Do reviewers get honey barrels?

[MauiSon]

Why would anyone update their review on a whiskey if it hasn't been changed and, more importantly, why would a producer send a reviewer a second bottle of anything that's already received a favorable review? So the reviewer can change his mind? Better turn on the old 'is it reasonable' filter, EP.

However, here's the rub - EW1B is essentially the same thing every year with just a new date tacked on. There's no claim of changing the mashbill or age or anything (except weather and storage location, perhaps). So, maybe in this particular case, a favorable review might keep the bottles coming, year in, year out. [Hmm... just working to find a reason for higher scores here - it ain't easy!]

Edited February 26, 2013 by MauiSon

[hectic1]

I'm just trying to figure out if this thread tallied more posts in 6 hours or the "shut down Ebay liquor sales" thread? Good work as always Wade...

I look at it the same way as many others here...you're going to put your best foot forward when you have the ability. The fact of the matter is that they control what barrel goes to reviewers so one has to believe they are going to select a barrel that they believe will yield a solid rating.

[smokinjoe]

They don't lack integrity, just credibility. There's a difference.

I see no reason to question either their integrity, or their credibility. At all.

Edited February 26, 2013 by smokinjoe
suck in math and english

[cowdery]

I'm just trying to figure out if this thread tallied more posts in 6 hours or the "shut down Ebay liquor sales" thread? Good work as always Wade...

I look at it the same way as many others here...you're going to put your best foot forward when you have the ability. The fact of the matter is that they control what barrel goes to reviewers so one has to believe they are going to select a barrel that they believe will yield a solid rating.

But why don't you finish the thought? If they send a sample that is markedly uncharacteristic, they can be easily found out and will be found out, unless in addition to all of my other flaws I'm an incompetent taster. And if they don't send a sample that is markedly uncharacteristic, then what are we talking about?

But thank you for saying that, because that's the nub of this thing right there.

[bingstein]

All I know is that Beam must have sent a "super honey" batch of OGD 114 to Liquor Barn and they must have passed along the rare, coveted "super duper money honey" bottle to me, because it is hitting the spot right about now. They must have thought it was going to Chuck

[MauiSon]

Everyone knows the "super duper money honey" batches are kept in Kentucky (and sent to reviewers) to keep the natives from becoming restless.

[hectic1]

But why don't you finish the thought? If they send a sample that is markedly uncharacteristic, they can be easily found out and will be found out, unless in addition to all of my other flaws I'm an incompetent taster. And if they don't send a sample that is markedly uncharacteristic, then what are we talking about?

But thank you for saying that, because that's the nub of this thing right there.

I did finish my thought...anything additional would be your thoughts and not mine Chuck.

I've seen plenty of barrels that aren't "markedly uncharacteristic" for a profile but nosed/tasted better than others. You're 100% playing with a blind fold on if you don't think that there are certain barrels of EWSB that are going to appeal to the masses more than others. Please don't play the "oh poor me" card with me Chuck...it's not appreciated. You put out ratings and they're your ratings...I don't give your ratings any more or less credibility then a guy behind a liquor store counter...sorry but that's the truth. The fact of the matter is we all taste things differently and put different values on specific aspect of bourbon. I look for different things in bourbon and put a higher value on certain things then probably a lot of others...therefore unless I nose/taste it for myself all bets are off.

I think it's pretty clear from the poll results that the vast majority feel that yes, they are sending "honey" barrels out for reviews...I personally don't care if they do or not as I'm really interested in EWSB.

[CoMobourbon]

No offense meant to anyone, but I feel like it would be best to address the question and it's immediate premises and not try prove our I-believe-in-personal-whiskey-taste credentials. We get it; we are all wonderfully unique and beautiful whiskey butterflies, we don't need no stinking reviews to know what whiskey is good, etc.

First, we should recognize that there must be some significant variation in barrels. The whole premise that tasters and master distillers can shape brand profile flavors based on factors other than age and mash bill depends heavily on the assumption that different barrels must turn out significantly differently. There are definitely differences, and there is likely a range in 'quality' - what most people would recognize as better or worse barrels. This range in quality may follow a bell curve or something like a bell curve.

Second, we should be able to agree that Heaven Hill does not pick completely random barrels; they need to avoid accidentally picking a less-than-average barrel on the low end of the aforementioned bell curve.

Also, I would think we should be able to agree that Heaven Hill does not pick amazingly meteoric barrels that are so good that they do not resemble the characteristics of the brand. As Chuck fairly pointed out, that would be stupid because it would risk exposing dishonesty and compromising faith in an already successful brand. (Unless we really believe that ALL big whiskey tasters work together with distillers in an elaborate ring of corruption, twisting their mustaches and cackling.)

The truth, then, must lie somewhere in the middle. Are reviewer barrels somewhat better 'quality' / 'tastier' than the 'average' barrel. Probably. I voted yes along with most of us. At least they are selected to be not worse than average. Are they dramatically better? Almost definitely not.

What really gets me is how asinine people are being about the topic. Clearly, Chuck (as a writer, public figure, and generally on-top-of-his-small-niche-world professional) cares a lot about his reputation and is pretty sensitive to insinuations and criticisms. Clearly, this thread has racked up so many responses so quickly in part because people want to see Chuck angry. This has all happened before (BarrelChar). I don't post on here as regularly as some, and even to me this whole routine is getting pretty tiring.

Edited February 26, 2013 by CoMobourbon

[wadewood]

My goal was to get a simple gauge if people think reviewers get sent honey barrels. From the results I think it is pretty clear that is the perception. I did not say there was anything wrong with this or this was limited to EWSB. Most not only seem to think it occurs, but give credit to the distillers for doing so. If I owned my own distillery, odds are I would make sure the bottles going to reviewers would be top notch.

Bottom line for me is that I will trust reviews/tasting notes from other SBers who purchased their own whiskey over the reviews of someone who is getting a free bottle.

[SFS]

This thread made me ask "what happened to SB.com since yesterday?"

[CoMobourbon]

This thread made me ask "what happened to SB.com since yesterday?"

Others could say more on this, but I can say that between Dec 2011 (my join date) and Dec 2012 this has happened multiple times.

[wadewood]

Clearly, Chuck (as a writer, public figure, and generally on-top-of-his-small-niche-world professional) cares a lot about his reputation and is pretty sensitive to insinuations and criticisms.

good post and points. This was not an attack on Chuck or any whiskey writers/bloggers; if anything it's attacking the distillers for a questionable practice. It's a topic that has not really been discussed here on SB (at least that I recall) so I think it's worthy of post count. Plus, unlike BarrelChar, I've known Chuck for a long time and I know he has my email. If I offended him, I'm sure we will work it out.

[Vosgar]

Congratulations Wade :grin:. You're the master at proving how easy it is to get SB'ers to rant and get pissed at each other. It's almost too easy, isn't it?

My hat's off to you sir!

[ErichPryde]

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.

If I split a bottle of VOVR Barton with you, will you accept?

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.

Firstly, your last sentence there is going to be my new quote. love it. secondly, you're right:

While I haven't had any Bernheim-distilled Pappy 15, the Bernheim-distilled Lot B is terrific. But by all means, people, continue to be crazy for the Pappy Vans. More Lot B for me.

This was in the S-W all gone thread, and I think perhaps I was projecting, considering that the last of the truly S-W/S-W/s-w lot b was, in my head, not as good as the newer stuff. Please forgive me; I stopped drinking bourbon regularly for a year and that made me a bit forgetful and crazy.

I'm just trying to figure out if this thread tallied more posts in 6 hours or the "shut down Ebay liquor sales" thread? Good work as always Wade...

Everyone knows the "super duper money honey" batches are kept in Kentucky (and sent to reviewers) to keep the natives from becoming restless.

super duper money, honey? I like it. I'm thirsty. hook me up.

What really gets me is how asinine people are being about the topic. Clearly, Chuck (as a writer, public figure, and generally on-top-of-his-small-niche-world professional) cares a lot about his reputation and is pretty sensitive to insinuations and criticisms. Clearly, this thread has racked up so many responses so quickly in part because people want to see Chuck angry. This has all happened before (BarrelChar). I don't post on here as regularly as some, and even to me this whole routine is getting pretty tiring.

I don't think he's as sensitive as you think. just, crotchety.

[michaelturtle1]

I am not sure how someone would think a distiller wouldn't send a "honey" barrel out for review, would Burger King put a picture of an average sandwich served in their restaurant on a national commercial? In my eyes professional reviews are nothing more than advertising for a brand, even if the reviewer is "independent" of the brand. Given that, I generally pay zero attention to reviews or tasting notes as my palette is most certainly different than anyone else's and I know my palate changes day to day so a review can be skewed simply by an off day or the reviewers general attitude/excitement towards a product or release.

[HighInTheMtns]

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.

Truth here, I think. And even if all barrels had been selected, some have several more (summer) months of aging left before they're bottled - both EWSBs I have in my possession right now were bottled in August. Barrel #1 was bottled much earlier in the year. No way of knowing exactly what it will all taste like at that time.

[LostBottle]

I am sure that distilleries take steps to ensure that the reviewers don't get the worst barrels - believing anything else would be naive.

However, there may be an even bigger factor at play. It seems the livelihood of many professional reviewers depends on distillery relationships and free samples from the very people they are reviewing - this sure seems like it could present conflict of interest concerns. If some of these reviewers were to start giving more realistic ratings (Ever see anything rated below 80 on a 100 point scale? How about a bottle rated C+ on a A-F scale?), they just might see their ability to review rare and unreleased products dry up along with their review career. This is one of the reasons I tend to trust SB members over reviewers - they will tell me when something sucks.

Edited February 26, 2013 by LostBottle

[Barclay Beach]

I am not sure how someone would think a distiller wouldn't send a "honey" barrel out for review, would Burger King put a picture of an average sandwich served in their restaurant on a national commercial?

My thoughts exactly. I am nearly certain that every distillery would be very deliberate in their selection process to ensure sending their best stuff to reviewers. Why wouldn't they? It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's business 101!

It's a good thing that the variation between EW1B sample bottles and random bottles wasn't detectable on Chuck's palate. That might speak to that particular product's consistency. But business is business, and *trying* to influence key opinion leaders is standard fare. I can't believe that's even an argument.

[ChainWhip]

[CoMobourbon]

good post and points. This was not an attack on Chuck or any whiskey writers/bloggers; if anything it's attacking the distillers for a questionable practice. It's a topic that has not really been discussed here on SB (at least that I recall) so I think it's worthy of post count. Plus, unlike BarrelChar, I've known Chuck for a long time and I know he has my email. If I offended him, I'm sure we will work it out.

Oh no, I really am willing to believe that you did not intend an attack on Chuck or other whiskey writers. I am not conflating you with BarrelChar in any case. It just happens that you ask provocative, sometimes edgy to the point of cynical questions leveled at the industry, and inevitably those questions draw out both criticisms of Chuck and Chuck's responses. THAT is the cycle which I think is getting a little old. The questions are interesting and often thought-inducing; the responses are becoming predictable.

Edited February 26, 2013 by CoMobourbon

[bingstein]

Wait, this thread has me confused. Do I HAVE to read Chuck's reviews or am I free to arrive at my own conclusions? If it is the former, then I am going to do my due diligence and make sure that he isn't biased/conflicted/only getting bottles from "honey" barrels. If it is the latter, I think I am just going to take a deep breath and move on with my life.

Sorry if this is a newbie question. I have only been on the site for a few months, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong.

[callmeox]

My opinion is that the poll is, to paraphrase Marisa Tomei, a bullshit question. If you think this has happened even once in the entire history of single barrel samples and published reviews, then you must answer yes. I'm not polyanna (and I've not voted) but I would be inclined to say yes for the reason above.

At this time it is 42-3 for the affirmative but the illusion is that there's some overwhelming fraud being played by distillers and that's not what the poll number says at all.

There's an easy way to get this answer and the network here is broad enough to make that happen.

[jcg9779]

My opinion is that the poll is, to paraphrase Marisa Tomei, a bullshit question. If you think this has happened even once in the entire history of single barrel samples and published reviews, then you must answer yes. I'm not polyanna (and I've not voted) but I would be inclined to say yes for the reason above.

At this time it is 42-3 for the affirmative but the illusion is that there's some overwhelming fraud being played by distillers and that's not what the poll number says at all.

There's an easy way to get this answer and the network here is broad enough to make that happen.

He has not voted because he's in on it. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

[Barclay Beach]

At this time it is 42-3 for the affirmative but the illusion is that there's some overwhelming fraud being played by distillers and that's not what the poll number says at all.

There's an easy way to get this answer and the network here is broad enough to make that happen.

Speaking for myself, it would be accurate to replace "fraud" with "putting their best foot forward." Again, I don't think this concept requires confirmation, it's fairly intuitive.

[fishnbowljoe]

"Life is like a barrel of bourbon. You never know what pour you're gonna get." :22: