All your Van Winkle questions answered

[Lost Pollito]

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.

It was a classic. :cool:

[luther.r]

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.

It's still around; It just got moved to PR&C. You might want to set aside an hour and a couple pours of something good before you embark.

[White Dog]

Holy s--t. For a second time this commie pinko agrees with Brad.:shocked: :shocked:

And it's always amusing that as soon as you question the party line from a major distiller, you're called both a "birther" and a 5-yr old. Oh well. I guess we should all just shut up and toe the line.

[sob0728]

Holy s--t. For a second time this commie pinko agrees with Brad.:shocked: :shocked:

And it's always amusing that as soon as you question the party line from a major distiller, you're called both a "birther" and a 5-yr old. Oh well. I guess we should all just shut up and toe the line.

If Julian Van Winkle and Harlen Wheatley released a joint statement on Buffalo Trace letterhead that said what was in Chuck's piece is the truth, would you believe it? Or would you think it was a BS PR move? That's my point, if you wouldn't believe that statement then no amount of information will satisfy you, that's where the birther comment came from.

[White Dog]

If Julian Van Winkle and Harlen Wheatley released a joint statement on Buffalo Trace letterhead that said what was in Chuck's piece is the truth, would you believe it? Or would you think it was a BS PR move? That's my point, if you wouldn't believe that statement then no amount of information will satisfy you, that's where the birther comment came from.

Hello? Have you not read my Rye question, which was not addressed in the Cowdery piece? Actually, Rye was addressed, but Wheatley's comments on the Rye being BT-make were not addressed. That's all I'm looking for.

[sob0728]

Hello? Have you not read my Rye question, which was not addressed in the Cowdery piece? Actually, Rye was addressed, but Wheatley's comments on the Rye being BT-make were not addressed. That's all I'm looking for.

[BarrelChar]

It addresses the rye situation directly by saying exactly what it is. I don't think Chuck is going to come out and say Harlen was wrong, but you can read between the lines.

[bigtoys]

I like that Chuck interviewed Julian. The info makes sense, too. As noted, only a few will enjoy this whisky, but I intend to be one of them and, for this iconic brand, I'd like to know its origin (and to some degree feel entitled to know it).

That said, it would be nice to see some comment by HW regarding his previous quotes.

[macdeffe]

Anyone ever done a vertical of the last 5 or 10 batches of the 15 or 20 ?

Thats the kind of thing I would do, and is doing with a lot of whiskies.

Steffen

[CoMobourbon]

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

...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.

...Sure, there are lots of stupid sheeple who simply believe things outright. But there are also lots of people who thoughtfully consider their options...

...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.

...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.

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.

...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.

And it's always amusing that as soon as you question the party line from a major distiller, you're called both a "birther" and a 5-yr old. Oh well. I guess we should all just shut up and toe the line.

Hey brother, sometimes I totally feel the same cynicism. Before you throw me under the 'almost everyone is full of shit' bus, though, I invite you to read what I actually wrote.

It should be clear from my posts that I am as skeptical of the "party line from a major distiller" as the next guy (probably more so). My point of disagreement with Senor Barrel consisted in my response to that skepticism; having doubted the party line from the beginning, as I assume he did, I was not "extremely disappointed" or outraged or anything like he was.

If the "toe the line" phrase in your post refers to it's appearance in mine, then that doesn't make a lot of sense. In my post, I am suggesting that it is unreasonable for skeptics (like me and Barrel), who have a relatively higher "line" for truth than other people sometimes, to expect those other people to "toe their line" (maintain the skeptic's standards).

And then there is the whole question of "should" and "5 year olds" (man, if this thread doesn't get flagged for some shady child-related shit, I will be surprised). I can understand how you could equate "5 year old" with 'insult', but a quick review of the section in question should clear things up. In short, it is not the 5 year old who asks the "should" question but rather the 5 year old who knows the answer - which is to say, pretty much everybody. Really, I was just calling you out for using a rhetorical question that I thought unfairly advanced your point (with which I disagreed). You seem to suggest that the answer to your 'should' question - 'yes', of course - would necessarily support your point about the need for continued investigation and possibly more righteous condemnation of the Van Winkles. I disagreed and tried to argue that there is more than black/white ethics at play here. You very well might have known that there was more than straight right and wrong involved, but you didn't mention it, so I decided to point this out.

So yeah, sometimes I too feel like a hero in the Crucible - a rare honest man surrounded by sickening conformist BS - but you've got to stop regularly for perspective. Nobody is out to get you here, I think/hope. I know I'm definitely not. And I'm sorry to have offended you over the whole '5 year old' reference; I was trying to make a point and didn't consider how someone might take it as personal/condescending. Poor choice of words.

[CoMobourbon]

He could have call Harlen. He conspicuously avoided doing so. Why?

By now, this isn't only about clarity from the bottlers of the Hottest Whiskey in America, but moreover, a whiskey enthusiast community that is still falling over itself to bury any questions; while hypocritically holding the micros and KBD to different standards of disclosure. And that, more than anything, is what's most disappointing.

I still feel like the disappointment, as well as the sense that Chuck "conspicuously" avoided further questions, are still more about misplaced expectations than anything.

It is only disappointing and conspicuous avoidance if you expect Chuck to have the same objectives you do (and which I often do): the whole, comprehensive, clear, hard truth. For reasons that do not necessarily make him immoral, this is not, I think, Chuck's objective at all. He is writing to satisfy his audience, which apparently is not you and me. He didn't have to avoid a HW interview because, I speculate, it wasn't on his list of things to do at all. He knew people wanted a reporting of new statements from the Van Winkles, and he gave them what they wanted.

Same logic applies to the original info discrepancy with HW and the VW's. It makes sense to be really disappointed only if you really expected to have received straight whole truth before the revelation. A shrewd skeptic like you should not have expected this, and I assume that you probably didn't.

Does that mean that there is no injustice/manipulation involved here? Of course not. But crying out against unjust inconsistencies from high level whiskey PR reps is like crying out to the universe at the injustice of death. It is totally understandable to rage rage against these things, but it isn't rational. It is especially satisfying to rage rage against these things to other people, but at a certain point, you have to respect their desire (misguided or otherwise) to not hear it.

[IowaJeff]

Well this thread took a swift turn into Chuck bashing. I don't know that Chuck has been unfair to micros, or played any favorites with the big boys. But even if that's your opinion, isn't it unfair to assume its because of some pecuniary interest or resulting from some type of cronyism?

I don't know Chuck, but even if I initially perceived uneveness in reporting (which I really don't), upon further reflection, and prior to posting something on a message board, I would conclude that it boils down to this: trust.

Trust is earned. An upstart micro has no trust to begin with, unless its someone with a reputation and history in the industry. An upstart micro that starts out with half-truths and evasiveness has substantially hindered the chance of developing trust.

A big boy, say BT or Jim Beam, has built up a level of trust through the years. Like any relationship there are breaches here and there, but usually the trust earned through the years warrants the benefit of the doubt.

Those big boys have been in the industry, with Chuck, for a long time-some level of trust has developed. It's the same with me - if a Joe Schmo Micro tells me he made a bourbon that is the best he's tasted, I'll take it with a monster grain of salt. If the BT master distiller tells me he made a bourbon that is the best, I'm lining up at the door. He's earned my trust through past products.

Again, I don't know Chuck at all, but from a purely writer-reader relationship, he's certainly earned my trust, and I have no reason to believe any uneveness in reporting some of you perceive is anything more than those whom earned his trust v. those whom have not.

[Brisko]

Hello? Have you not read my Rye question, which was not addressed in the Cowdery piece? Actually, Rye was addressed, but Wheatley's comments on the Rye being BT-make were not addressed. That's all I'm looking for.

Well, I look at it this way. The Van Winkles have said, many times, on the record, that the rye is still the CoK/Medley vatting from the tank, and they confirmed it again in this interview. So I guess that means that Wheatley was wrong.

[cowdery]

There are many good reasons why hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court. The main one is that it is unreliable. If I began a conversation with Harlen with, "so-and-so says you said such-and-such at this event on this date" he'd laugh at me and he'd be right. I've said before that I respect the people who made that report, but there's nothing to be gained by trying to dissect it and reconcile it with other things that other people have said at other times. I haven't talked to Harlen directly about this but I know him well enough to know his reaction. He'd sniff, shrug his shoulders, and maybe roll his eyes, or chuckle. This happens all the time.

So a couple of people want to puff themselves up by bashing me. I've had worse.

I've never done any of this to call attention to myself, although some of that is inevitable. I don't make a lot of money from it. That's certainly not my motive. I just find this stuff interesting and I find marketing spin frustrating, so I try to get to the truth as best I can. I've been doing this for awhile and I watch other people. The shrill attention-seekers often get attention but they don't often come away with the truth. I treat people with respect and they generally do the same with me. The world just works better that way.

I've had conflicts with people like David Perkins and Drew Kulsveen, but we usually work it out to the point where we can at least be civil with each other. In the cases of David and Drew, I'd say the relationship is friendly, if maybe a little guarded. That's how life is.

Ultimately with publications or individual writers, all we have is our integrity and the reader's assessment of that. If you don't think I'm playing straight then you probably shouldn't waste your time reading me. If instead you dissect every word in order to shine a spotlight on yourself, well, that's about you, that's not about me.

Let me give you an example. I like Tom Bulleit. He's a very nice man and good company. I think the whole Augustus Bulleit story is fiction. So do most other people who study the history side of things. There is zero supporting evidence for any of it. Tom always looks uncomfortable when you ask him about it but he has what is, in a way, a bullet-proof (pardon the expression) answer. It's what his father told him. At that point you just say, well, okay. I'll certainly never report any of the Augustus Bulleit stuff as fact, because I don't believe it, but that doesn't mean I have to go on a crusade about it. And, oh yeah, there's no evidence that Jack Daniel's was the first registered distillery and ample evidence to doubt that claim. I've reported that, many times, but am I a bad journalist if I don't have a screaming fit about it?

[timd]

Can this be over now?

I now officially wish that Winston and I had never reported on what HW said here and simply kept it to ourselves as a point of interest among our little group of whiskey lovers/fanatics.

It went from "wow, this is really interesting" to "whacko conspiracy theories" (I'm eagerly awaiting the movie...).

It's not unicorn pee...

You mean "production" disagrees with "marketing" with regard to the end product? Oh.my.God. Stop the presses! THEY probably don't even know who is right/wrong and no amount of "journalistic sleuthing" is going to get the answer - the parties involved can't actually provide a straight answer to a lot of these questions because the don't actually know the answers themselves (Julian & Preston have admitted to not knowing 100% what's in all their bottles)! I'm guessing at this point that HW was either wrong about OWA going away, was terribly premature, or it was a "thought bubble" floated to unsuspecting mooks like me & Winston to see what the reaction would be - or all of the above.

Is HW a more "credible" source than the VW's? Heck if I know - I've only met each of them a couple of times. I thought Julian was hella more fun to hang out with than HW... but HW seemed like more of a straight-shooter and had more of a business-like approach, Julian just wanted to talk about whiskey and mash bills and such...

I don't believe either of them are dumb enough to risk outright lies to people in the whiskey fan/hobbiest community much less writers with blogs and retail outlets. So... realize, if they were wrong, they either (a) have an agenda or ( far more, likely were just mis/uninformed

Thanks.

[unclebunk]

It's not unicorn pee...

Or is it? Hmm. The mystery continues...

[GaryT]

Personally, I’m a Lot B guy and it has continued to be great and, to my taste, virtually unchanged since the SW went out of the mix, so I think the future is bright for the line. The drinking of the last SW, when that day comes, will be notable but not tragic.

I couldn't agree more. The master distillers blend barrels until the desired flavor profile is met - and this holds true whether what went into the barrel came from BT or SW. I'm not insinuating that the distillates are indifferent - only that the end product will be extremely comparable if not indistinguishable.

Just my thoughts

[soad]

It's not unicorn pee...

Unicorn pee tasted a lot better back in the day.

[timd]

Unicorn pee tasted a lot better back in the day.

Yeah, when it comes to unicorn urine, I really only like the old stuff.

But the poop, regardless of age, always tastes like skittles...

[cowdery]

Thanks, Tim, for the words of wisdom. Well said. I would only add that this hobby is supposed to be fun. When it stops being fun, check yourself, because you're doing it wrong.

[White Dog]

I don't think there's a posting member on here that doesn't gain immense joy and fun from Bourbon/Rye. (And I gain immense joy and fun from hearing the various viewpoints.)

But maybe there's a difference between casual and serious enjoyment?

[fussychicken]

It's not unicorn pee...

[ILLfarmboy]

Hello? Have you not read my Rye question, which was not addressed in the Cowdery piece? Actually, Rye was addressed, but Wheatley's comments on the Rye being BT-make were not addressed. That's all I'm looking for.

"Who made it is an interesting question because it's a good straight rye." --Chuck Cowdery speaking of Templeton Rye

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?9694-Templeton-Rye-produced-in-Indiana!

Is provenance no longer interesting, or even a valid pursuit of inquiry?

.

[sob0728]

Is provenance no longer interesting, or even a valid pursuit of inquiry?

.

It is interesting. That is why he asked the question. The question was answered by Julian. If you choose not to believe that it's not Chuck's problem.

The basic question this comes down to is: who do you think knows more about what are in the bottles of Van Winkle product? If you think it is Harlen Wheatley and that JVW is lying, then don't buy the product. If you think it is Julian Van Winkle, then you know what is in those bottles and you can make your purchases accordingly.

Pappy Van Winkle sales aren't going to drop no matter what is in those bottles, so I see no reason for Julian Van Winkle to lie about it.

[SMOWK]

I think they're both right. Julian is saying what he is releasing, while Harlen is saying what he is bottling.