"Straight" vs. "Bonded"

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Ken, first of all please forgive me for not answering right away. You posted your message just about the same time I was writing an answer to Mike. I posted and went on to the next topic and never noticed that your message had slipped in. Once you leave a topic, all the signs disappear even if you didn't read all the messages. If Linda hadn't pointed it out I'd have never known.

Most of the discussion, and the references to the 110-proof version, can be found (not surprisingly) in the RYE forum. I've quoted a few edited messages here as samples. I should point out that the general gist of the discussion was that the 90-proof was excellent and maybe better than the higher proof, but there WAS indeed a higher proof originally released to the media.

In your message you said, "...If economics determined what we produce, we would not have developed our current 17,18, and 19 year old offerings. In addition, with a shelf price of under $40, obviously making a killing did not enter into the equation. We wanted to present the market with fine old whiskies that we knew the masses would not like, rather, we were simply catering to those who have a great love for whiskey."

I couldn't agree with you more. Those points are not wasted on those of us who love fine bourbon and who hold a deep respect for Buffalo Trace for doing that. And for others who recognize our interests. But your points are also in direct opposition to what you said about customers voting with their pocketbooks. Sazerac isn't taking a bath on these brands. Quite the contrary -- the entire line is sparkling with the amount of publicity they're generating. Nor is Buffalo Trace alone in this. Heaven Hill's Elijah Craig and Evan Williams Single Barrels are another example. Julian Van Winkle's wonderful 15-year-old and Even Kulsveen's Johnny Drum of the same age retail for even less. None of these fine folks are losing money by selling us the liquor we want.

While it may be true that pocketbook voters in America won't tolerate the sort of prices the Japanese must endure, if we're given a quality product for a reasonable price we'll buy it. As you pointed out to Linn, the difference in production cost between 90- and 100-proof bourbon is negligible; there's already more variation in retail price from store to store than that, so pocketbook voting can't be a factor there. And MY point was that, if the quality of the whiskey were really the same, 100-proof BONDED bourbon would be (slightly) more profitable, due to tax deferral, than non-BONDED. But note that I said "if the quality of the whiskey were really the same". I don't think the pocketbook-carrying public made the decision at all; I think accounts with entirely too much authority (or more likely CEOs with entirely too much investor-orientation) has made that decision for us, based on the principle that we'll still buy the product even it isn't the best the distillery is capable of producing.

In the case of Sazerac Rye (and the other two as well), I think the question of bonding is moot -- these were never bonded to begin with and their ownership history is far too compicated. So really the bonded vs non-bonded issue doesn't apply to them. I only brought it up to show that enthusiasts *DO* care about a few proof points difference and some of those who are paid to help shape consumer opinion are quite vocal about it.

I'm glad you took no offense; I certainly meant none -- especially to you. Looking forward to seeing you on Friday.

=John=

<font="courier new">

*******************************************************

Subject Re: Pleasant Surprise!

Posted by jvanwinkle

Posted on 11/6/99 12:14 PM

Lew,

I also tried the 18-year Rye. I found it close to my 13-year rye. Mashbill seems to be similar. It was over 100 proof as sampled, and I thought mine came off quite a bit smoother(of course I would)...

*******************************************************

Subject That 18 YO Rye from Buffalo Trace

Posted by LewBryson

Posted on 1/15/00 1:36 PM

More dirt on this fabulous whiskey; some good news, some not-so.

First, it will be out in the Spring, and labeled as SAZERAC RYE...

The good news: available nationwide, not just in KY.

The not-so-good news: They've decided to knock it back to 90 proof, instead of the 110 we sampled at WhiskyFest. I'm not a fiend for high proof whiskey, but when something is THAT SMOOTH and good at high proof, it does not seem smart to me to dilute it.

*******************************************************

Subject MA review of Sazerac Rye

Posted by Bushido

Posted on 4/14/00 07:16 AM

Lew and all,

As you can no doubt fathom, I am a little peeved about the whole marketing thing with the Sazerac Rye. Does anyone else feel that the publication of tasting notes for the Sazerac Rye in MA are just a tad misleading? Granted, I have absolutely no problem with the content of the review nor do I resent publication of tasting notes for whiskies which are not generally available to the public.

However, in this case we have an advert at the front of the magazine announcing the imminent arrival of the Sazerac Rye, in its sadly diluted form, and a review of a different whiskey (the full cask strength version) with the same name in the back...

*******************************************************

Subject Re: MA review of Sazerac Rye

Posted by Bushido

Posted on 4/19/00 08:30 AM

Not receiving a reply here, I went to the horse's mouth, so to speak. John [Hansell, of Malt Advocate Magazine] assured me it was a typo and the result of having samples (and reviews) of both the full strength and watered down versions in the office at the same time. The review in MA is for the watered down version soon to be in stores (in Kentucky).

*******************************************************

Subject Re: Sazerac Rye

Posted by Bushido

Posted on 11/10/00 05:58 AM

I tasted the "dilute" version which will be on sale to the public at WhiskyFest last week. It is, in a word, fan-freakin'-tastic.

*******************************************************

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Chuck when we look at the upper end of the market at non single barrel bottlings such as Woodford Reserve; Russell's Reserve, Knob Creek, and Very Special Old Fitzgerald how would making then Bottled In Bond make them any better than they already are?

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Linn, please excuse me for jumping in here (I know you're mainly looking for Chuck's response), but I think you've come up with at least one good example in Woodford Reserve and I don't want to let it slip by...

Woodford Reserve Distiller's Select, as you know, *can't* be sold Bottled-in-Bond because it was not made at the Labrot & Graham distillery. It may be (and certainly is) a very high-quality bourbon, but for BIB purposes it might just as well have been purchased from Heaven Hill's bulk stock. And, wonderful as it may be, when the copper pot-still, tiny-batch, hand-crafted version from L&G's own stills is bottled, only bottles filled with that one alone will be able to be Bottled-in-Bond. Of course, the more important part of the BIB thing isn't covered by this example, since all the versions we're talking about here are excellent. But you should note that, even though no one specifically claimed anything deceptive, for five years now less-informed customers than ourselves have been buying Distiller's Select bourbon which they believed was made at the Labrot & Graham distillery. And unless the new bourbon from Labrot & Graham is bonded, you really aren't going to know if your bottle contains only that product or maybe only 10% L&G and 90% Old Forester (and yes, I certainly HOPE I'm exaggerating for effect here).

I don't mean to sound like a preacher with this. I'm an appreciator of fine bourbon, and all these whiskeymakers produce fine bourbon. I feel there may a bit more deception practiced throughout the industry than is necessary, but I don't really hold that against anyone. I *DON'T*, however, see any particular need to pretend it doesn't happen.

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Thank you so much John for making my point more clear. Woodford Reserve does not meet the criteria to be "Bottled In Bond". So what. How would that make it any better?

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

"... Thank you so much John for making my point more clear. Woodford Reserve does not meet the criteria to be 'Bottled In Bond'. So what. How would that make it any better?"

Linn, I don't want to carry this further in the forum because I don't want to get people into a brawl over cheating and dishonesty and a bunch of stuff that really isn't all that important. That's why I'm sending this private.

You and I are talking about different things. I have no argument with you that being bonded doesn't make the whiskey any better. I never did disagree with you over that. What I mean is that being bonded requires a level of honesty that (frankly) most distillers would prefer to avoid today. Advertising Woodford Reserve as if it were made at Labrot & Graham when it isn't is not really "lying"; the ads never come right out and say it was made there. But the clear intention is to fool the customer into thinking he's buying one thing and then selling him something else. If you ordered a glass of Russell's Reserve and they brought you a glass of scotch and said "Here's your Russell's Reserve, sir", you'd be righteously pissed. Even if it was outstanding scotch.

I could give more examples. All the distilleries do it. You're smart and I know you know this is happening.

They trade product back and forth, and then put their own name on it and treat it as if there's no difference between MAKING it and OWNING it.

Some establish a reputation with an 8-year-old bourbon, identified with a big "8 Years" on the label, and then switch to a cheaper 6-year-old and change the label only slightly to "No. 8 Brand".

Some make a big deal of the fact that when this small batch of 18-year-old rye is gone there will be no more -- but neglect to mention that there is plenty of 17-year-old that will be 18 next year. And 16-year-old for the year after that, and so forth, just like any other product. In fact, that particular batch of 18-year-old was ONLY released to media and special contacts. The product didn't go on sale to the public for a year later, when the much larger 17-year-old had become 18. Check the dates on the postings.

Some talk about baking loaves of bread to find just the right yeast, when both the mash recipe and the yeast was given to them by another distillery -- twice, since they ruined it the first time.

Some, when they run out of the excellent rye-style bourbon they purchased from a defunct distillery's stock, simply begin bottling a 20-year-old version of their other, wheat-style bourbon without changing the label at all, and without any hint that the prizes and awards they tout were given to a completely different bourbon than what you'll find in the bottle you just forked over $75 bucks for. Not that the whiskey you get out of that bottle isn't outstanding -- it is -- but it isn't the bourbon you chose to spend your money on. And if you don't like wheaters, you might not like it at all.

The list could go on and on.

I'm really not condemning these people. It's just the sizzle. I feel better if they'll come clean when questioned directly, and some have, but I wouldn't expect them to do that in a public forum. That's why I don't want to push it there. Many (maybe even most) readers would not be able to enjoy a fine bourbon if they felt the distillery was less than perfectly honest. I don't really know why. We don't expect car salesmen or manufacturers to be that way. Nor stereo dealers, either (otherwise there'd be no need to replace that 1968 amplifier that was 100% accurate at every frequency from 20 to 22K). Maybe it's because bourbon is a food product, I dunno. As far as I'm concerned its just the sizzle. But I think pursuing it will only make people feel uncomfortable and defensive, and I don't want to do that.

For our own purposes, I agree with you that bonding bourbon doesn't make it any higher quality than unbonded. Will you agree with me that bonding bourbon does help to guarantee that you're really getting what you think you're buying?

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

[Creggor]

Hello, John. Thanks so much for your insight it's right to the point and probably very acurate.It has got me to wondering. Am I getting what I am paying for or getting something else.. Oh well, No need to loose sleep over something I have no control over. Until I decide to buy or not buy the product again. That I guess is how I can send my message to the distillers. I agree bonding make not make a product any better but as you mentioned it assures you are getting what your paying for. Creggor.

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Sure thing John I agree that bonding makes those things certain. You know exactly where the bourbon came from and where it was bottled. We agree that bonding dosen't make the bourbon any better. I've been playing the devil's advocate just for that very reason so the you Mike and Chuck would show logically that there is a reasonable amount of demand for BIB's and why.

Most of the bourbons that I drink would easily qualify, and those that don't could with small alterations met the requirements. Just don't ask me to pay more for it.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[cowdery]

"Better" is subjective. I'm talking about something objective. It doesn't necessarily make the whiskey better, much like single-barreling, but the "bond" designation provides assurance that what you are drinking is a pure expression of the distiller's art, not the blender's.

--Chuck Cowdery

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Just so! Now you're getting to the point! As I told John elsewhere in this thread I've been playing the devil's advocate on this issue hoping to get a logical explanation for why bonding is important to the consumer. Consumer awareness eventually will drive the market. Your three sentances have said more than the hundred already written.I've agreed with y'all all along and hope I haven't been too irritating.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[cowdery]

Linn,

Irritating maybe, but never too irritating.

--Chuck Cowdery

[jbutler]

Linn irritates the livin sh&% out of me, but I still love him ;-)

Cheers,

Jim Butler

Straightbourbon.com

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

I only do it to provoke thought. Like the grain of sand in an oyster that irritates it into producing a pearl, so do I likewise in helping produce the pearls of wisdom found here on this forum.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Linn, irritating as you can be at times, yours often ARE the pearls of wisdom around here.

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

[Ken Weber]

John,

Actually I agree with many of the points you are making here. We are not going to loose money on the Antique Collection, however, if Sazerac had shareholders, they would be sorely disappointed with the ROI on the entire line. The bottom line is that we wanted the Weller 19 to get good reviews and hope that the rest of the brand (Special Reserve, 107, Centennial) would benefit from a "halo effect". Certainly the 19 year old is the subjective best of the lot, but I think the other brands are outstanding in the niche they occupy. As for the 110 proof versions that were tasted at the Bourbon Festival, they were experimental. No one from Buffalo Trace should have said that they would be released at barrel proof. I have also checked with John Hansel and he has confirmed that the products he scored were in fact 90 proof. I now understand the confusion. If we gave him 110 proof and used the score for our 90 proof, that is tantamount to lying. I can understand your outrage. Also, as an FYI, for the next 3-5 years, our yearly production of 17, 18, and 19 year old whiskies will remain in short supply. Afterwards, the supply will increase as each year goes by.

As it pertains to bonded whiskey, your point is very well made. We made wheated whiskey for other distilleries long before we marketed any under one of our brand names. The Weller 19 could have been made by us or by UDV, I honestly don't know. We have long produced award winning bourbons for other people, however, we have decided that it is in our best interest to withdrawl from this arena and market those same bourbons under our own brand names.

Finally, the bonded issue. Bottles of BIB product are languishing on the shelves. In the 1980s, there was a move to lighter bourbons. While at Brown-Forman, I was acquainted with Frost 8/80. This clear bourbon was a tremendous flop, however, it was created because consumers were demanding lighter, lower calorie products. You and I both know that consumers can add water to barrel strength whiskey to make it whatever strength they want. The reality is that the majority of people want you to do it for them. This may be offensive to our fellow Bourbonians, since they do NOT follow the crowd.

I look forward to visiting with you and Linda this Friday. I also look forward to discussing in greater detail the many topics that have come up over the year. Too often it is difficult to fully explain one's ideas and positions via short notes on the board.

Ken

[cowdery]

While at Brown-Forman, I was acquainted with Frost 8/80.

When I was calling on Brown-Forman, you knew you were in trouble if the subject of Frost 8/80 was even raised. It usually meant they were going to compare what you were proposing with Frost, which meant it was not going to happen. I'm not sure when that product was sold, probably in the 60s (certainly before my time there), but its failure and the lessons learned from that experience continued to be part of the company's culture for a long time thereafter.

--Chuck Cowdery

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Hi Ken,

Actually, I think the Sazerac rye managed to slip out from under the covers quite awhile before the others did (it was being mentioned in publications nearly a year before the public release of all three). At that time, the writers spoke of it as a product to be released "sometime in the future". I don't think it was bottled yet; they may have been tasting samples directly from the barrel for all I know. Anyway, it wasn't I who was expressing "outrage"; I was only pointing out how passionately some members felt. Frankly, I feel everyone on the forum's missed the boat on the how WELL the three whiskey's were packaged for bourbon enthusiasts, especially new ones. Having a wheat bourbon, a rye bourbon, and a full rye, all in essentially identical packaging, all at similar (and advanced) age, all at the exact same reasonable price, and ALL AT THE SAME PROOF invites just the sort of comparisons a bourbonhead would WANT a "newbie" to make. A set of all three (isn't it cute that they all just happen to come in cases of three bottles?) makes an outstanding gift for someone starting out on the learning trail. Heck, maybe BT should package them up as a "right of passage" gift for twenty-one-year-olds.

By the way, I've recently come upon some examples that have, shall we say, lessened my conviction that Bottled-In-Bond is any kind of quality indicator. I decided to fill a small shelf with Heaven Hill bottlings. Heaven Hill makes some of the most outstanding bourbon available, but it bottles it as Evan Williams and Elijah Craig, and sells it to marketers who bottle in under many other names. For some reason, what it bottles under its own name is far below that quality. Your own company used to do the same thing, with just about all of your bourbons being far higher quality that regular Ancient Age. Beam does it, too. What is this, some kind of weird bourbon tradition? Anyway, for those outside of Kentucky who may not be familiar with them, there are about half a dozen different bottlings of Heaven Hill, three of which are 100-proof Bottled-in-Bond, and all of which are as close to awful as I can remember ever tasting. So now I'll agree that BIB doesn't necessarily mean good, and maybe the public perception is the result of that; but it still seems like that perception has been intentionally induced by the bourbonmakers.

We are very much looking forward to Friday.

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Ken,

You know this whole bottled in bond thing is to somehow enforce some modicum of honesty in the marketplace. It does not make the bourbon any better. It really does not make liers tell the truth. Those that would tell the largest lies do so with a donkey's tail at their backs. The bourbon is the bourbon is the bourbon. No mater how many lies are told or how honest the distiller may be * Blanton's* always tastes damn good! Tell all the lies you like, just don't change a thing! *But don't charge me for them*!!

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[Creggor]

Hello, John. I must agree with you on the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection. In a mbx to Ken Weber I told ken I had in my hands a bottle of his Hancock Presidents Reserve and but the bottle back on the shelf and took another bottle of the 19yr Weller back to Florida wwith me. Since back here I have had the opportunity to try all 3 of there Whiskeys and it was indeed a wonderfull treat if not a passage for me. I would love to see them in the future maybe try and market a git box with one of each in them. Since trying these I have placed additional orders for these items and look foward to future bottlings. There new Eagle Rare 10yr Single Barrel will also be in the arian wine bottle. Mine arrived here in Florida today and I will get them tomorrow. Hope you like yours. I look foward to reading about your visit to Buffalo Trace. Creggor

[broray]

According to what I was reading on the history of whiskey, from ecarta, your first statement was right. A blend of whiskeys from the same distillery and the same production time is considered legal. It makes sense when you think about it. It would be the same thing if you were cooking your own version of spaggetti and you blended your own spices, but it is still called spagetti and it your own version, produced at your own time and it is still called spagetti. I am a novice and really have no business tying to give advice. This is stricly an opinion and a comment. Forgive me of my lack of knowledge.

The Man from Missouri

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

I just thought that I'd bump this thread because it is pertinente to the Single Barrel Henry McKenna Bottled In Bond discussion.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[cowdery]

I just completed an article about bonds for Malt Advocate, which I guess will be published in April. It may clear up a few things.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://cowdery.home.netcom.com>--Chuck Cowdery</A>

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Good! I'm glad to hear it Chuck. The latest issue of Malt Advocate was a flat out disapointment. No Chuck Cowdery article!

The Regans have a regular column entitled 'American Spirit'. I have yet to read where they have actually written anything on an American whiskey in this space. Gary's latest foray into the absurdity of the teaspoon universe is amusing, but that's not an article on American whiskey.

I'm going to suggest to John Hansel that he would better serve mankind if that column belonged to you.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[cowdery]

Please don't hassle Hansell on my account.

Unfortunately, I suspect the overall audience for the magazine is probably 45% interested in scotch, 45% interested in beer and 10% interested in American Whiskey, so the fact that they cover it at all is to be commended.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://cowdery.home.netcom.com>--Chuck Cowdery</A>

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

No Chuck I intend to hassle Hansell because his magazine has largely been a waste of my money. This is information he needs to know. If anyone else has been disappointed in the Malt Advocate this is a good time to clue John Hansell in. For those of you that may be thinking about subscribing I recomend you hold off until the magazine improves.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

[Guest **DONOTDELETE**]

Here's a bump for DeWanzo!

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.