Do reviewers get honey barrels?

[squire]

People who have nothing to hide should have no fear of disclosure.

[White Dog]

Not me. I think it's safe to say that some barrels would be better than others, but in general EWSB is EWSB. Is it possible that some of the best stuff gets distributed differently? Absolutely. Is it possible that the distillers bottle some for themselves at barrel proof? Sure. Is it possible that reviewers like Hansell and Murray only try the stuff sent to them by the distiller, and that the distiller sends the best to everyone to intentionally mislead everyone? Possibly? I don't know that I buy that.

Edited February 25, 2013 by White Dog

[tanstaafl2]

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

[smokinjoe]

Not me. I think it's safe to say that some barrels would be better than others, but in general EWSB is EWSB. Is it possible that some of the best stuff gets distributed differently? Absolutely. Is it possible that the distillers bottle some for themselves at barrel proof? Sure. Is it possible that reviewers like Hansell and Murray only try the stuff sent to them by the distiller, and that the distiller sends the best to everyone to intentionally mislead everyone? Possibly? I don't know that I buy that.

[White Dog]

Agreed, E. If HH or any distillery would randomly pick just any Single Barrel to send to industry reviewers, I would have to seriously question their sanity. Yes, those selections would be the Best of the Best/Honey Barrel of their sample mix was. I'd do it, too. But, the tone of the conversation on this and the other thread from some here, is that the #1 Barrel is significantly "different", and not at all "representative" of what the general public receives, based on certain reviews. Not representative, as in not even close. I can only reach the conclusion that their implication is that the sample provided by HH, and/or the reviews by Chuck and Hansell, are lacking integrity.

[cowdery]

On behalf both of distillers and reviewers, I would paraphrase what the president of Coke said after the New Coke debacle. we are neither that stupid nor that clever.

This is an interesting study in conspiracy theories, why they happen, and why some people believe them, but it has nothing pertinent to do with bourbon, producers, reviews or reviewers.

Consider this. Only one person in this discussion has tested this theory. Me. My conclusion is that it's false. The rest is either cognitive dissonance or flaming.

[Josh]

If everybody votes yes, does that make it true? Is this the "50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong" argument? Facts are not just popular opinions.

[White Dog]

It was only a matter of time before a certain writer told us we were all full of shit.

[ErichPryde]

If everybody votes yes, does that make it true? Is this the "50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong" argument? Facts are not just popular opinions.

[OscarV]

Ok, I give the latest EW1B a 100.

[Josh]

Ok, I give the latest EW1B a 100.

[squire]

Hmmm . . . I thought I was accusing them of being clever.

[ErichPryde]

On behalf both of distillers and reviewers, I would paraphrase what the president of Coke said after the New Coke debacle. we are neither that stupid nor that clever.

This is an interesting study in conspiracy theories, why they happen, and why some people believe them, but it has nothing pertinent to do with bourbon, producers, reviews or reviewers.

Consider this. Only one person in this discussion has tested this theory. Me. My conclusion is that it's false. The rest is either cognitive dissonance or flaming.

[ErichPryde]

What is that out of?

[ErichPryde]

But SERIOUSLY, we could test this, using the latest EWSB as the example. Find out which barrels the reviewers reviewed, and locate a bottle from that barrel. I doubt that Hansell and Murray and whoeever else all got the same barrel, right? Review those barrels in comparison to a handful of others, and see what the results are. or better yet, convince John or Jim to do it. It would be interesting: garner an average rating for the whiskey based upon the bell curve itself.

[MauiSon]

IMHO, a free bottle will always taste better than a bought bottle from the same barrel. There's a psychological barrier that is breached by a gift.

When it comes to EW1B, I doubt a huge number of barrels have been vetted when the 1st barrel is released. Perhaps 100 out of the 1000+ for the vintage. So, a good barrel may have been selected, but it's very unlikely to be the best.

Edited February 26, 2013 by MauiSon

[White Dog]

Honestly? Who better to voice a contrary opinion, than Cowdery? We KNOW he drinks weller and vw products on a regular basis, and we KNOW that he likes them. So when he says (and he HAS said this) "the current Lot B is much tastier than it was several years ago," I trust that statement because I know his flavor preference, AND I know that he's tried more than one "sample" of the given whiskey (wich immediately disproves the theory that reviewers are full of crap because they all have tried only the one sample that the distillery sent them.)

Additionally, if you've read Bourbon, Straight, than you know that Chuck's reviews are fairly devoid of "this is terrible whiskey" and "this is great whiskey." he clearly and concisely states that perhaps his favorite whiskey ever, is Very Old Fitz, and when he reviews other whiskeys, he simply describes them and talks about value. Quite frankly, exactly the kind of review that some of you really want (which is why you read all the threads on this site in the first place, to get an idea of the "vaule" of a whiskey from a group of people you consider your peers and trust.)

[ErichPryde]

People who have nothing to hide should have no fear of disclosure.

[ErichPryde]

IMHO, a free bottle will always taste better than a bought bottle from the same barrel. There's a psychological barrier that is breached by a gift.

[White Dog]

There may be some truth here, but it's the reviewer's job. It stops being a gift when you get it every single day and then you have to laboriously type some drivel on a computer screen for ninteen hours straight.

What's with the hatred for Hansell? Cowdery didn't defend him, he said that because he had tasted various whiskeys, he believed that the assertion of this thread, the spirit, if you will (no pun intended) was false.

[Halifax]

Ok, I give the latest EW1B a 100.

[MauiSon]

It stops being a gift when you get it every single day and then you have to laboriously type some drivel on a computer screen for ninteen hours straight.

Edited February 26, 2013 by MauiSon

[ErichPryde]

And you might be right, especially given my obvious gross exaggeration. but how many reviews do the reviewers write in a year? I can't speak for Hansell because I don't follow his publications often, but Murray's whiskey bible contains thousands of whiskey reviews and scores, and they all read pretty much like they were written by the same person. Assuming that he updates even only 1,000 whiskeys in a given year, that's an average of two to three reviews every single day. How many total reviews WERE in the last whiskey bible? And how much spitting is done? Do they feel like drinking whiskey to wind down at the end of the day, and if so, what? I'm getting sidetracked, but what DOES Hansell drink to wind down at the end of a day? I think some of us have this perception that the reviewers get a whole bottle of Sazerac 18 year to drink all by themselves and then spend a week with the whiskey before writing an overblown and too-opulent review of the whiskey. I don't see that happening, either. The truth must be somewhere between.

[squire]

SERIOUSLY Erik? I can't be serious and drink whisky at the same time. That sort of thing will get you to propose marriage or something.

[cowdery]

For the record, I said current Lot B is as good as ever and remains one of my favorites. I never said it's better than it used to be. I also haven't said anything about John Hansell and see no reason to. John and I don't agree about everything but we've known each other for 20 years and I've never known him to be insincere about anything.

I'm not being dismissive of this idea. I'm taking it seriously and saying that in my opinion, based on my knowledge and experience, it has no merit.

But what do I know? I'm just a lying shill who talks out his ass and who's too drunk on free whiskey to know it.