Jump to content

Forbes. Worst Bourbon Coverage Ever?


cowdery
This topic has been inactive for at least 365 days, and is now closed. Please feel free to start a new thread on the subject! 

Recommended Posts

After the Cleveland Whiskey article and now this, Forbes is well on its way to winning Worst Bourbon Coverage Ever By A Publication That Should Know Better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. It wouldn't have been THAT bad if the author hadn't felt the need to opine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have my bottle here at work, but even before he gets into opinion-land he's missing out on the facts. My bottle was 15XX/67XX IIRC. But as you can see from Forbes coverage of net worth, 4000 is close enough to 6700 in their world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have my bottle here at work, but even before he gets into opinion-land he's missing out on the facts. My bottle was 15XX/67XX IIRC. But as you can see from Forbes coverage of net worth, 4000 is close enough to 6700 in their world.

~4000 bottles was in the original press release and is still on the FR website.

Forbes.com (with its 'contributors') is a far cry from the magazine in terms of professional journalism. It's a lot like Bleacher Report.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HighInTheMtns

The thing that got me the most is the implication that "FR1B 2013 is for display only" and should be used to impress one's friends with its unopened presence on the bar.

I have way too many open bottles right now but I damn near cracked one after I read that.

Edited by HighInTheMtns
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see where he said that...he says:

"At nearly $100 a bottle, this immediately jumps to the top end of the bourbon price range, and having tried it, I would suggest that it is mainly for collectors, especially given its very limited production."

and...." If you want to add a bottle to your bar that few of your friends will have ever seen, the Single Barrel will do the job"

He is just stating his preference for the regular 4RSB over the more expensive limited release.

I guess we all read and interpret things a little differently.

Maybe Chuck C can expand on what pissed him off about the article to clear things up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HighInTheMtns
I don't see where he said that...he says:

"At nearly $100 a bottle, this immediately jumps to the top end of the bourbon price range, and having tried it, I would suggest that it is mainly for collectors, especially given its very limited production."

and...." If you want to add a bottle to your bar that few of your friends will have ever seen, the Single Barrel will do the job"

He is just stating his preference for the regular 4RSB over the more expensive limited release.

I guess we all read and interpret things a little differently.

I don't think he's talking about the standard single barrel. He doesn't mention that bottling anywhere in the article - just the 1B LE and the standard Small Batch. His conclusion is "buy Single Barrel LE to show off, buy standard Small Batch to drink."

Link to post
Share on other sites

He may have incorrectly used "batch" instead of "barrel" (or actually meant small batch), but regardless, to quote him accurately:

"If you want to add a bottle to your bar that few of your friends will have ever seen, the Single Barrel will do the job, and if you want a great bourbon and great value that is equally well suited to sipping daily or on special occasions, try the Four Roses Small Batch."

I still don't understand what everyone is up in arms about. It is just his opinion and he is recommending the more inexpensive "small batch" over the limited edition single barrel. I read his comment as, if you are one who is interested in showing off, by all means buy the limited edition, but if you want to offer a great

sipper without spending $100 go for the small batch.

Like I said, different people will have different impressions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HighInTheMtns

That's exactly what bothers me about it. I have a bottle of the limited edition single barrel. Two of them, in fact. They'll get emptied. I don't care about showing them off. They're for drinking.

I don't like the implication that these bottles are for collectors. They're not. They're for enthusiasts who want to drink them. And I don't like seeing the gospel of "this bottle will impress your friends!" spread any further. They're already hard enough to come by for people who want to drink them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
whiskeyagonzo

I can't imagine not sharing a bottle with my friends. What's the point? The best part of a good bottle is sharing with others who appreciate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HighInTheMtns
I can't imagine not sharing a bottle with my friends. What's the point? The best part of a good bottle is sharing with others who appreciate it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy wrote the article he was assigned using the samples he was given and as superficial articles go it's not too bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
whiskeyagonzo
Sharing is one thing. "If you want a bottle that few of your friends have ever seen" is another thing entirely. The author is not talking about sharing, he is talking about a showpiece - the "I haff viskies you vill neva taste" mentality.

Yeah kind if a disjointed argument I gave. I am just saying its a travesty not to enjoy these bottles. Just letting them collect dust as a showpiece is a foreign concept to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the concern about collecting, but I don't read it that way. I don't see where he wrote don't share it with friends.

"If you want to add a bottle to your bar that few of your friends will have ever seen, the Single Barrel will do the job, and if you want a great bourbon and great value that is equally well suited to sipping daily or on special occasions, try the Four Roses Small Batch."

The statement is probably true...few of your friends will have seen the bottle. And by all means, share it.

I think this is a great case of people reading into something what may or may not be there. We alll have different triggers and sometimes the possible

hint of snobbish collectorism is all it takes.

I would still like to hear from Chuck C what concerned him about the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, his review of Dickel Rye is somewhat cringe worthy - to me.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/10/25/a-brand-new-rye-whiskey-that-will-turn-heads/

"George Dickel rye is ultra-smooth, which I have to attribute to the chilling and charcoal filtering, The rye itself comes from Indiana, the whiskey is chilled before filtering, and it is unbelievably free of harsh notes."

Maybe he is a fan of chill filtration.

Edited by Jono
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would trust Forbes' bourbon reviews about as much as I trust their financial advice. Not much. Still if I am bored, I would probably rather read this stuff than watch reality TV, Duck Dynasty notwithstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression is that it is a bourbon review as written by a high school sophomore as a school assignment, and by that standard it's a solid 'B.' By any other standard, it's a waste of pixels.

The Four Roses limited editions are usually quite good but not that special, although I often recommend them for gift-giving. What's 'collectible' is in the eye of the collector, but because of the variety Four Roses is capable of producing, Four Roses bourbons are always more interesting for drinking than for putting on the shelf and admiring, which he would know if he knew ... anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theglobalguy
My impression is that it is a bourbon review as written by a high school sophomore as a school assignment, and by that standard it's a solid 'B.' By any other standard, it's a waste of pixels.

The Four Roses limited editions are usually quite good but not that special, although I often recommend them for gift-giving. What's 'collectible' is in the eye of the collector, but because of the variety Four Roses is capable of producing, Four Roses bourbons are always more interesting for drinking than for putting on the shelf and admiring, which he would know if he knew ... anything.

Except for that new one with the image of the horse on it! Kidding, money goes to a good charity, but buying it for investment purposes gives me a good chuckle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Occasionally I do web searchs for reviews of bourbon. There is a highly strenuous competition for title of Worst Bourbon Coverage Ever. The contenders are legion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.