An Open Letter to Sazerac

[HighInTheMtns]

Mark Brown, et al:

I'm not going to even make an attempt to be pleasant, but I will start off by acknowledging that your company had a lot to do with the renaissance of bourbon and the fact that we have such great options available to us right now. Now that's out of the way.

I started buying bourbon extensively in 2008. Since then, I have watched Sazerac bourbon brands - all of them - steadily decline. But what's happened in the last couple years is just ridiculous.

I'll go ahead and start with Very Old Barton and Old Charter. These are inexpensive brands, and not a big deal to a lot of people. But this?

And this?

This shit is just insulting. It was insulting when Wild Turkey and Heaven Hill did it years ago, and it's even more insulting now, in an age when information is available immediately. How can you think so little of your customers?

And that brings me to an even more egregious bit of Sazerac deception.

Eagle Rare.

This is not a well brand. This is a brand whose name is on one of the Antique Collection bottles. When I started buying bourbon, Eagle Rare looked like this:

Not too long ago, I noticed the bottles on the shelves here had changed. They looked like this:

Nice change. Got rid of the paper label. Slick. But that wasn't around for long before this showed up:

Huh? Where'd the Single Barrel wording go? Oh, it's on the neck band. Wonder why they redesigned this bottle twice so quickly? Well, today we found out the answer, and here it is:

What happened to the neck label? Where's the age statement? Where does it say Single Barrel? Take a closer look.

Well, there's the age statement, but I guess this isn't single barrel anymore. And why move the age statement to the back label? I can only think of one reason: the age statement will be gone soon too.

I have had it with the sleaziness from Sazerac. You used to make great bourbon. Now you're just riding your reputation, but if you continue your current path, you won't have a reputation to ride for much longer.

Before I buy another bottle of whiskey from Buffalo Trace or Barton 1792, I would like an official answer from Sazerac about why the age statement on Eagle Rare has been moved to the back, and why they thought it was acceptable to lie to the longtime drinkers of Very Old Barton and Old Charter. There are a lot of good choices on the bourbon shelf right now. I see no reason to reward your deceptiveness.

Edited May 22, 2014 by HighInTheMtns

[HighInTheMtns]

Oh, and by the way, we notice when you make the inside back label black to try to hide the fact that the color of the bourbon you're bottling isn't the same as it used to be. You're not fooling anyone.

[BigRich]

Damn you're in a mood today.

[HighInTheMtns]

Damn you're in a mood today.

Eh I'm in a mood every day. It's just not every day that I can be righteously indignant.

I'm serious though. Screw these guys. I'm done supporting a company that does nothing but lie.

[michaelturtle1]

Hopefully they will sell the rest of the company to Age International and Japanese ownership will give the whiskey the respect it deserves

[Restaurant man]

Yeah but did they distill the whiskey they are selling in the gift shop?

Answer me that! Pretty boy. :wink:

[qman22]

I agree with what you wrote, and think these practices are absolutely shameful. I also feel like it is only going to get worse. They are trying to make an age statement the thing of the past, which is terrible for us consumers. Regardless of what they want you to think an age statement is a benchmark of quality, an assurance of what you are buying. Now, who the hell knows what we are buying. Look at OWA today vs years past, and I don't even want to get started on Wild Turkey.... that is the path these brands are headed.

But it doesn't matter to them, all that matters are the current quarter's operating results. As long as people keep buying that's all that matters.

[HighInTheMtns]

benchmark of quality

Benchmark. That's what ER is gonna be before long.

Yeah but did they distill the whiskey they are selling in the gift shop?

Answer me that! Pretty boy. :wink:

They sell whiskey there? I thought they sold Bourbon Cream and Wheatley Vodka.

[amg]

Yeah but did they distill the whiskey they are selling in the gift shop?

Answer me that! Pretty boy. :wink:

You mean the whiskey that the gift shop is unable to keep stocked?

[Richnimrod]

Wow! You are really on a rant, eh? Not that I totally disagree, Saz is indeed going away from age stated Bourbons. As are some others. Is it because of the widely publicized shortage? ...Or the obvious profit motive????

I guess time will tell; but, for my money, if cash is involved, follow the $$$.... Right???

It seems that so many of the much-loved brands have lowered the age (as well as quality?) (or lost it altogether), we may all be seeking a BIB ....if it can be found anymore. Too Bad.

[Guy Debord]

Buffalo Trace should update their website with images of the actual bottles so that it is not false advertising. It shows and says Eagle Rare is Single Barrel. Their site uses your second image. This is pretty depressing stuff. The Old Charter image is the label that says "Aged 8 Years".

[DaveOfAtl]

Good rant! Dropping the age statement is one thing but leaving the number on the bottle with the intent to mislead is much worse. Not really my area, but I wonder whether a consumer class action might get their attention.

(And before all the wanna be legal scholars correct me, I am not saying that such a suit would be successful. Just thinking out loud here).

[tylermke]

Here here, Jim!

(padpadpad)

[Guy Debord]

False advertising is pretty serious. The Federal Trade Commission sets standards to protect consumers. Sazerac knows that people look for numbers on bourbon. That is part of the culture of their business. They cannot claim that the number 8 is part of Old Charter's namesake or that 6 is part of the Barton name. They will learn their lesson when consumers do what was done here.

[GaryT]

Good rant! Dropping the age statement is one thing but leaving the number on the bottle with the intent to mislead is much worse. Not really my area, but I wonder whether a consumer class action might get their attention.

(And before all the wanna be legal scholars correct me, I am not saying that such a suit would be successful. Just thinking out loud here).

Leave it to the lawyer to think "How can we turn this into a class action?"

You know what - I'll be the contrary voice here in actually liking the dropping of the single barrel from ER10. While I like some single barrels - we've all had one (or more) that were rubbish. If this allows them to hit the flavor profile consistently - I'm not offended by that in the least. But, I do agree with Jim's complaint on the slow-roll sleight of hand that is playing out, which will lead to the eventual dropping of the age statement.

I still contend that either age statements are going to start falling, or you're going to see whiskey profiles changing thanks to climate change (yeah yeah, weather is always variable, but when you've got something aging for 10, 12, etc years, and 9 of the hottest years in the US have taken place in the last 11 years . . . it has to start having an influence, especially when most rickhouses don't have much in terms of temp control).

[HighInTheMtns]

To be clear, I have no issue with them having rolling shortages, dropping age statements, whatever they have to do. The deception, on the other hand... I have an issue with that.

I still contend that either age statements are going to start falling, or you're going to see whiskey profiles changing thanks to climate change (yeah yeah, weather is always variable, but when you've got something aging for 10, 12, etc years, and 9 of the hottest years in the US have taken place in the last 11 years . . . it has to start having an influence, especially when most rickhouses don't have much in terms of temp control).

This is something I've previously looked into. In central Kentucky, the last few years have been both the hottest and the wettest period of the last century, based on information I found at http://www.kyclimate.org/

Edited May 22, 2014 by HighInTheMtns

[Tony Santana]

I'm trying to figure out exactly where the outrage lies for the majority of the board here, because the targets seem to be continually shifting. I say "majority" because I realize there's no unanimity of opinion amongst sber's. And I'm not necessarily saying High is wrong in his indignation. But here we've got people getting worked up over changed labels on Eagle Rare. On another recent thread re Willett - where the original poster clearly seems to have been misled by the tour guide's statements - the general gist I got was yeah, people in the booze business lie all the time/a little research would have shown Willett doesn't make the stuff they sell in the gift shop/who cares, the WFE juice is delicious. We veer from "Templeton Rye is a fraud" to "I like Smooth Ambler because even though they're not selling their own stuff they're upfront about it" to "Whistlepig's CEO is a jackass, but I really like their rye" to Chicken Little hand-wringing over the dropping of an age statement to "the TPR should investigate the Four Kings label because there's wheat whiskey in there."

I'm not saying any of those positions are wrong, nor do I mean to rehash the arguments in this forum. Cast aside the "hand-crafted", aged in small barrels bourbon, enjoy your WFE gift shop bottle, sneer at the red label Black Maple Hill, savor that High West Bourye, rail against Diageo's bottom line practices, suck back three fingers of Rowan's Creek, boycott Barton - in the end, it seems to boil down to "if it's good and fairly priced, I'll buy it". Regardless of the amount of smokes and mirrors, obsfucation, prevarication or hucksterism involved.

[StraightBoston]

They've already done the age-statement-on-back-label disappearing act with 1792.

Taking away the age statement from Weller SR and OWA sucked, but at least they didn't leave the number on the neck label!

[P&MLiquorsEric]

It's like the distilleries got together and made a pact to deal with high demand in the same fashion.

they decided to tell us less and less about the product (dropping/lowering age statements, repackaging) but to keep prices relatively the same albeit on an upward trend.

[HighInTheMtns]

I would like to let everyone reading this know that Mark Brown has already reached out to me in response to my concerns in the OP. That's as far as it has gone thus far, but I'd like to commend Mark and Sazerac for being very responsive.

[ethangsmith]

I've heard the response already from other places that they don't want to be confined to an age statement, they are looking for profile. Though I am no expert, I have to disagree. The profile comes from the age, proof, and, mashbill. Change one and you change profile. I compared my 8 year old 1792 to a recent non-age-stated bottle and there was a difference. Not big, but it was certainly younger. It was like VOB BIB 6 year old at 93.7 proof. Plus, they can also alter a profile over several years to a younger whiskey or poorer barrel selection and it will be harder to notice.

A second point that I will repeat is the fact that not more than 4 or 5 years ago we were discussing the fact that Barton distillery was barely distilling at all. There were rumors of its closure, but those did prove to be false. From what I understand (Correct me if I am wrong!), is that Barton is still not distilling at capacity. So, to me, this asks the question- if you know your product line is popular and growing rapidly, wouldn't you maximize production? I know there's always a fear about a whiskey bust and glut like in the 70's and 80's, but it wouldn't hurt to have a little bit extra in the pipeline.

I don't think I'm as upset as others on here, but I do plan on buying other brands in place of Sazerac products until they become more transparent and honest with their consumers. I'll be interested to see what becomes of Jim's dialogue with Sazerac.

[393foureyedfox]

i could see this coming from you for the past few days!

You mention HH and WT did this years ago. I know WT used to be 8 years and that went away and now is generally thought to be 5-6 years old, but with HH, if that move happened, it was long before I came on the scene, and would like to know more about it. I think, in general, HH and Beam are the most reputable brands out there right now, and also 4R can be commended for the plethora of age statements and affordable barrel proofers, though I just dont buy any because the profile doesnt suit me. Back to WT, I see nothing misleading on current 101 bottlings, no -8-, etc. Obviously, the age has slipped, but its not purporting to be something its not. HH and Beam offer plenty of age stated bourbons, and though some exceptions may exist, I am not aware of any currently.

Sometimes I sit back and wonder if Sazerac is intentionally playing up the shortages just so they can attempt to justify their recent moves. Shortages or not, be honest with your customers and they will likely stay customers over time as they adapt.

I love that I can get a 6 ear age stated 90 or 100 proof bourbon from HH for $9-10 every day, and it's good. Why others cant play the same game, I dont know. Sazerac ought to have enough capacity to handle their own. Perhaps their wide array of labels has them stretched too thin to maintain them all. In which case, drop the less profitable ones, and keep the names that are profitable and the face of your company in good standing.

But, what do I know.......

Edited May 22, 2014 by 393foureyedfox

[HighInTheMtns]

i could see this coming from you for the past few days!

You mention HH and WT did this years ago. I know WT used to be 8 years and that went away and now is generally thought to be 5-6 years old, but with HH, if that move happened, it was long before I came on the scene, and would like to know more about it. I think, in general, HH and Beam are the most reputable brands out there right now, and also 4R can be commended for the plethora of age statements and affordable barrel proofers, though I just dont buy any because the profile doesnt suit me. Back to WT, I see nothing misleading on current 101 bottlings, no -8-, etc. Obviously, the age has slipped, but its not purporting to be something its not. HH and Beam offer plenty of age stated bourbons, and though some may exist, I am not aware of any currently.

Sometimes I sit back and wonder if Sazerac is intentionally playing up the shortages just so they can attempt to justify their recent moves. Shortages or not, be honest with your customers and they will likely stay customers over time as they adapt.

I love that I can get a 6 ear age stated 90 or 100 proof bourbon from HH for $9-10 every day, and it's good. Why others cant play the same game, I dont know. Sazerac ought to have enough capacity to handle their own. Perhaps their wide array of labels has them stretched too thin to maintain them all. In which case, drop the less profitable ones, and keep the names that are profitable and the face of your company in good standing.

But, what do I know.......

Evan Williams 1783 "No. 10 Brand"

[393foureyedfox]

Evan Williams 1783 "No. 10 Brand"

yeah, that was before my time. point taken.

[sailor22]

Single barrel offerings without barrel numbers noted are not appreciated at chez sailor. Loves me some ETL when it's a good barrel but how the hell would I know if the second bottle was from the same barrel? If ER was no longer a single barrel offering I wouldn't shed a tear.

There is a market for a quality age stated product and buyers would likely pay more for it regardless of occasional shortages or limited allocations.... IF (that IF is in all caps) ER were to retain it's age statement it would likely position itself as a value added product that could be more valuable to Sazerac than a lesser product that was in plentiful supply.

At some point one of the big distillers/global/whiskeymarketing/producers must see that retaining the depth and character of at least a few of their signature products is more important for their image in the marketplace and their reputation than keeping the shelves full of ever younger product. It shouldn't be about meeting demand but about demanding to produce a signature line of products.

I'm a dreamer.