All your Van Winkle questions answered

[Brisko]

I'm told there will be an official announcement in a month or so, leading me to believe it will be September, but maybe sooner.

I also learned a new term, but I won't say where: "COLA troller."

Note that's "troller," as in "to fish by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat," and not "troll," as in "an ogre who lives under a bridge."

Even that might be overstating it a bit. More like (in this case, anyway) "bored at work and looking at the recent COLAs out of idle curiosity."

[clingman71]

Are you a Van Winkle fan who is feeling put-out by facts you recently learned about the brand?

If so, please contact me by PM. I'd like to ask you a few questions for an article I'm doing.

[cowdery]

What if you're put out by the work that buying it has become? What was once an hour drive to CnB with VW on the shelf at reasonable prices has become a time consuming process to acquire one or two bottles at 2-3X the cost. It would be easier to stop if it weren't so damn tasty.

[PaulO]

Did you buy it at Binny's? If so, it was likely a single-barrel store pick of the W12. They had one a few years back that was a-maz-ing.

Could easily explain the difference if that was your source.

[clingman71]

I'm happy to hear about any dissatisfaction anyone has with the Van Winkles themselves or the Van Winkle brand. Either PM me or post it here.

[BarrelChar]

Chuck wrote half an article.

Where is the interview with BT's Master Distiller, Harlen Wheatley? Nowhere to be found. Instead it's another "take the Van Winkles at their word" puff piece. Sure, it contains some useful information (the Bernheim blending finally being confirmed), but it's not exactly investigative journalism.

Remember, this story broke when two SB members were told directly by Harlen that the PVW 20 was mostly BT juice and and 23 was a mix too. He also said the Van Winkle Rye was BT and not the tanked Medley/CoK. These statements directly contradicted previous statements by the Van Winkles on this forum and in interviews. When asked about it, they released ambiguous statements until Sku (RecentEats Blog) finally asked them for clarification.

Are we supposed to be shocked that the Van Winkles are sticking to their story yet again? Did we expect them to say, "Yeah, we've been manipulating enthusiasts, but now we need to clear our conscience! OK, here goes, Chuck!"

A proper story would try to get the other side too. But nobody has ever bothered to ask Harlen why he made those statements, or talk to other BT insiders about his contentions (like BT contract distilling wheated juice since the early 1980s that's been used for years by the VWs). Or ask other distillers in Kentucky what they know. It's a small community, I'm sure the industry folks have some insight.

Yes, we get it. It's still good bourbon, no matter the origins. And frankly, I think the ultra-aged Bernheim wheated juice from 1993 onward is often better than the SW counterpart. That's not the point.

Instead, this latest chapter is just more of that "nothing to see here, move along" type of attitude, and anyone who dares to remain skeptical is met with incredulity and slurred as a "birther" by the SB peanut gallery. And the author, who has loudly extolled the virtues of clarifying a bourbon's origins and bashed KBD/Willett and others for not doing so, once again cuts the Van Winkles an immense amount of slack.

Extremely disappointing.

[hectic1]

Yes, I bought it at Binny's. That could explain it.

The Binny's stuff was an entirely different bourbon then the current Weller 12. Binny's bottled a 14.3yr Bernheim barrel vs. the current BT version of Weller 12. I love the Binny's bottle and bunkered enough to last me for a while and when those are gone, so is my drinking of Weller 12.

[T Comp]

The Binny's stuff was an entirely different bourbon then the current Weller 12. Binny's bottled a 14.3yr Bernheim barrel vs. the current BT version of Weller 12. I love the Binny's bottle and bunkered enough to last me for a while and when those are gone, so is my drinking of Weller 12.

And the difference between the two is quite noticeable...I just tasted both. The current BT W 12 has appreciably more char...almost a bitter soot taste which is absent or I guess integrated in the Binny's Bernheim. I am not a fan of the current Weller 12 for this reason and prefer OWA solo versus the SB blend as I still get that soot bitter taste without it adding complexity from the W 12. I know call me crazy.

[clingman71]

The Binny's stuff was an entirely different bourbon then the current Weller 12. Binny's bottled a 14.3yr Bernheim barrel vs. the current BT version of Weller 12. I love the Binny's bottle and bunkered enough to last me for a while and when those are gone, so is my drinking of Weller 12.

I would like to see more current BT Weller 12 barrel selections. I have two CnB Weller 12s, #3 is an old label Bernheim and is excellent. #6 is a new label BT and is also excellent. To me, the comparison of Bernheim to BT is almost irrelevant now. How was the regular Bernheim W 12 compared to the Binnys's? My CnB #6 is considerably better than new regular W12. So again, how about some more barrel selection BT W12, whether Binnys, TPS, CnB, or whoever?

[clingman71]

And the difference between the two is quite noticeable...I just tasted both. The current BT W 12 has appreciably more char...almost a bitter soot taste which is absent or I guess integrated in the Binny's Bernheim. I am not a fan of the current Weller 12 for this reason and prefer OWA solo versus the SB blend as I still get that soot bitter taste without it adding complexity from the W 12. I know call me crazy.

Have you tried adjusting the vattings? I'm pretty happy with 50/50. You might want to try 2or3:1. Just a thought.

[Halifax]

...I am not a fan of the current Weller 12 for this reason and prefer OWA solo versus the SB blend as I still get that soot bitter taste without it adding complexity from the W 12. I know call me crazy.

I was not overly impressed with my last SB vatting, or the current Weller 12 for that matter. The bottle with the embossed wheat stalks seems to be lacking in comparison. Not sure what is going on, but something is amiss.

[BarrelChar]

Can I ask why Harlen Wheatley wasn't interviewed? Or will that post get deleted?

[hectic1]

I would like to see more current BT Weller 12 barrel selections. I have two CnB Weller 12s, #3 is an old label Bernheim and is excellent. #6 is a new label BT and is also excellent. To me, the comparison of Bernheim to BT is almost irrelevant now. How was the regular Bernheim W 12 compared to the Binnys's? My CnB #6 is considerably better than new regular W12. So again, how about some more barrel selection BT W12, whether Binnys, TPS, CnB, or whoever?

I doubt this will happen as Weller 12 isn't part of the barrel program that is currently offered by BT.

As far as the Bernheim W12 vs. Binny's W12 I haven't done that one...quite possibly in the near future though. I'll wait until Thad and Aaron are available for that to happen.

[CoMobourbon]

Chuck wrote half an article.

Extremely disappointing.

Everybody seems to be doing a great job resisting the urge to reward this post with a response, but I guess I will bite.

This is basically my response: Of course you're right (about almost all of it), but so what?

Of course the inconsistencies and maybe even deliberate obfuscation about the origins of a bourbon is frustrating. Regardless of QPR, we are always buying histories and stories when we buy bourbon, and so it is a valid cause for interest and skepticism when the verity of these histories and stories comes into question. (QPR is important, but you're kidding yourself if you really think that is ALL there is to bourbon). Of course the Van Winkles have an interest in cultivating a mystical history for their brand truth notwithstanding, and of course that interest leads one to be suspicious.

Of course Chuck has an interest in maintaining good terms with industry contacts, and of course that interest might lead one to be a little apprehensive about a more or less one-sided piece.

And of course the insistence that there is "nothing to see here" in a situation like this (the events leading to the thread, the situation described above, etc.) involves a certain amount of dishonesty, especially lying to oneself.

So what? Frankly, I think the kind of dishonesty that leads to deliberate blissful ignorance is not necessarily a terrible thing. Sure, there are lots of stupid sheeple who simply believe things outright. But there are also lots of people who thoughtfully consider their options and decide that they would rather not really worry too much about the impossible-to-resolve questions like that of a bourbon's authentic origins. Especially when the presented history makes the whiskey taste better. Maybe the suppression of dissent can be a little nasty sometimes, but it is not entirely unjustifiable.

Like really every person and certainly every writer in the history of the world, Chuck is not a plumed truth crusader but rather is providing a service that people want. He has drawn a "good enough" line for the verity of his source material that serves his purposes. If your line is somewhere else (and often mine is), then it is ridiculous to lambast him for not toeing your line. None of this makes him a bad person.

And the Van Winkles are running a business (specifically, they are managing a brand) in which revenue/profit is a function maintaining a mystique of authenticity. Obfuscation becomes an understandably useful tool. Hell, even controversy about authenticity becomes a useful tool when it draws attention to a brand whose basic quality is unquestioned. In their shoes, I (and probably you) would do the same thing. Does this make me incurably skeptical? Of course. Does this make me upset? Of course not; why would it?

So, I think it is completely reasonable to be skeptical but not so much to be "extremely disappointed." The same factors that lead to your skepticism should prevent you from being too shocked or outraged. And there is really nothing but self-gratification at stake in treating happily and knowingly resigned people like sheeple.

[Halifax]

I was not overly impressed with my last SB vatting, or the current Weller 12 for that matter. The bottle without the embossed wheat stalks seems to be lacking in comparison. Not sure what is going on, but something is amiss.

Meant to say without...

Can't seem to correct now.

[White Dog]

Everybody seems to be doing a great job resisting the urge to reward this post with a response, but I guess I will bite.

This is basically my response: Of course you're right (about almost all of it), but so what?

Of course the inconsistencies and maybe even deliberate obfuscation about the origins of a bourbon is frustrating. Regardless of QPR, we are always buying histories and stories when we buy bourbon, and so it is a valid cause for interest and skepticism when the verity of these histories and stories comes into question. (QPR is important, but you're kidding yourself if you really think that is ALL there is to bourbon). Of course the Van Winkles have an interest in cultivating a mystical history for their brand truth notwithstanding, and of course that interest leads one to be suspicious.

Of course Chuck has an interest in maintaining good terms with industry contacts, and of course that interest might lead one to be a little apprehensive about a more or less one-sided piece.

And of course the insistence that there is "nothing to see here" in a situation like this (the events leading to the thread, the situation described above, etc.) involves a certain amount of dishonesty, especially lying to oneself.

So what? Frankly, I think the kind of dishonesty that leads to deliberate blissful ignorance is not necessarily a terrible thing. Sure, there are lots of stupid sheeple who simply believe things outright. But there are also lots of people who thoughtfully consider their options and decide that they would rather not really worry too much about the impossible-to-resolve questions like that of a bourbon's authentic origins. Especially when the presented history makes the whiskey taste better. Maybe the suppression of dissent can be a little nasty sometimes, but it is not entirely unjustifiable.

Like really every person and certainly every writer in the history of the world, Chuck is not a plumed truth crusader but rather is providing a service that people want. He has drawn a "good enough" line for the verity of his source material that serves his purposes. If your line is somewhere else (and often mine is), then it is ridiculous to lambast him for not toeing your line. None of this makes him a bad person.

And the Van Winkles are running a business (specifically, they are managing a brand) in which revenue/profit is a function maintaining a mystique of authenticity. Obfuscation becomes an understandably useful tool. Hell, even controversy about authenticity becomes a useful tool when it draws attention to a brand whose basic quality is unquestioned. In their shoes, I (and probably you) would do the same thing. Does this make me incurably skeptical? Of course. Does this make me upset? Of course not; why would it?

So, I think it is completely reasonable to be skeptical but not so much to be "extremely disappointed." The same factors that lead to your skepticism should prevent you from being too shocked or outraged. And there is really nothing but self-gratification at stake in treating happily and knowingly resigned people like sheeple.

This is not an attack on Cowdery, but do you feel the same way about journalists who cover wars or government malfeasance? Are they simply providing a "service that people want," or are they actually trying to seek out the truth, regardless of how many toes they step on? Should they just be "good enough?" Just saying.

And yeah, the Rye question in regards to Wheatley's statements is a glaring omission.

[tommyboy38]

This doesn't answer all my VW questions....Does Julian wear boxers or briefs?

[Lost Pollito]

This doesn't answer all my VW questions....Does Julian wear boxers or briefs?

.......exactly. :cool:

[stevegoz]

This doesn't answer all my VW questions....Does Julian wear boxers or briefs?

Depends who you ask.

[Restaurant man]

Chuck wrote half an article.

Where is the interview with BT's Master Distiller, Harlen Wheatley? Nowhere to be found. Instead it's another "take the Van Winkles at their word" puff piece. Sure, it contains some useful information (the Bernheim blending finally being confirmed), but it's not exactly investigative journalism.

Remember, this story broke when two SB members were told directly by Harlen that the PVW 20 was mostly BT juice and and 23 was a mix too. He also said the Van Winkle Rye was BT and not the tanked Medley/CoK. These statements directly contradicted previous statements by the Van Winkles on this forum and in interviews. When asked about it, they released ambiguous statements until Sku (RecentEats Blog) finally asked them for clarification.

Are we supposed to be shocked that the Van Winkles are sticking to their story yet again? Did we expect them to say, "Yeah, we've been manipulating enthusiasts, but now we need to clear our conscience! OK, here goes, Chuck!"

A proper story would try to get the other side too. But nobody has ever bothered to ask Harlen why he made those statements, or talk to other BT insiders about his contentions (like BT contract distilling wheated juice since the early 1980s that's been used for years by the VWs). Or ask other distillers in Kentucky what they know. It's a small community, I'm sure the industry folks have some insight.

Yes, we get it. It's still good bourbon, no matter the origins. And frankly, I think the ultra-aged Bernheim wheated juice from 1993 onward is often better than the SW counterpart. That's not the point.

Instead, this latest chapter is just more of that "nothing to see here, move along" type of attitude, and anyone who dares to remain skeptical is met with incredulity and slurred as a "birther" by the SB peanut gallery. And the author, who has loudly extolled the virtues of clarifying a bourbon's origins and bashed KBD/Willett and others for not doing so, once again cuts the Van Winkles an immense amount of slack.

Extremely disappointing.

I would love to have a drink with you one day :cool: But 3 drinks.... The dude would not abide. I like to get paid for that much thinkin'

[sutton]

I'll dip a toe in here, but will say in advance I don't really have a dog in this fight. There are some questions that simply won't have a direct answer and you decide how much that will bother you (me, not so much in this case).

Again, only speculating, but isn't it possible that both the VWs and HW aren't purposely being misleading? HW is on the production side of things, and the VWs have said they bottle long in advance of release (for instance, the one bottle of PVW15 I have I got last year, in a state where all of this stuff is on allocation and does not sit on shelves) - that had a bottling date of 2009.

So couldn't they both be right? HW sees the bottling/production and says it has BT in the mix. VWs say that PVW20 and PVW23 are still SW because that is what they are releasing, the remaining sits in their inventory waiting for future release.

I'm already sorry I wrote this ... not trying to start this up all over again, I just prefer to give both sides the benefit of the doubt - and there is plenty of doubt here.

[soad]

So couldn't they both be right? HW sees the bottling/production and says it has BT in the mix. VWs say that PVW20 and PVW23 are still SW because that is what they are releasing, the remaining sits in their inventory waiting for future release.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If you look back at the statements from the original thread (), and then look at this most recent interview one can objectively see that both side are telling us the same thing, but from their particular point of view.

Now :hot: if someone could guarantee me that OWA is safe, I could stop my obsessive hoarding!!!

[fishnbowljoe]

We stayed at a Days Inn last night. I guess we should have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. :grin:

[CoMobourbon]

This is not an attack on Cowdery, but do you feel the same way about journalists who cover wars or government malfeasance? Are they simply providing a "service that people want," or are they actually trying to seek out the truth, regardless of how many toes they step on? Should they just be "good enough?" Just saying.

Like really every person and certainly every writer in the history of the world, Chuck is not a plumed truth crusader but rather is providing a service that people want. He has drawn a "good enough" line for the verity of his source material that serves his purposes. If your line is somewhere else (and often mine is), then it is ridiculous to lambast him for not toeing your line. None of this makes him a bad person.

Every writer (journalists included)provides a service, every writer draws a "good enough" line, and no writer in the history of the world has been an uncompromising truth warrior.

I would hope that journalists who cover subjects like war would extend their "good enough line" further than those who cover whiskey. But that does not mean I expect these war journalists to never stop until they achieve absolute truth; in fact I am pretty sure it is impossible to convey absolute truth in writing. Eventually, every writer has to shape facts into a story; eventually, every journalist has to stop searching for truth and publish his/her article. This is not unreasonable.

And definitely every journalist considers his audience carefully and writes to provide a service to that audience. While audiences of war journalists demand different (more exacting?) services than those of whiskey journalists, war journalists still don't prioritize truth for its own sake. They write primarily to satisfy their audience. This too is not unreasonable.

Any specific commentary on Chuck's case would be really presumptuous and speculative, but I feel like his article is justified by the above explanations. There was no reason for him to interview every possible party to satisfy his audience. He provided information that people wanted from the source materials that people were interested in. If he had included more information from more sources, would his article have been more accurate and informative? Of course. However, he knew (or at least expected) that most of his audience would be satisfied with a reporting of new statements from the Van Winkles. Again, nothing unreasonable here; in fact, none of this even makes him dishonest or evil.

And frankly, I generally find "should" questions pretty uninteresting. With a few exceptions, everybody knows the answer to every "should" question at the age of 5. "Should" anybody ever ever ever stop searching for the absolute truth? "Should" anybody ever ever ever present anything as truth when they don't know the whole story? Of course not; any 5 year old knows this. But, since both of these imperatives are totally impossible and would make the world non-functional if binding, I usually don't stop with "should." Personally, I find it much more interesting to consider what people do and why they do it and then judge them accordingly.

[CoMobourbon]

Man, I really wish I could have seen this legendary "other thread." Was it more fun than this one? It seems like we have way too few pot stirrers here.