Giving short shrift to blenders...

[cigarnv]

No, the tour guide did not day that... the Movie in the visitors center says that.... I believe someone in the know had a hand in approving the movie....

[cowdery]

I saw that movie Scott!!

At the end of the day all that matters is if you like the product. Few buyers really care about the nuances of advertising or even bother to read the labels.... forget the words and focus on what is in the glass....that is where the real truth is found.....

[cigarnv]

Would you eat meat that's not USDA inspected? Would you buy drugs that are not FDA approved? Would you buy electric appliances that are not UL certified? Would you have your teeth drilled by an unlicensed dentist? I know there is a libertarian principle that would answer all of those questions "yes," except perhaps UL because it is voluntary and not governmental, but that's what you're proposing.

[Josh]

If the movie before the tour said something incorrect, then it should be corrected whether it was an intentional mislead or lack of oversight. I hope you all brought that to the attention of your tour guide or the folks at the BHC.

[cowdery]

Just a bit different context here don't ya think Chuck... don't think the issue is inspection, certification or licensing.... you know better....

A difference in degree, perhaps, but not in kind. Rules are there to protect the consumer. Do you really want to consume something made by someone who has trouble following a few simple rules? I don't.

[cigarnv]

A difference in degree, perhaps, but not in kind. Rules are there to protect the consumer. Do you really want to consume something made by someone who has trouble following a few simple rules? I don't.

Chuck, I have to admit you have lost me here... but then again I am not the brightest guy around. I though we were talking about blending whiskey... not drugs, toasters, root canals, etc.

What rules are the blenders not following that would endanger us, the end consumers of blended spirits? Possibly I am missing something here Chuck but if the companies who blend whiskey were producing harmful products I would be concerned.... but I have no knowledge they are. Do you?

You seem to be suggesting the blenders of whiskey are breaking rules and putting consumers of their products at risk. This seems to be a bit far fetched?? Which whiskey sellers are putting us in danger??

[tmckenzie]

Yup... that is where I fall. Every major distillery produces AND blends. Now I love a good bourbon no matter who makes it or who blends it. I have no animosity for blenders. My beef came when a blender-only was called an innovator. Love the product... it takes talent... but people have been doing it for years.

Exactly what he said.

[cowdery]

Chuck, I have to admit you have lost me here... but then again I am not the brightest guy around. I though we were talking about blending whiskey... not drugs, toasters, root canals, etc.

What rules are the blenders not following that would endanger us, the end consumers of blended spirits? Possibly I am missing something here Chuck but if the companies who blend whiskey were producing harmful products I would be concerned.... but I have no knowledge they are. Do you?

You seem to be suggesting the blenders of whiskey are breaking rules and putting consumers of their products at risk. This seems to be a bit far fetched?? Which whiskey sellers are putting us in danger??

[cigarnv]

Let's go back to your original statement: "At the end of the day all that matters is if you like the product. Few buyers really care about the nuances of advertising or even bother to read the labels.... forget the words and focus on what is in the glass....that is where the real truth is found....."

Would that it were that simple. It's not. That's why there are rules and that's why the rules are good. In no way do the rules guarantee good whiskey, so in that sense you're right, but before something gets into my glass I want to know it is what it purports to be. And the history of this--why the rules were put in originally--was because people were selling harmful products.

[AaronWF]

Ok Chuck... help me out here...for about the third time what are the rules that are being broken by the companies who are blending whiskey and the harm that is being done to those who consume those products? Simple question, how about a simple answer.....

[cowdery]

Ok Chuck... help me out here...for about the third time what are the rules that are being broken by the companies who are blending whiskey and the harm that is being done to those who consume those products? Simple question, how about a simple answer.....

Enough with the tough guy crap, already. What did you mean by your original statement? Weren't you saying the rules don't matter? That the drinker's experience is all that matters? I never said contemporary blenders are breaking rules or harming people, just that we have the rules, and shouldn't disdain the rules, for that reason. You're playing straw man games here and I don't really care how much you bold and underline.

[cigarnv]

Chuck, my original statement was-

“At the end of the day all that matters is if you like the product. Few buyers really care about the nuances of advertising or even bother to read the labels.... forget the words and focus on what is in the glass....that is where the real truth is found.....â€

My statement suggests in no way that I would consume a harmful product… it clearly states I drink what I like. It says nothing of breaking rules… it says that I pay little heed to advertising claims or the marketing employed on labels. Clear and simple.

You decided to respond with-

“Would you eat meat that's not USDA inspected? Would you buy drugs that are not FDA approved? Would you buy electric appliances that are not UL certified? Would you have your teeth drilled by an unlicensed dentist? I know there is a libertarian principle that would answer all of those questions "yes," except perhaps UL because it is voluntary and not governmental, but that's what you're proposing.â€

Clearly your suggestion was that the blenders are doing something outside of the established rules… why else would you choose to make the statement above? Your follow up was-

“A difference in degree, perhaps, but not in kind. Rules are there to protect the consumer. Do you really want to consume something made by someone who has trouble following a few simple rules? I don't.â€

Again you suggest that the blenders are producing something that is harmful..something that I should think twice about consuming. Why would you make this statement?

Chuck, with all due respect you are playing games here. You know exactly what I meant with my original statement… why you even bothered to jump in and now are trying to back peddle on is beyond me.

[cowdery]

The bottom line for me is that you're trying to pick a fight and I'm not interested. I stand by my side of this dialogue.

[cigarnv]

Chuck, again with all due respect if anyone was attempting to create an issue it was you with your initial response to my post..that is clear. As for picking a fight I simply asked you to explain your position.... which I suspect is an explanation we will never receive

[craigthom]

Clearly your suggestion was that the blenders are doing something outside of the established rules… why else would you choose to make the statement above? Your follow up was-

Black text is hard for those of us using the default color scheme to read.

Chuck wrote nothing about what current blenders are doing.

You wrote that what's on the label isn't important. Chuck wrote that it is. That's it.

[mrviognier]

Ah...go away for a week and see what happens? Guess I'll stay in Paris and drink some Four Roses...:grin:

[snowrs]

I have been enjoying scotch as of late, and have come to appreciate what a really good blender can create. Compass Box is making sone truly deliciuos blends and I believe there is just as much talent in the blending as there is in the distilling, just in a different area.

[jfw]

I like to know as much as possible about what I am buying. I don't have a problem with people sourcing whiskey and doing something to it (i.e. Angel's Envy) or just reselling it. With AE, we know who sourced the whiskey and what they did with it afterwards. Sure, I'm curious about its exact history, but since it tastes great and I have confidence in who released it, I can get over it.

But, I don't write about whiskey and/or post public reviews for a living like Chuck, John H, etc. I can absolutely see why obfuscating the source and handling of the whiskey would drive them nuts when it seem so unecessary. I have the advantage of reading their information on the product and their tasting results before I make a decision on whether or not to buy it.

It's a lot like eating mystery meat out of an unlabeled can someone gives you and assures you it is good. It might taste good, but you still wonder who made it, how they made it, and where it came from .

Joe

[StraightNoChaser]

I have been enjoying scotch as of late, and have come to appreciate what a really good blender can create. Compass Box is making sone truly deliciuos blends and I believe there is just as much talent in the blending as there is in the distilling, just in a different area.

I really enjoyed the Spice Tree.

On another note, their ambassador Robin Robinson was extremely rude to a crowd of us at a tasting of CB whiskies :skep:

[smokinjoe]

I have been enjoying scotch as of late, and have come to appreciate what a really good blender can create. Compass Box is making sone truly deliciuos blends and I believe there is just as much talent in the blending as there is in the distilling, just in a different area.

Here's where I completely abandon this position. In my mind, just my mind, mind you.......I can't in any conceivable way possible, put "blenders" and distillers on the same level, talent-wise. No way. None. Zip.

BTW, it has been the quick comparison jump to Compass and scotch, that put a burr under my saddle during the whole "pioneering award" deal. But, that's for another thread....

[TomH]

I was kind of on the fence on this one until snowrs post about compass box kind of hit me right between the eyes (yes, I know several people have brought up CB, but for some reason - maybe the 4 pours of Ardbeg) it just kind of hit me tonight).

And hopefully not to put a burr in Joe's saddle (or get into the "pioneer" thing because that's a totally different issue), but I think I do come down on the side of the importance of blenders. I just realized that given the choice of a CB product vs a similarly priced Diageo product (where much of the CB whsky is sourced from), I would choose the Compass Box product.

This is not to take away from any master distiller, because much of their job is blending and they are indeed experts at it. Maintaining a brand profile from uniquely tasting single barrels definitely requires the blenders art. If they were not great blenders, how would they be regarded.

Tom

[Gillman]

It's also a fact that malt distillers change production techniques (e.g., malt types, equipment) over time; what they make may or may not be aged onsite (some "coastal" malt is tanked and trucked inland for aging far from the source); use different kinds of barrels for their minglings; and marry these varying productions from different years, to boot.

The Macallan 12 for example, in my opinion, is rather different than it was 20 years ago, lighter, not as rich and sweet, less sherried.

To know the source of something is a relative thing. Is it any different when we learned that some HH bourbon for a time was distilled at Beam? Even bourbon distilled and aged at one site changes profile quite frequently from one decade to the next.

I view the talents of distilling and blending as equal in complexity. We can add a third component to this, which is maturation. Distilling new make is one thing; aging it to a profile or variety of them is another; mingling, blending and vatting is the third. Each valid and with its own skill set.

Gary

[sailor22]

I view the talents of distilling and blending as equal in complexity. We can add a third component to this, which is maturation. Distilling new make is one thing; aging it to a profile or variety of them is another; mingling, blending and vatting is the third. Each valid and with its own skill set.

Very good point Gary. It brings us back to the first part of this thread. Clearly in most of todays marketing the aging and vatting get overlooked in favor of the distilling when they all have importance. I sense it is changing a bit among enthusiasts however.

[sutton]

Very good point Gary. It brings us back to the first part of this thread. Clearly in most of todays marketing the aging and vatting get overlooked in favor of the distilling when they all have importance. I sense it is changing a bit among enthusiasts however.

All good points - and I also believe it is a matter of perspective. In US winemaking, the winemaker (perhaps analogous to the distiller) is looked at more often as the "artist", whereas in Europe they are viewed as technicians, whose role is not to "screw up" what the winegrower/farmer worked all year to produce in the vineyard and with their specific terroir. The elevage (aging) of the wine in the cellar (warehouse) is also seen as a technical job where the ability to blend varietals to produce the profile in the final product (vatting/blending) as a much higher skill.

All are important variables in producing the final product - the question for any producer is how much of the process you wish to control directly or outsource to others. I don't think either model has a distinct advantage as long as whoever is doing each step are skilled in their craft and are following the specifications given by the producer.

As far as more accurate/more complete labeling, I'm in full agreement with others here - the only reason I can see that a blender/barrel selector might want to imply they have a distillery is that they believe in the mind of the consumer that somehow this implies higher quality in the mind of the consumer. Enthusiasts are always more educated that your average consumer - and I would think since many of these higher end products are targeted at least in part at these types of consumers, a producer would actually benefit from more complete disclosure.

For anyone who drinks wine, take a look at the back label of a bottle of Ridge Zinfandel and you'll see an example of disclosing of the process at its extreme - and I love to read it every vintage.

[Gillman]

I agree with Steve that things are changing in terms of the relative balance of the three factors, distilling, aging and mingling-vatting-blending. Part of this change is due to the influence of consumer writers (e.g. Chuck, John Hansell and his team, Paul Pacult) and of course boards like this one.

What strikes me is how the taste of some traditional bourbons - made (distilled) at one place for generations - isn't always superlative. Obviously the bourbon is produced to the legal standard, it (rarely) is bad. But fine-tuning the palate is something that seems a preoccupation more of recent years and not all distilleries share it. The distilleries which do respond by issuing better products, more special editions/limited/experimental releases, etc. This re-establishes the importance of those who taste and approve the final product for each brand, which in turn puts the focus on maturation, mingling and other elements which might have seemed lesser years ago. Not to forget other factors like single barrels, but this is part of the selection system which I'd put in the third category mentioned.

I must say I wish Beam would follow more in the trend. The small batch line has been around for a long time now. I don't find either much variation or real taste interest amongst it. There was the higher proof version of KC released recently, notable for its strength but not much else I'd say. The new (ri)1 was a step in the right direction, but not different enough from the other two ryes in the stable IMO. How about some really aged rye, something 10-15 years old?

I have to think with all the warehouses they use there must be some fantastic barrels out there. Special release 'em, show us your stuff. How about a 100 proof and/or single barrel Overholt 8 years old?

Gary