the distillers can blend the varied flavors of those single barrels and come up with consistent flavor profiles for their product lines is amazing and a testament to their talents.

[AaronWF]

I love High West's products, they're simply delicious. I think that the lying companies can have a tendency to give a bad rep to all bottlers who don't make their own product simply because many many people get their information from headlines rather than more revealing, nuanced conversations.

It doesn't take any glory away from a bottler/blender to hold a soil-to-bottle producer of a great product in higher esteem (not that there are many if any whiskey makers who grow their own grain). There's a romance involved in the alchemy of turning grains into spirit that is more emphasized when the person who sells you the bottle is the same person who grew the grain, ground it, distilled it, set it in a barrel and pulled it out when it was ready. Producers who get closer to that order of things get closer to the romance.

Again, I don't think it takes anything away from a brilliant blender to say this.

[craigthom]

But - like callmeox - you're missing the point. I'm not talking about those who have issues who rectify and are reluctant to discuss where the product was distilled...or, worse, those who make up some cock-n-bull story about the origins of the whiskey. And, yes, those that can do BOTH are truly talented.

I'm wondering why folks feel that those who blend and don't distill lack real talent.

[Josh]

On a recent tour of HH I noted that their movie states that Parker Beam personally tastes every barrel before it is used for one of their products to insure its quality. They went on to state and underline that they only use one (1) mash bill and the same yeast that they have been using forever...... and yet the latest PH10yr is a wheater. Clearly a couple of whoppers. I suppose all HH products are off limits then.

[birdman1099]

There's a difference between lying and just being wrong. I suspect the latter was the case.

[kickert]

Speaking for myself, and I am unanimous in this, I have no problem with those who mix and marry stuff they bought elsewhere. I took issue with Perkins being called a pioneer b/c I don't think what he does is pioneering, not b/c I think there's no skill involved. Yes, that's a double negative.

[Josh]

You believe Heaven Hill does not know that they have more than 1 mashbill??? and that they really do think that Parker tastes every single barrel????:skep:

I believe that the people giving the tour don't know that or misunderstand what they are told to say.

For example, I was at Grand Traverse Distillery yesterday and got a tour from the new guy. He knew the ins and outs of how they make their vodka, but he was completely confused about their whiskey program. He seemed to think that straight whiskey was different than bourbon and all other sorts of crazy stuff. The last tour we had was from one of the owners of the place. He was able to answer all the questions clearly and had a good handle on everything. The young guy had probably been told all the right information, he just got it all mixed up in his head. He wasn't lying, he was obviously just confused.

[cowdery]

I think there are several factors at work here.

(1) Historically in the United States, 'blended whiskey' is closely associated with rectified or compound whiskey. A century ago there was a war between distillers and dealers, and the distillers won. Winners write the history, so folks steeped in the American whiskey tradition tend to regard American blends as crap and worse. Yes, this is 'old news' but it explains the attitudes of many in the industry.

(2) There is no such stigma attached to blended scotch and 90% of the scotch sold worldwide is blended. Because blended scotch is such a big business, the traffic in bulk whiskey, including prestigious single malts, is enormous, making independent bottling a significant, respectable and mainstream business. Nothing like that marketplace condition exists in the U.S., so blenders are more of a sideshow.

(3) Most American blends are, in fact, crap or worse. I'm not talking about the drop-in-the-bucket coming from small boutique producers. I'm talking about the bottom shelf, plastic bottle handles of whiskey-flavored vodka bought by people who will drown it in soft drinks before they drown themselves with cheap alcohol.

(4) Most of the boutique producers have engaged in some level of deception, not a good way to gain respect for what is, in the U.S., a new and unfamiliar way to 'make' whiskey.

(5) Most people don't understand the 'blending' that goes on in the production of American straight whiskey and even talking about it risks sowing more confusion instead of clarity. For example, High West's Rendezvous Rye could have been called a straight rye, avoiding the blending issue altogether, had the source ryes not been made in two different states.

Blending is a great solution for micro-distillers wrestling with 'the whiskey problem,' as I wrote about here.

People who would like to see blenders get a better deal need to remember that 'respectable' blending is new and unfamiliar in the U.S. It's very much a work in progress, a moving target. Everybody should keep an open mind.

[birdman1099]

I believe that the people giving the tour don't know that or misunderstand what they are told to say.

For example, I was at Grand Traverse Distillery yesterday and got a tour from the new guy. He knew the ins and outs of how they make their vodka, but he was completely confused about their whiskey program. He seemed to think that straight whiskey was different than bourbon and all other sorts of crazy stuff. The last tour we had was from one of the owners of the place. He was able to answer all the questions clearly and had a good handle on everything. The young guy had probably been told all the right information, he just got it all mixed up in his head. He wasn't lying, he was obviously just confused.