Diageo's Orphans Don't Interest Me

[TunnelTiger]

I'm just gonna say that if you'd posted this a year ago, I'd have thought some impostor had stolen your password

isn't that the truth! Fox is really expanding his tastings.

[squire]

I prefer to think he's evolving.

[Restaurant man]

I prefer to think he's evolving.

Don't talk about him like he's not here. He's sitting right over there. :searching:

[cowdery]

As I think I said at the outset, I'm not boycotting them, they just don't interest me. The most significant reason is their advanced ages, but the other stuff doesn't help. I do believe Diageo disrespects American whiskey.

[Paddy]

I haven't tried them, but probably will at some point. Nothing I've seen or heard has lit the fire for me. Pricing seems fair given the age, providence and current market.

But I can't say I'm not a little offended by the whole smoke and mirror circus act.:skep:

Makes me wander how many more orphans are yet to be liberated. :searching:

So nobody cares, but I'm more or less apathetic about the whole line of :horseshit:.

[ModernThirst]

I've tried OB and bought a bottle of Barterhouse, but I haven't been thrilled with either. I can't blame diageo, though. They're basically taking a page from Jefferson's book, but using barrels they already owned.

[393foureyedfox]

I'm just gonna say that if you'd posted this a year ago, I'd have thought some impostor had stolen your password

for trying new stuff, or saying $70 for 20 year old whiskey is a steal?

I try something new everytime I go out and see something new. I saw the Barterhouse sitting on the bar, and thought "Id like to see what a 20 year old whiskey tastes like". I figured it'd be $25+ at this place, so when they said $12 (Hell, most places will charge $8 for WT101 here), I thought it was quite reasonable.

you should be more alarmed at me coming around to liking wheated bourbons! Thats what you used to bust my chops over....:bigeyes: but, I still stick to my $50 rule, as well as my sub-90 proof rule.

[mbroo5880i]

Not much on really old bourbons. 12-15 years max, occasionally 18. Would prefer to try before I buy. I see Barterhouse around.

[ModernThirst]

Not much on really old bourbons. 12-15 years max, occasionally 18. Would prefer to try before I buy. I see Barterhouse around.

[qman22]

I haven't bought or tried these either. I've been driven away by the fact they are watered down to 90 proof and have everything chill-filtered out of them. They make me think of Eagle Rare 17, which I like well enough, but don't see any need to stock pile it. Added to that, I'm sure most people would take ER 17 over these any day...

[The Black Tot]

As I think I said at the outset, I'm not boycotting them, they just don't interest me. The most significant reason is their advanced ages, but the other stuff doesn't help. I do believe Diageo disrespects American whiskey.

Edited May 27, 2014 by The Black Tot

[garbanzobean]

Unfortunately I do like older whiskeys - unfortunately because this isn't going to make my life easier in the long run. But hey, I like some younger ones too, and I bit the bullet and bunkered these orphan barrels so I'm good.

Out of curiousity, have you tried blind tasting sessions with older and younger bourbons? I know a lot of folks (myself included) who really appreciate tasting older bourbon for educational value or a fairly (oaky) unique occasional dram, but most have to be pretty heavily filtered to be remotely enjoyable. Given a little more time for the exclusivity of older bourbon to wear off, you might find that you enjoy other bourbons just as much, if not more.

If I looked deeply enough into ANY bourbon release, I'm confident I'd find some business practice that was insulting or disingenuous at at least one of the stages of either production or marketing.

The Orphan Barrel project is about on par with Michter's and Jefferson's, all of which are way worse than the actual distillers. Regardless, Diageo is infamous in the scotch world for being unethical and disingenuous, so few would have reason to welcome their entry into the premium bourbon market without question. Given that marketing BS origin stories are par for the course with bourbon, Diageo's is an especially full diaper, so I do not blame Mr. Cowdery or anyone else for ignoring their products. As I said in the other thread, I enjoyed Blowhard (Diageo's Bourbon Johnnie Walker Blue) and Barterhouse, but they aren't anything I'd actively hunt. Fairly plain compared to a lot of other releases, many of which are from a similar mashbill. Heavy filtering and conservative proofing have a tendency to do that.

[The Black Tot]

Hi Eric,

Oh, I'm not an "the older the better" bourbon drinker. My fave so far has been Promise Of Hope @ 10yrs, and I don't care for the Elijah Craig 21 at all, for example, no matter how old or exclusive it is. I'm presently messing with some bottom shelfers as well, and enjoying them quite a lot.

But I have had a fair bit of success with older whiskeys - not only bourbons but also ryes, rums, and single malts. Which is why I made the comment that I seem to enjoy them. I suppose I could have added "in general", but I thought that was implied.

While I haven't taken the time to do blind testing yet, I'm interested in it. My other major hobby is high end audio, though - another field where people will tell you if you're not comparing components blind then you're biased - despite this, my system continues to evolve with non-blind evaluations, and I think it's going to be the same for bourbon.

I'd like to find a bourbon that does what Old Blowhard does for me, for a whole lot less money, from a company who is straightforward about provenance. When it happens, I'll surely be happy and will share my results with the gang here.

I'm not "blaming" Chuck or anyone for being offended. I'm just saying I'm kind of glad they are - because I'd never have got to try it if it weren't for the bad press. And I like the bourbon, so for me that's a good thing.

I loved the "especially full diaper" comment. That was a good one.

tbt

[s8ist]

They have what is presumably some interesting bourbon but instead of presenting it in a straightforward way, they create these fanciful brands with fanciful packaging and jokey names, which I find silly and belittling. It's a scotch company treating American whiskey like soda pop. Do you think they would do that with whiskey from Oban, or Talisker, or Lagavulin?

I agree to a small extent that Diageo could have done something to make the labeling more prestigious, but from a marketing standpoint, I have to give them credit. When you walk to the bourbon aisle, those bottles stand out. REALLY stand out. Catching my eye is probably the first step towards getting me to buy a bottle. This is probably paramount to getting non-enthusiasts to buy one because I believe we're all smart enough to not be swayed by a pretty bottle.

As for scotch, I'd make a case that Compass Box did the very same thing when they launched (albeit in a more prestigious - less jokey - way) and garnered just as strong a love/hate relationship with the scotch community at that time. They delivered some great scotch behind those labels though. And to this day they continue to release highly stylized bottles As such, their products really stand out amongst the other scotches on the shelf (and they continue to be excellent scotches too).

[B.B. Babington]

So how come Jefferson's doesn't get this much vitriol, especially when they give far less info and charge twice the $$ for that age? Is this Diageo prejudice?

[B.B. Babington]

...They have what is presumably some interesting bourbon but instead of presenting it in a straightforward way, they create these fanciful brands with fanciful packaging and jokey names, which I find silly and belittling. It's a scotch company treating American whiskey like soda pop. Do you think they would do that with whiskey from Oban, or Talisker, or Lagavulin? ...

Third, it was like pulling teeth to get them to reveal the true provenance of the whiskey, after pretending that they didn't know. ...

But have to agree this does suggest Diageo thinks of bourbon drinkers as rubes.

[Restaurant man]

Wait until Jefferson's releases all their wine barrel finished products. It'll be a bigger flop than ocean II. That's their next big project.

[kjbeggs]

I agree to a small extent that Diageo could have done something to make the labeling more prestigious, but from a marketing standpoint, I have to give them credit. When you walk to the bourbon aisle, those bottles stand out. REALLY stand out. Catching my eye is probably the first step towards getting me to buy a bottle. This is probably paramount to getting non-enthusiasts to buy one because I believe we're all smart enough to not be swayed by a pretty bottle.

As for scotch, I'd make a case that Compass Box did the very same thing when they launched (albeit in a more prestigious - less jokey - way) and garnered just as strong a love/hate relationship with the scotch community at that time. They delivered some great scotch behind those labels though. And to this day they continue to release highly stylized bottles As such, their products really stand out amongst the other scotches on the shelf (and they continue to be excellent scotches too).

I'd put Dalmore in that "box" too. They release a lot of "Limited Edition' scotches at inflated prices. I've got a buddy that tries to collect 'em all though, and I'm more than happy to sample his bottles.

[flahute]

So how come Jefferson's doesn't get this much vitriol, especially when they give far less info and charge twice the $$ for that age? Is this Diageo prejudice?

I see a lot of Jeffersons skepticism on this board if not a downright dislike so I don't think they are spared.

[Old Dusty]

I see a lot of Jeffersons skepticism on this board if not a downright dislike so I don't think they are spared.

I would agree with this. Just depends on which thread you read. As far as I'm concerned the Zoellers lucked into some good Canadian rye and a few barrels of late produced Stitzel-Weller bourbon to bottle. Other than those I stay far far away.

[PaulO]

A store by me got a barrel selection of Jefferson Bourbon. I tried a sample. I thought it was just ok. It cost about twice as much as OGD 114. I think OGD tastes similar, but better to me. I would pick up more of the Jeff 10 year Canadian rye, if it was non chill filtered and a decent price.

[TunnelTiger]

As for me current Jeff rye just isn't worth the price. In fact I wouldn't buy it at half the price.

Mucho bottles on the shelves at much lower prices and better taste. Again that's just me.

[mbroo5880i]

A store by me got a barrel selection of Jefferson Bourbon. I tried a sample. I thought it was just ok. It cost about twice as much as OGD 114. I think OGD tastes similar, but better to me. I would pick up more of the Jeff 10 year Canadian rye, if it was non chill filtered and a decent price.

[bad_scientist]

Wait until Jefferson's releases all their wine barrel finished products. It'll be a bigger flop than ocean II. That's their next big project.

[Harry in WashDC]

Do your cats know my cats?