WSJ on bourbon mania

[Flyfish]

I thought the coverage was reasonable considering how often journalists screw things up. At the bottom of the page, though, their graphics designer managed to get it 100% wrong. Pix of five bottles with a paragraph about each alternative to $700 Pappy. Not a single photo matched the accompanying paragraph.

[squire]

Well, I grudgingly admit I want Bourbon to get more respect while at the same time want them to leave our favorites unmentioned.

[Alden]

From the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324532004578362663959730642.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[squire]

Gag me with a spoon.

[Trey Manthey]

Compared to the rest of the article's fawning style, the last paragraph makes it worthwhile for a perusal.

[cowdery]

I heard somebody the other day complaining about hockey fans. "They complain that hockey never gets any coverage. Then, when it does, they complain about the bandwagon-jumper-on-ers." Bourbon fans are exactly like that.

[MyOldKyDram]

Yeah, but bourbon is actually good.

[Josh]

Yeah, but bourbon is actually good.

[squire]

The crowd goes wild.

[BFerguson]

I'm still at a loss to figure out why people are going nuts over regular BMH. Maybe if it was one of the long gone age stated bottles, or the ryes, but regular??? I'm left shaking my head every time.

It's ok, there is nothing special to it. It's a good blend. But nothing else!!!

What gives!!! :shocked:

B

[higgins]

According to that article the Willett Pot Still Reserve has a finish consisting of 'smooth darkness and oblivion', so apparently I am missing something as well.

[squire]

We're not missing anything but the reviewer is.

[Brisko]

I'm still at a loss to figure out why people are going nuts over regular BMH. Maybe if it was one of the long gone age stated bottles, or the ryes, but regular??? I'm left shaking my head every time.

It's ok, there is nothing special to it. It's a good blend. But nothing else!!!

What gives!!! :shocked:

B

Liquor stores push KBD products like crazy. I assume it's because the distributors push them like crazy. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard "have you ever tried [this KBD bottling]" I'd be able to buy $700 Pappy.

[squire]

It's the old wink, wink, nudge, nudge thing. Everybody wants what only the special kids can have.

[theglobalguy]

Have to imagine it depends on where you live as well. I mistakenly thought all Bourbon was available everywhere having starting drinking it while living in KY. Have since stopped in shops in WA, WI, CO, OH and MI only to realize how fortunate i was.

BMH (and some of the other rare looking bottles) seem to be a function of good branding, packaging and sales process. My theory is if someone enjoys that bottle more because they think it's rare and they leave my favorites alone....i'm good with it.

[BigBoldBully]

What I got from that article is we should all have secret panels hiding our most prized bottles.

[squire]

Why not, there's room in the Bat Cave.

[MauiSon]

How secret can a panel be if the writer saw it?

[Gillman]

I thought Julian had the best line in the piece. Glad to see Van Winkle bourbon selling well, it's a good product that has been recognized and no little bruited for years on SB (not mentioned in the article but perhaps more influential, directly and indirectly, than any other source mentioned). But the mystique attending it and the very aged expressions especially, have gotten completely out of hand, IMO.

I don't think great bourbon starts at 15 years at all; I think it largely ends there in fact.

Also, I didn't cotton to the part of the article that dismissed the importance of distilling and entering proofs, I understand the topic was beyond the scope of this consumer-oriented piece, but the matter is not unimportant, it is essential to understanding what bourbon is.

Gary

[Gillman]

At the same time, Chuck does have a point, and fair enough it is not right to cavil at each little point in a generally good article on our favorite (at SB) potable spirit.

Still, it annoys me to read as fact that barrels were first charred to smooth and clean them. As I recall, there is no generally accepted explanation of the origins of the charred barrel. The article might have said that while perhaps offering the cleaning and smoothing theory as a persuasive one.

Withal I am not saying it is not a good piece, but I do feel the merits of very-long aged bourbon are often overstated.

Gary

Edited March 24, 2013 by Gillman

[GaryT]

I'm fortunate enough to lack of a refined enough palate to appreciate Pappy (in that I think it is good bourbon, but not "Earth-shatteringly good" bourbon). I thought it was interesting that they didn't try to list alternative bourbons from many companies- just BT, HH, and KBD. No mention of 4R or JB products (which isn't a complaint - I'd love for the general public to ignore 4R; and based on sales they already know about JB). As Gary points out - the research into the article was limited in scope, and probably fed from a couple sources who have their preferences. Overall I thought the article was better than many others I've read in general publications (ie - not Whisky Advocate, etc). Made solid points that value goes up just because people can't get it, and made the argument that just because a product isn't distilled/aged/bottled by the same joint don't mean it can't be good.

[Phil T]

I'm fortunate enough to lack of a refined enough palate to appreciate Pappy (in that I think it is good bourbon, but not "Earth-shatteringly good" bourbon). I thought it was interesting that they didn't try to list alternative bourbons from many companies- just BT, HH, and KBD. No mention of 4R or JB products (which isn't a complaint - I'd love for the general public to ignore 4R;

I agree Gary. I'm glad that when the general media talks about bourbon, they pretty much talk of nothing but Van Winkle. Thank you, thank you, thank you...:grin:

[ebo]

I agree with you guys about the refined palate thing. I've had the opportunity to enjoy a couple of pours of Pappy 15 with a friend who finally found a bottle. It was definitely a very good pour and I really enjoyed it, but it was just good bourbon, to me. I wouldn't go out of my way to get it (never have), and I can get bourbon way more easily that I enjoy just as much.

[squire]

Good points both Garys. I'm not a fan of overage Bourbon, 8-10 years is about my max and that's pushing it. I understand the appeal because 'older is better' is a mantra for many whether it be wine, rum or whisky. The current perception is that older Bourbons are somehow more desirable. Twas not always so, little more than a couple decades back HH had a 12 year old value Bourbon (Old 1889 Royal) that was priced less than the 10 year old 1793. Not surprisingly, that one was phased out when the new Elijah Craig brand began to pick up in sales and those 12 year and older barrels had a more profitable purpose. Still the same whisky though.

I am mindful that the prototype of modern wheat recipe Bourbon, Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond, was in it's peak times only about 6 years old and it was very good whisky indeed. Julian did not start out to bottle 20 year old whisky. When he relaunched his family's Van Winkle brand his whisky did not sell that well (there was still plenty of Old Fitzgerald around for those who would seek it out) so his unsold stock just kept getting older.

Now things are different, the page has turned, old Bourbon is firmly established in the market and the minds of new customers and I expect that trend to continue.