Pappy On Bottlers.

[cowdery]

With regard to our occasional conversations about bottlers and marketing companies that pretend to be distilleries, I came across this quote from Pappy Van Winkle.

"It is very important to see these four words on a bottle: 'Distilled and Bottled By.' Because any fool with a funnel can bottle whiskey!"

Before someone points out that today's Old Rip Van Winkle Distillery is not, in fact, a distillery, note that they always fully and prominently disclose where their whiskey is made and have never done otherwise.

[Bourbon Boiler]

I personally don't have a problem with the companies that use LDI or other distilleries to make their product. I have a problem with those that go to lengths to avoid the disclosure. I don't expect anyone to advertise it, but some really seem to make hiding this fact an art.

Good quote, thanks Chuck.

[cowdery]

I agree. Bottlers have value but they have to be what they are and not pretend to be something else.

[cas]

I personally don't have a problem with the companies that use LDI or other distilleries to make their product. I have a problem with those that go to lengths to avoid the disclosure. I don't expect anyone to advertise it, but some really seem to make hiding this fact an art.

Good quote, thanks Chuck.

[IronHead]

As long as you like what's coming out of the bottle is it really that huge of a deal who put it there and where they got it?

That statement, of course assumes that we are past the shady practices of old rectifiers...

[cas]

As long as you like what's coming out of the bottle is it really that huge of a deal who put it there and where they got it?

That statement, of course assumes that we are past the shady practices of old rectifiers...

[BradleyC]

note that they always fully and prominently disclose where their whiskey is made and have never done otherwise.

[Bourbon Boiler]

If it was superior product then perhaps not. But given the fact that the legitimate distillers/bottlers produce bourbon that is at least as good, I'm inclinded to support those who are the most forthcoming.

Craig

[BMartin42]

I just can't fault anyone for taking some leeway with advertising. I don't give a damn where it comes from. My only concern is taste vs. price. I am a strong subscriber to the "it's what's in the bottle that counts" camp. I couldn't care less where it is from as long as it tastes good. There are many whiskeys that I know exactly where they are made, the exact mash bill, etc. But I still wouldn't give you any of my hard earned $ because it tastes like crap. There are others that I have no idea who made it or mash bill but it is very yummy and the price is right so that is all that matters to me. God bless the free market. Choices are a great thing.

[macdeffe]

But if you like something it's nice to know where it's from, might give you an idea which bottle to buy next

The image of a bottler should be taken into concern as well. A few would bottle anything where as others are far more selective, thats my experience

It has a lot to do with what spirits each bottlers have access to as well

Steffen

[AaronWF]

For me, the bottom line is that the palate stretches far beyond the mouth. Taste is affected by knowledge, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. Sometimes ignorance is bliss and sometimes context adds depth. The more I know, the more completely I can judge. There's nothing cute about being coy in business nor in whiskey. It reveals the author as counting on the ignorance of their customers, and I don't appreciate it when I am assumed to be ignorant.

I'm no expert, and I still drink stuff whose origins I'm ignorant to, but I really don't need another name-brand to reference a history completely unrelated to the whiskey in the bottle other than the name.

[cowdery]

My philosophy is that a person who lies to me about something will lie to me about anything. That's why I avoid producers who I consider deceptive, regardless of how good their whiskey tastes. There is plenty of tasty whiskey available from people who tell me the truth, so I have no need to patronize (and thereby encourage) liars.

My understanding is that Pappy 20 and 23 are all SW, but any other Van Winkle might contain SW, Bernheim, or BT. I wouldn't expect them to be more specific than that because the proportions likely change from bottling to bottling. BT has always made wheated bourbon from time to time but began making it in earnest in 1999. BT (hence Van Winkle) only has the Bernheim stock obtained in 1999 and hasn't had access to it since.

So, Pappy 15 and Lot B are probably mostly Bernheim. Lot B, age stated at 12 years old, is probably going to be more and more BT. Old Rip 10 is probably all or mostly BT now.

[rbtrost]

I believe in truth in advertising we need a few things in life to believe in. I also enjoy visiting places where the products I buy come from so I will stick with those for now.

[White Dog]

My philosophy is that a person who lies to me about something will lie to me about anything. That's why I avoid producers who I consider deceptive, regardless of how good their whiskey tastes. There is plenty of tasty whiskey available from people who tell me the truth, so I have no need to patronize (and thereby encourage) liars.

My understanding is that Pappy 20 and 23 are all SW, but any other Van Winkle might contain SW, Bernheim, or BT. I wouldn't expect them to be more specific than that because the proportions likely change from bottling to bottling. BT has always made wheated bourbon from time to time but began making it in earnest in 1999. BT (hence Van Winkle) only has the Bernheim stock obtained in 1999 and hasn't had access to it since.

So, Pappy 15 and Lot B are probably mostly Bernheim. Lot B, age stated at 12 years old, is probably going to be more and more BT. Old Rip 10 is probably all or mostly BT now.

:skep: :skep: :skep: :skep: :skep: :skep: :skep: :skep:

I love Van Winkle products, and I'm not trying to jump on their case, but if they truly, as you stated in your opening post, "always fully and prominently disclose where their whiskey is made," would you have to make the statement that "Pappy 15 and Lot B are probably mostly Bernheim."

"probably mostly?" If they were as upfront as you say in your first post, they would simply put it on their website, but they don't. Again, I'm not trying to jump on the Van Winkle's case, I'm just saying.

[White Dog]

I just can't fault anyone for taking some leeway with advertising. I don't give a damn where it comes from. My only concern is taste vs. price. I am a strong subscriber to the "it's what's in the bottle that counts" camp. I couldn't care less where it is from as long as it tastes good. There are many whiskeys that I know exactly where they are made, the exact mash bill, etc. But I still wouldn't give you any of my hard earned $ because it tastes like crap. There are others that I have no idea who made it or mash bill but it is very yummy and the price is right so that is all that matters to me. God bless the free market. Choices are a great thing.

So if you discover a secondary or tertiary bottler's product and fall in love with it, you have absolutely no intellectual curiosity as to where it comes from?? :skep:

[cowdery]

:skep: :skep: :skep: :skep: :skep: :skep: :skep: :skep:

I love Van Winkle products, and I'm not trying to jump on their case, but if they truly, as you stated in your opening post, "always fully and prominently disclose where their whiskey is made," would you have to make the statement that "Pappy 15 and Lot B are probably mostly Bernheim."

"probably mostly?" If they were as upfront as you say in your first post, they would simply put it on their website, but they don't. Again, I'm not trying to jump on the Van Winkle's case, I'm just saying.

You miss my point. "Disclosure" means they disclose their sources and business practices, which they have done. It might be nice if they went a step further and labeled every bottle with the source of the whiskey in that bottle and, if from multiple sources, the percentage from each, but that would pose practical problems and goes beyond mere 'disclosure.'

My point is that, yes, Van Winkle is a non-distiller producer, but they've never pretended to be otherwise.

[BMartin42]

So if you discover a secondary or tertiary bottler's product and fall in love with it, you have absolutely no intellectual curiosity as to where it comes from?? :skep:

Be as skeptical as you like. As long as I enjoy the whiskey and personally believe it is a fair price, then NO I really don't care where it comes from. I've never understood the fascination. When I have a great steak I don't track down the farm it came from to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. Same concept applies here. I'll go back for more as long as 1. It tastes good, 2. It is a fair price, and 3. It is consistent.

I understand the frustration at being "lied to" (i.e. Templeton). I likely wouldn't buy something that they made completely false claims such as that, but if they don't claim anything that is untrue and just don't "disclose" where their whiskey comes from, then meh I just don't care. If you do care, then good for you. Simply don't buy the product. It is the beauty of the free market. Although I wonder if you hold all manufacturers to the same standards? Do you know where your green beans were grown, processed, and canned? Do you know where your flour was milled & bagged? I don't see the difference. It's a consumable product.

[stevegoz]

Do you know where your green beans were grown, processed, and canned? Do you know where your flour was milled & bagged? I don't see the difference. It's a consumable product.

There's a pretty wide chasm between "stuff we consume" and a lifestyle product like bourbon. Though the good folks at flourenthusiast.net and greenbeanlovers.com might disagree.

[cowdery]

When I have a great steak I don't track down the farm it came from to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. Same concept applies here.

Right. Well, half right.

In that case, you'll go back to the same restaurant. It's the restaurant or butcher, not the farmer, in whom you have invested your trust. But what if you are made to think you are investing your trust in a distiller and that person turns out to be just a bottler. Same level of trust?

If a producer says, "I'm a bottler, not a distiller, and I can't or won't tell you who the distillers are, but my whiskey is very good and I'd like you to try it." That's great. Not a thing wrong with that. I might prefer to know where it's from but then it is just "intellectual curiosity," not a deal breaker.

Pappy's point, and my point, is not about knowing the source of the whiskey per se. It's about knowing that the entity in whom you have placed your trust deserves your trust.

[nivto]

Pappy's point, and my point, is not about knowing the source of the whiskey per se. It's about knowing that the entity in whom you have placed your trust deserves your trust.

Maybe the quote from Pappy was just taken out of context, but that doesn't seem to me like the point he was trying to make.

[sku]

Right. Well, half right.

In that case, you'll go back to the same restaurant. It's the restaurant or butcher, not the farmer, in whom you have invested your trust. But what if you are made to think you are investing your trust in a distiller and that person turns out to be just a bottler. Same level of trust?

If a producer says, "I'm a bottler, not a distiller, and I can't or won't tell you who the distillers are, but my whiskey is very good and I'd like you to try it." That's great. Not a thing wrong with that. I might prefer to know where it's from but then it is just "intellectual curiosity," not a deal breaker.

Pappy's point, and my point, is not about knowing the source of the whiskey per se. It's about knowing that the entity in whom you have placed your trust deserves your trust.

And actually, it's a growing trend for restaurants to list on the menu where they source their meat and produce from.

[nivto]

And actually, it's a growing trend for restaurants to list on the menu where they source their meat and produce from.

I do make it a point to support these restaurants. It's much more important to me to know who grew/raised the food on my plate then it is for me to know who produced the whiskey in the bottle. However, I do always appreciate disclosure on the part of the bottler and more often than not find the information to be very useful knowledge.

[cowdery]

I'm interpreting Pappy's quote. You're all free to do the same. In the context of his era he was responding to the same kinds of issues.

[White Dog]

Be as skeptical as you like. As long as I enjoy the whiskey and personally believe it is a fair price, then NO I really don't care where it comes from. I've never understood the fascination. When I have a great steak I don't track down the farm it came from to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. Same concept applies here. I'll go back for more as long as 1. It tastes good, 2. It is a fair price, and 3. It is consistent.

I understand the frustration at being "lied to" (i.e. Templeton). I likely wouldn't buy something that they made completely false claims such as that, but if they don't claim anything that is untrue and just don't "disclose" where their whiskey comes from, then meh I just don't care. If you do care, then good for you. Simply don't buy the product. It is the beauty of the free market. Although I wonder if you hold all manufacturers to the same standards? Do you know where your green beans were grown, processed, and canned? Do you know where your flour was milled & bagged? I don't see the difference. It's a consumable product.

[StraightBoston]

So if you discover a secondary or tertiary bottler's product and fall in love with it, you have absolutely no intellectual curiosity as to where it comes from?? :skep: