Orphan Barrel Lost Prophet

[sutton]

Can someone help me understand the suspected provenance here? Just curious ...

Assuming it is BT Mash #2, how did Diageo come by these barrels? Did Age International sell them to them at some point? My understanding is George T. Stagg distillery was renamed as Buffalo Trace (Frankfort), but there was no point where Diageo had ownership of an older facility/warehouse from the actual GTS distillery? Easily could be wrong about that.

Or, assuming that it is "close" to BT Mash #2 but not actually that distillate, where do you think this was distilled 22 years ago (1992) ? Old Bernheim? And what label do you think this would have been distilled for back then?

[danz]

I didn't taste the 21 yo, but the 25 and 30 were very woody and not as good as Lost Prophet.

Thanks again for your reviews. You have had some luck obtaining additional information about these and I (and a couple of others) have a couple questions about the Barterhouse. Your initial review in early 2014 was positive, so I picked up a bottle when it was released (normal prices and all). However, when I opened it a couple of weeks ago, it had prominent sour, musty notes and didn't match your description as sweet and easy drinking. I have checked with a couple of people with considerable experience and good palates, who do not believe my bottle is corked with TCA taint, although a couple of us are considering further whether the bottle may have some other production flaw unique to the bottle.

For comparison last night, I tasted the current Orphan Barrel line at the Brandy Library in NY, and their bottles generally match your reviews, unlike my bottle. Their Barterhouse, in particular, had a good sweetness that balanced the oak notes, but which was lacking in my bottle. Their Barterhouse also had a much less prominent mustiness and none of the sourness I have seen in my bottle, which has faded in the two weeks the bottle has been opened.

This bottle is fascinating to me because it is the fourth bottle I have had in the past year with (in my view) a similar flaw: an Old Grand Dad 114, a Russel's Reserve, a Gordon & MacPhail Mortlach 15 and my Barterhouse. Each of these had a sour mustiness and lacked the sweetness needed to balance the rest of the flavor profile. Also, in each case, I checked another reference bottle, which matched the majority of favorable reviews and had, most notably, the balancing sweetness that my bottles lacked.

I have a couple of questions related to this. First, do you remember what was the bottle number of the Barterhouse you tasted earlier this year and which "curator" was listed on the label. One thing I noticed is that the different labels show different details on bottle number and "curator" signatures on the labels. I have attached pictures of the two labels I have tried: mine is bottle 16,250 and Brandy Library's is number 53250 (notably without a comma, even though the numbers and signatures are clearly from a printing process and not hand written). Also, the "curators" are different between the two bottles. I have no idea what this means. Maybe it indicates different batches, or maybe it is just randomness added to make the bottles look more "hand made".

Do you know, or would Diageo share, whether there have been multiple batches of Barterhouse and whether the "curator" signatures relate to different batches?

Finally, does anybody have any insights on the type of flaw I am describing? The general view is that it is not cork taint/TCA, but something does seem to be off with these bottles that is not present in most bottles in these lines. I have not really considered going directly to Diageo, based on the experience of others that the distillers are not forthcoming with details on bottles that are supposedly flawed, preferring instead to simply offer refunds without explanation. To be clear, at least one other taster of my bottle with great experience did not think it was flawed, but rather an older, mustier style of very old bourbon. However, my comparison with another Barterhouse bottle that matches your description makes me wonder.

Thanks,

Dan Z.

Edited November 15, 2014 by danz

[petrel800]

Can someone help me understand the suspected provenance here? Just curious ...

Assuming it is BT Mash #2, how did Diageo come by these barrels? Did Age International sell them to them at some point? My understanding is George T. Stagg distillery was renamed as Buffalo Trace (Frankfort), but there was no point where Diageo had ownership of an older facility/warehouse from the actual GTS distillery? Easily could be wrong about that.

Or, assuming that it is "close" to BT Mash #2 but not actually that distillate, where do you think this was distilled 22 years ago (1992) ? Old Bernheim? And what label do you think this would have been distilled for back then?

If I'm understanding Hansell's information correctly, this is distillate from the old GTS distillery which is now BT. Also, it doesn't appear to be the exact BT#2 mash bill, but is extremely close to it.

As for how did Diageo get the barrels, Chuck Cowdery has discussed this a lot and maybe he can chime in with more info, but to summarize nobody sells bulk whiskey, but everyone sells bulk whiskey. I would guess that at some point during the glut the GTS Distillery did an inventory adjustment and a Diageo brand (maybe not at the time) purchased the barrels. From there Diageo never had a use for them until now. All that said I'm just speculating.

http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2014/03/distillers-or-non-distillers-everybody.html

[amg]

Great post from Chuck on this:

http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-failure-of-diageos-orphan-barrel.html

[nd2005]

Great post from Chuck on this:

http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-failure-of-diageos-orphan-barrel.html

Chuck seems to have been in a hurry to declare this a failure from day one, and sometimes his Diageo bias overshadows his otherwise excellent posts.

I think there are a lot of things that you can criticize them for, but IMHO Barterhouse and Rhetoric were both good whiskey. They are also about the only examples I can think of of a 20 year old bourbon for less than a hundred bucks these days.

I passed on Old Blowhard due to its age.

The background of the Lost Prophet has me intrigued enough to buy a bottle when it comes around.

[garbanzobean]

Chuck seems to have been in a hurry to declare this a failure from day one, and sometimes his Diageo bias overshadows his otherwise excellent posts.

I think there are a lot of things that you can criticize them for, but IMHO Barterhouse and Rhetoric were both good whiskey. They are also about the only examples I can think of of a 20 year old bourbon for less than a hundred bucks these days.

I passed on Old Blowhard due to its age.

The background of the Lost Prophet has me intrigued enough to buy a bottle when it comes around.

Chuck referred to the Orphan Barrel project as a failure in his most recent post because Diageo has failed to tell the ACTUAL story of the whiskey, which is more interesting than a bunch of made up nonsense. You say yourself that you're interested because of the actual history and provenance of the whiskey. Wouldn't it be nice to get that from Diageo without forcing folks like Chuck and John Hansell to channel their inner sherlock Holmes? I think that's something we can all get behind at SB.

Also, as a scotch whisky fan, it's hard NOT to see Diageo as the bad guy sometimes. They own a large percentage of the most iconic distilleries in Scotland, so boycotting them is difficult for all but the most fanatical. About the only thing they've done well is take the wind out of the sails of the secondary market in Europe, which is not even illegal there, generally. So good job on that. Now let's talk about upping ABV to cask strength (or at least 46℅) on more releases. I personally wish I could feel good about giving Diageo my business, but mostly I find myself trying to only buy their stuff on sale/clearance.

Edited November 19, 2014 by garbanzobean

[nd2005]

Chuck referred to the Orphan Barrel project as a failure in his most recent post because Diageo has failed to tell the ACTUAL story of the whiskey, which is more interesting than a bunch of made up nonsense. You say yourself that you're interested because of the actual history and provenance of the whiskey. Wouldn't it be nice to get that from Diageo without forcing folks like Chuck and John Hansell to channel their inner sherlock Holmes? I think that's something we can all get behind at SB.

Question - I don't know enough about the laws/regulations in this area.

Since Diageo has sold off control of all the brands that these barrels once belonged to, or purchased these barrels from others...

Can they even legally label them as such with the "actual" history?

They obviously couldn't sell this lost prophet under the George Stagg label.

My understanding would be that they are pretty much forced to develop a new label for these barrels?

[danz]

And here is something on the threat of legal action:

http://fredminnick.com/lost-prophet-beginning-sourced-whiskey-war/

[nd2005]

And here is something on the threat of legal action:

http://fredminnick.com/lost-prophet-beginning-sourced-whiskey-war/

Right that's basically exactly what I was wondering.

If this is accurate then Diageo had no choice but to develop a new label (and likely not disclose the provenance).

So basically people are just complaining that the new label and folksy backstory are too hokey.

[tanstaafl2]

Question - I don't know enough about the laws/regulations in this area.

Since Diageo has sold off control of all the brands that these barrels once belonged to, or purchased these barrels from others...

Can they even legally label them as such with the "actual" history?

They obviously couldn't sell this lost prophet under the George Stagg label.

My understanding would be that they are pretty much forced to develop a new label for these barrels?

While Diageo likely couldn't sell this whiskey as Stagg or any version of that name (that is a trademarked brand name of Sazerac I presume) they could certainly provide the true history of this whiskey, if not on the label then on a website somewhere. They do not. Instead they make up fanciful labels (I think Chuck dislikes them more than I do. They wouldn't really bother me that much if the true history of the whiskey was noted either on the label or at least on a website and in their advertising) and try to make the consumer believe these barrels practically fell out of the sky as "manna from heaven". I think that is one of Chuck's primary complaints with this series as noted in his blog and I for one agree with him.

Fortunately we have people like Chuck out there giving us the real history as discussed in detail in the blog post amg cited above. It is unfortunate that it has to come from him and not Diageo but we all know by now it isn't likely to come from Diageo. I am delighted he is willing and able to do the necessary digging to provide it.

[nd2005]

While Diageo likely couldn't sell this whiskey as Stagg or any version of that name (that is a trademarked brand name of Sazerac I presume) they could certainly provide the true history of this whiskey, if not on the label then on a website somewhere. They do not. Instead they make up fanciful labels (I think Chuck dislikes them more than I do. They wouldn't really bother me that much if the true history of the whiskey was noted either on the label or at least on a website and in their advertising) and try to make the consumer believe these barrels practically fell out of the sky as "manna from heaven". I think that is one of Chuck's primary complaints with this series as noted in his blog and I for one agree with him.

Fortunately we have people like Chuck out there giving us the real history as discussed in detail in the blog post amg cited above. It is unfortunate that it has to come from him and not Diageo but we all know by now it isn't likely to come from Diageo. I am delighted he is willing and able to do the necessary digging to provide it.

Except as outlined above, they've revealed the provenance of one of the Orphan Barrels through official channels for the first time with Lost Prophet, and now Sazerac is threatening to sue.

[ModernThirst]

The product fact sheet for Lost Prophet is actually pretty straight forward. It specifically state where it was distilled and what the mash bill is. So it seems like Diageo has learned a lesson form the previous Orphan barrel releases. even their explanation of the Orphan Barrel project itself seems much less fanciful on the product fact sheet. I have a sample on the way, so I'll post my thoughts on the actual juice, but I'm at least encouraged by their presentation.

[danz]

Regarding legal claims, I am not a trademark lawyer, but I vaguely recall there being concerns about product names, appearances or advertising that promote a likelihood of confusion among consumers that the questionable product is the same as, or related to, a trademarked product.

I can only speculate what the "average" consumer (the sheep on the label? Seriously, this, the Rhetoric and Blowhard labels seem like clever in-jokes) will make of all of this, but I can imagine facebook pages full of car crotch shots of Lost-Prophet-is-the-same-as-Stagg. Just look at Stagg Jr: I had a famous NY liquor store try to sell it to me last November for $150 instead of GT Stagg, well after the unfavorable reviews were public and after I called them on it 3 times. (I like the Jr., by the way, but not more than its current MSRP.) And there are apparently stores out there quite recently trying to charge $195 for Stagg Jr.

My thoughts on why Diageo didn't highlight the sources on its labels are the following. (1) They don't have rights to the historical names, they may not want to give credit to others and others may not want to be associated with possibly suboptimal products. (2) They want to be free to change the recipe later.

[garbanzobean]

It's a shame Sazerac is considering legal action, since the end result could set yet another precedent against honesty and transparency in the bourbon industry. Maybe Diageo should take a lesson from some IBs in Scotland and refer to a distillery by location instead of name. Maybe I spoke too soon in the name of transparency . . . sigh.

At any rate, I can see both sides to the story. As a geek, I like my information, and the hokey packaging does annoy me with Orphan barrel stuff. On the other hand, its hard to argue against MORE age stated whiskey coming to market, even if its an age category I have mixed feelings about. At the end of the day, the Orphan barrel releases are good for what they are, and I'm glad Diageo chose to include the straight designation on their recent releases. Eases my paranoia a bit.

[flaminiom]

The product fact sheet for Lost Prophet is actually pretty straight forward. It specifically state where it was distilled and what the mash bill is. So it seems like Diageo has learned a lesson form the previous Orphan barrel releases. even their explanation of the Orphan Barrel project itself seems much less fanciful on the product fact sheet. I have a sample on the way, so I'll post my thoughts on the actual juice, but I'm at least encouraged by their presentation.

[Gillman]

Well, I'm not a trademark lawyer either but unless the agreement under which Diageo sourced the whiskey requires non-disclosure of the source, I'd have thought Sazerac can go whistling on this one. Also, while I respect the legitimate interest to protect intellectual property, it seems to me in the last 20 years or so companies can be too quick on the draw with lawsuits. I always felt this way about the one that prevented ultimately use of the name Ridgewood Reserve on a bottle that in my view looked nothing like the Woodford Reserve bottle. Given that the renamed Ridgemont Reserve is now owned by Sazerac Brands (IIRC), I can understand its concern to protect its rights to the maximum but my point is, this kind of thing seems to be snowballing and I don't see the real value of it. Even if some consumers relate the Stagg bourbon of today to the statement on the side of the bottle, I see that as fair ball because the whiskey is from the same distillery and the word "Stagg" happened to be in the distillery name when the whiskey was distilled. After all, Diageo bought the whiskey from a certain place. However, this is "under all reserve" so to speak and if American law says otherwise, so be it.

Gary

Edited November 19, 2014 by Gillman

[danz]

Agree that likelihood of confusion does not seem like a strong argument at first glance. And it is generating more discussion of George T. Stagg, so perhaps there are other motivations for Sazerac bringing it up. Who knows, maybe this little disagreement is scripted like professional wrestling.

I have, however, seen recent pictures of some unbelievable spreads of Orphan Barrel bottles and I expect to see some of these in the future.

Dan

[sutton]

Great post from Chuck on this:

http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-failure-of-diageos-orphan-barrel.html

Thanks for this - nice write up on the history and where these came from (or at least likely came from).

[nd2005]

It's a shame Sazerac is considering legal action, since the end result could set yet another precedent against honesty and transparency in the bourbon industry. Maybe Diageo should take a lesson from some IBs in Scotland and refer to a distillery by location instead of name. Maybe I spoke too soon in the name of transparency . . . sigh.

At any rate, I can see both sides to the story. As a geek, I like my information, and the hokey packaging does annoy me with Orphan barrel stuff. On the other hand, its hard to argue against MORE age stated whiskey coming to market, even if its an age category I have mixed feelings about. At the end of the day, the Orphan barrel releases are good for what they are, and I'm glad Diageo chose to include the straight designation on their recent releases. Eases my paranoia a bit.

Agreed.

As Fred Minnick said in the blog - it's kind of interesting that Sazerac wants to turn over this stone, given that they've gotten quite a bit out of having their prestige product associated with S-W...

[garbanzobean]

Agreed.

As Fred Minnick said in the blog - it's kind of interesting that Sazerac wants to turn over this stone, given that they've gotten quite a bit out of having their prestige product associated with S-W...

It's also possible that Sazerac has no intentions whatsoever of suing Diageo. Could be they're simply letting Diageo know where the line is in the hope that they'll tread carefully when it comes to the George T. Stagg distillery provenance.

Personally, it blows my mind that it would somehow be trademark infringement for a company that used to own the distillery in question to state that a bourbon was distilled at said distillery. Given that I am lacking a juris doctorate, perhaps this is where my speculation should end.

[squire]

Saying "our lawyers are looking into it" are code words for we don't really have a claim but that hasn't stopped us before. As for marketplace confusion I doubt the average consumer has any idea of who/where/what the George T. Stagg distillery is/was nor do they care.

Gary hit on it above. In the absence of a nondisclosure agreement between the parties Diageo is within their legal rights to publicly state the source of the whisky they're bottling.

[danz]

You and Gary are right, of course, that it doesn't sound like there is a very good legal claim here based on Diageo's conduct so far. On the other hand, I do suspect Diageo is happy to have the occasional chump get confused by the Stagg name and buy an Orphan Barrel Prophet for a lot of money, thinking it is "like" John Hansell's perennial favorite G.T. Stagg. Just like I think Sazerac is happy to have people buy Stagg Jr., thinking the similarity will be greater than it is. There is a difference, though, between Diageo and Sazerac trading off the George T. Stagg name because Sazerac owns the name. I think it is not a coincidence that Diageo suddenly got religion about naming the source distillery for their Orphan Barrel release precisely when that name happened to be the same as a widely hyped current limited release with extremely good reviews year after year.

Edit: Thinking back to what stores tried to pull with me last year with the Stagg Jr., and similar stories I have heard this year, I fully expect that many unscrupulous store owners will try to pawn this Lost Prophet off as "from the George T. Stagg distillery, only it's older and from a rare batch that isn't made any more" you know, if you heard George T. Stagg is good. The more I think about it, the more I expect that will be a recurring situation, and I imagine some distributors will pull the same routine with less sophisticated store owners.

Edited November 20, 2014 by danz
grammar and dropping the overly cautious tone

[B.B. Babington]

...it blows my mind that it would somehow be trademark infringement for a company that used to own the distillery in question to state that a bourbon was distilled at said distillery...

There are lots of reasons this could be a no-no. Just ask the original Ronald the clown or the original band members of rock band Yes. But I like Diageo telling us and dislike BT if they make a fuss.

[shoshani]

Maybe the Lost Prophet labels can be amended to say something like "This whiskey was distilled in a former Schenley facility located in Frankfort, Kentucky, in an area once famed for having more than a trace of bison traffic."

[Hop]

It's on the NC State List at $119.95 retail