Do reviewers get honey barrels?

[wadewood]

Fact - distillers send reviewers/bloggers free samples or bottles of their products for evaluation purposes.

So the poll is simple yes or no. Do you think on single barrel offerings the producers select what bottles get send out and pick whiskey that is better than the standard profile for that brand?

Vote yes if you think this has happened or No if you think this has never happened.

Edited February 25, 2013 by wadewood

[callmeox]

Never is a very long time.

[MyOldKyDram]

Maybe?

Poll needs more options.

[wadewood]

Maybe?

Poll needs more options.

Polis Yes or No, but feel free to comment if you to expand on something.

[smokinjoe]

Has it ever happened...?

[smknjoe]

I'm inclined to say yes, but does anyone other than the distiller really know? It seems it would be in their best interest.

On the other hand, Chuck thinks his "honey" bottles from the distiller are the same as what he buys off the shelf.

[berto]

My gut says that it has happened before and will happen again. It might not be common practice but it makes sense that a company would send its most stellar product to be reviewed. Kinda how a restaurant makes sure the a reviewer gets flawless food and service.

[Halifax]

How else do you explain Evan Williams Single Barrel getting rated a 95 or 93? I've never drank an EWSB that I would rate higher than 86. It is good whiskey, not great whiskey.

[smokinjoe]

How else do you explain Evan Williams Single Barrel getting rated a 95 or 93? I've never drank an EWSB that I would rate higher than 86. It is good whiskey, not great whiskey.

I would explain it that you your tastes don't agree with those who gave it a 95 or 93.

[Halifax]

I would explain it that you your tastes don't agree with those who gave it a 95 or 93.

Or perhaps taste is but one of many factors as to why some whiskies receive extraordinary reviews.

[weller_tex]

Or perhaps taste is but one of many factors as to why some whiskies receive extraordinary reviews.

Chuck thinks we are all a bunch of conspiracy theorists for voting yes I guess..not about that at all. It makes perfect sense that Barrel #1 of EWSB, which would go out to reviewers and VIPS mainly, would be a honey barrel. As was noted earlier in this thread, if you ran a restaurant and knew a reviewer was coming, you'd do everything you could to not put your best foot forward. It makes no sense to send a reviewer just some random sample.

[bingstein]

What is the end game if it is proven that the answer is "yes"? Class action lawsuit against reviewers? Or distilleries?

[OscarV]

How else do you explain Evan Williams Single Barrel getting rated a 95 or 93? I've never drank an EWSB that I would rate higher than 86. It is good whiskey, not great whiskey.

Hear hear!!!

These reviewers gush like school girls over EW1B every year and it's not bad whiskey but it ain't worth the review or any review, it's just OK.

[OscarV]

What is the end game if it is proven that the answer is "yes"? Class action lawsuit against reviewers? Or distilleries?

Just the reviewers.

The distilleries just bottle it and sell it.

[smokinjoe]

900 barrels. One is a honey barrel, and tastes very good. 899 are mediocre? That's what I'm hearing y'all say?

[SMOWK]

Could another factor be that the bottle has not gone through the shipping and manhandling of the three tier system? The bottle shows up to the reviewer less disturbed than the bottle that was manhandled along the way.

[ErichPryde]

either the reviewers do get honey barrels/bottles, or most of us just have higher standards. even Jim Murray, who i most often agree with on taste profile, gives out some numbers that seem too high.of course, he also gives out some very low numbers on occasion...

when sazerac 18 first came out, bt let reviewers sample whiskey at barrel proof. I'm sure it was absolutely stunning! although reviewers may not have reviewed the bottled whiskey based upon what they first tasted, would it effect a value judgement on the final review?

[SMOWK]

I'd like to see all professional reviews done blind. If you've ever been in a blind tasting, you have probably been surprised at what can happen.

[squire]

I would be surprised if they didn't.

[Lazer]

I thought about starting a whiskey review blog with the objective of getting some of these free samples. On further reflection I looked at how much it would cost to go out and buy enough bottles for my initial reviews to get the ball rolling until the freebees started rolling in. I do have some whiskey bunkered, but how many reviews of Ritt BIB can I write? I realized that its going to be cheaper in the long run to just buy my own whiskey.

As far as the honey barrel's going to reviewers, who cares? I have my own honey barrels.

[ErichPryde]

I'd like to see all professional reviews done blind. If you've ever been in a blind tasting, you have probably been surprised at what can happen.

I would be surprised if they didn't.

let me respond to your two suggestions, and clarify my post a bit:

Firstly, blind tastings have their place, but not in most official reviews. Why not review the whiskey based upon how old it is? A blind tasting shows all of us our true preferences, or our preferences at a moment in time, but not necessarily what a 18 year old whiskey should taste like. The point of a reviewer is to be impartial, and review a whiskey in comparison to its peers and taking into consideration things like age, proof, barrel finishing, &c, so that the average consumer can say to themselves "Ah, Elijah Craig 18 year got a 94, so that's what an 18 year old whiskey should taste like!" blind tastings don't exactly allow that.

Secondly, no reviewer is truly impartial, however, I strongly believe that most of them do their best to be even when they are sent rare samples that the poor ol' consumer jus' can get. They're going to get rare bottles, we need to deal with it. The consumer's job is to figure out which reviewer's taste profile most fits their own.

Thirdly, the distilleries absolutely send honey bottles to reviewers. the job of the distillery is to sell stuff. The question is how often it happens, not if. The question is is it just a harmless sample here that may effect their opinion on another product later, or is it intentional manipulation? If they can convince Pacult, or Hansell, or Murray, that their particular hooch is the best, they can throw labels on it that say so. Distilleries use those labels, even if they're out-dated. Most distilleries are more honest with their customers now, than they were 10 years ago, I'm sure, but that's only because it is easier to find accurate information and with social networking the monster it has become, it's way too easy to get trapped in a lie or a mis-statement. Most consumers want to think that their Pappy Van winkles are still something extra-special (as opposed to just really good whiskey), that their OWA is still seven, and that baby saz is 6. Most people on straightbourbon can handle the truth, and WANT it. would be more willing to buy things from David Perkins if he explicitly stated on the label, this whiskey came from LDI. More likely to buy more Willett Reserve if it stated it was distilled at Heaven Hill, or at D.S.P. 354.

But let me condemn most of us here on straightborbon, as well. Sometimes we become so zealous in our quest for the truth, or in needing to prove that Pappy Van Winkle no longer contains S-W and is therefore inferior, that it drives distilleries to withold even more information, even more truth. People read straightbourbon, they respect our opinions. Pappy Van Winkle can lay a lot of credit for its success post mortem, for the legend that we helped create of S-W whiskeys here, and on all the rest of the social networking blogs and websites out there that talked about them.

Edited February 25, 2013 by ErichPryde

[WAINWRIGHT]

I guess I don't understand the premise of a distiller NOT picking the best of the profile offering in a single barrel release.I guess if you look at it this way,it would be a lot easier to pick the best of a batch versus the most average or norm of the profile in any instance.I know this statement is somewhat silly in nature but on the other hand quite true and we are speaking of a single barrel release.

[ErichPryde]

900 barrels. One is a honey barrel, and tastes very good. 899 are mediocre? That's what I'm hearing y'all say?

[White Dog]

900 barrels. One is a honey barrel, and tastes very good. 899 are mediocre? That's what I'm hearing y'all say?

[Halifax]

900 barrels. One is a honey barrel, and tastes very good. 899 are mediocre? That's what I'm hearing y'all say?