An Open Letter to Sazerac

[HighInTheMtns]

But you're not the only one.

[StraightBoston]

I think, in general, HH and Beam are the most reputable brands out there right now

Evan Williams 1783 "Aged 10 Years" --> "No. 10 Brand"

Also:

Evan Williams 7yo --> "Kentucky's 1st Distiller"

Basil Hayden 8yo --> "Artfully Aged"

Old Grand Dad 86 proof --> 80 proof

with negligible changes to packaging.

[HighInTheMtns]

I thought OGD 86-80 was shady, but I don't have much of an issue with Basil. It used to have a prominent number on the front label, now it doesn't. Can't expect them to advertise that they're removing age statements.

[smokinjoe]

I honestly don't care about a lot of this. Dropping age statements, lowering proof, lowering age, sporadic availability, etc, etc, etc...Heck, they can double the price on everything and swim in an ocean of money for all I care. Sometimes in business ya gotta do what ya gotta do when times warrant it...or when you can... Doesn't matter to me, as I'll continue to buy regardless of that, if I want. But, the dropping of the age statement, and replacing it with the solitary number as with the OC8yr to 8, and VOB 6yr to 6 is unconscionable. Deceitful is not strong enough a word to describe it. And worst of all, it screams of willful deceit. Utterly shameful.

[CL]

I echo the comments said here, but if Mark Brown is reading, then I will add my 0.02. I can understand the supply/demand, marketing, etc., in having to remove an age statement, change a profile, etc. But, the deceitful label like that on the OC is just that - deceitful. It makes me wonder what other tricks they are pulling.

Moving onto Barton...I used to buy VOB BIB 6 yr regularly. I've stopped buying it as of Dec 2013 because of the deceitful label. Will this hurt Barton? No, one bottle every two months for me won't. But, I am not going to support such trickery with my business.

Back to Saz, now that I think about what they did with OC, I just may consider finding something else other than BT's namesake product to buy for my guests who like to mix. The name and the label were interesting to guests and it would lead to conversations about what great products BT does make, but I can find something else to serve them once my current bottle runs out.

[Phil T]

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.

This is pretty much the way I see it. I really don't care wether its a major producer or a NDP, if it's good whiskey and I like the price, I buy it. How they run their business, whether or not they tell the truth, whether or not the tour guides know what they're talking about, really doesn't matter to me. Because all that stuff really has NO impact on my life, so I really don't care. It's all about flavor and price.

[squire]

. Because all that stuff really has NO impact on my life, so I really don't care. It's all about flavor and price.

Phil I have to disagree. If I allow someone to cheat me (overcharge) through lies and other deceptions that has a direct impact on me and if I continue to let them then I deserve what I get.

[HighInTheMtns]

I honestly don't care about a lot of this. Dropping age statements, lowering proof, lowering age, sporadic availability, etc, etc, etc...Heck, they can double the price on everything and swim in an ocean of money for all I care. Sometimes in business ya gotta do what ya gotta do when times warrant it...or when you can... Doesn't matter to me, as I'll continue to buy regardless of that, if I want. But, the dropping of the age statement, and replacing it with the solitary number as with the OC8yr to 8, and VOB 6yr to 6 is unconscionable. Deceitful is not strong enough a word to describe it. And worst of all, it screams of willful deceit. Utterly shameful.

This probably expresses how I feel better than I did.

This isn't about Eagle Rare, for me anyway. I don't often drink it and I don't care what they do with it. It is about the trend of deceit we've all seen from Saz over the last while.

[Phil T]

Phil I have to disagree. If I allow someone to cheat me (overcharge) through lies and other deceptions that has a direct impact on me and if I continue to let them then I deserve what I get.

But you won't let that happen squire, because you are an INFORMED consumer, as I am and alot of our membership. Knowledge is power.

[HighInTheMtns]

But you won't let that happen squire, because you are an INFORMED consumer, as I am and alot of our membership. Knowledge is power.

If everyone was like our membership then I wouldn't have posted this. It's the uninformed consumer whose regular drink is Eagle Rare who I think is being taken advantage of.

[Phil T]

If everyone was like our membership then I wouldn't have posted this. It's the uninformed consumer whose regular drink is Eagle Rare who I think is being taken advantage of.

I understand what your saying, however, I would think the uninformed consumer would only hear blah blah blah. And that's what the distilleries are banking on.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Phil T

[Restaurant man]

The 6 or 8 or 10 or whatever violates labeling laws by implying an age statement. I mean in some cases they left it in the same spot. Just got rid of the words "years old". It's flat out not allowed. But it's being permitted? Where's wade on this thing?

[mbroo5880i]

Personally, I like Eagle Rare 10 year old, especially store selected barrels. If the age ceases to be 10 years old, then it becomes Buffalo Trace (7 to 8 years old) at a higher price. That leads me to believe that Buffalo Trace will continue to get younger as well. I was a fan of Old Charter 10 year old too. Not everyone who buys Sazerac products drinks BT or BTAC. Personally, I am not a real big fan of BT and it is too difficult and expensive to find BTAC. So, this sends me elsewhere. It's a shame because I did like the quality and variety of BT products.

[CL]

I echo the comments said here, but if Mark Brown is reading, then I will add my 0.02. I can understand the supply/demand, marketing, etc., in having to remove an age statement, change a profile, etc. But, the deceitful label like that on the OC is just that - deceitful. It makes me wonder what other tricks they are pulling.

Moving onto Barton...I used to buy VOB BIB 6 yr regularly. I've stopped buying it as of Dec 2013 because of the deceitful label. Will this hurt Barton? No, one bottle every two months for me won't. But, I am not going to support such trickery with my business.

Back to Saz, now that I think about what they did with OC, I just may consider finding something else other than BT's namesake product to buy for my guests who like to mix. The name and the label were interesting to guests and it would lead to conversations about what great products BT does make, but I can find something else to serve them once my current bottle runs out.

Looking again at the OC label. The 8 is on the back. Unless the front is like that, I retract my comments about OC and BT. On the back is still sneaky, but it's not in a place where a person not paying attention would make a mistake.

[HighInTheMtns]

Looking again at the OC label. The 8 is on the back. Unless the front is like that, I retract my comments about OC and BT. On the back is still sneaky, but it's not in a place where a person not paying attention would make a mistake.

[jmj_203]

This is my issue, I'm sure its understood but not openly admitted bye sazerac or any of them.

So if you can't keep up with demand to keep an age statement, you are choosing as a company to drop the age so you can continue selling just as much whiskey, meaning you want just as much profits rolling in rather than take the step that would show a tiny bit of respect to your supporters and fans, that step is keep the statement and be honest there will be rolling shortages for awhile. Any other choice to drop an age or change a label is selfish and an insult to the people who support you. Nobody should say "I would rather have a reduced quality product than go a month without my favorite whiskey." They can try to pussyfoot around the issue claiming it enables them to put 7yr 9month whiskey into a previously 8yr stated product and it makes no difference tastewise, but its about integrity, and respect for your customers. Maybe having integrity and a few shortages would attract some new loyal drinkers who were offended by their previous favorite going the drop the age statement route right? Guess its too much to think this line of thought would apply to some of the clowns giving us the finger while holding their pockets open saying "drop your hard earned cash in here fool customer". Just a humble opinion, but esp this community would respect a distiller going the route of admitting they may have shortages but refuse to drop an age statement and sell not up to their previous standard whiskey.

[HighInTheMtns]

I disagree. Whiskey is in demand right now and I have absolutely no problem with a company taking steps to make more money while their product is in high demand. If there's ever another glut, I'll happily benefit from the reduced demand. That's how it goes.

There's more than one way to raise the price of a bottle of whiskey. Reducing its age is one of them, and may be preferable to pricing customers out of the brand.

Besides all that, I'm with Gary and believe that flavor profiles have shifted with the climate in Kentucky. They may truly just be trying to maintain a flavor profile. An awful lot of people here have had an awful lot of ER that they thought was over oaked, after all.

It's just the deceit that I'm not happy about. I'm looking forward to hearing what Mark has to say tomorrow.

[CL]

UPC is on the front?

[CL]

The pic I used (from the COLA submission) doesn't make it clear, but that is the neck label.

Edit: sorry, it's the top front split label.

[HighInTheMtns]

UPC is on the front? If so, I retract my retraction. lol

[393foureyedfox]

this community would respect a distiller going the route of admitting they may have shortages but refuse to drop an age statement and sell not up to their previous standard whiskey.

[squire]

Good comparison Doug. It is about badges and what is means.

[jfw]

It's the producer's right to do whatever they want with the product. BUT, it would be nice if they just made it clear what they are doing. I get a lot of funny looks when I stand in the bourbon isle trying to figure out what they did to the bottle and if they just changed the label or if the stuff inside is materially different. Without a smart phone and sites like SB.com, I'd never figure it out.

It doesn't take a refined palate to tell that a paper label Weller from 2000 is a LOT older than the current release. In a blind tasting, there is not way I would even identify them as he same product.

Up until about 2008, I never really bothered to keep a bunker. Each year, you could get a couple of bottles of Pappy, Stagg, Weller, etc. and the price stayed about the same and the product quality didn't deviate that much. Then it all started to change...

Now I have bunker that I readily admit is way out of control (I lost count at 650).

[WAINWRIGHT]

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.

Evan Williams 1783 "Aged 10 Years" --> "No. 10 Brand"

Also:

Evan Williams 7yo --> "Kentucky's 1st Distiller"

Basil Hayden 8yo --> "Artfully Aged"

Old Grand Dad 86 proof --> 80 proof

with negligible changes to packaging.

I echo the comments said here, but if Mark Brown is reading, then I will add my 0.02. I can understand the supply/demand, marketing, etc., in having to remove an age statement, change a profile, etc. But, the deceitful label like that on the OC is just that - deceitful. It makes me wonder what other tricks they are pulling.

Moving onto Barton...I used to buy VOB BIB 6 yr regularly. I've stopped buying it as of Dec 2013 because of the deceitful label. Will this hurt Barton? No, one bottle every two months for me won't. But, I am not going to support such trickery with my business.

Back to Saz, now that I think about what they did with OC, I just may consider finding something else other than BT's namesake product to buy for my guests who like to mix. The name and the label were interesting to guests and it would lead to conversations about what great products BT does make, but I can find something else to serve them once my current bottle runs out.

Sazerac has obviously shown their ass in disregard to the versed community of bourbon,I'm just glad to see a few of our members from years past once again intervening on the boards again.

[tigerlam92]

I honestly don't care about a lot of this. Dropping age statements, lowering proof, lowering age, sporadic availability, etc, etc, etc...Heck, they can double the price on everything and swim in an ocean of money for all I care. Sometimes in business ya gotta do what ya gotta do when times warrant it...or when you can... Doesn't matter to me, as I'll continue to buy regardless of that, if I want. But, the dropping of the age statement, and replacing it with the solitary number as with the OC8yr to 8, and VOB 6yr to 6 is unconscionable. Deceitful is not strong enough a word to describe it. And worst of all, it screams of willful deceit. Utterly shameful.

Now I understand and completely agree.

I don't drink those offering but this is just plainly wrong, as fraudulent marketing.