Gillman Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) http://www.lcbo.ca/lcbo/product/crown-royal-monarch-75th-anniversary-blend/401224#.VK36E1pcTHgAmbiguous labelling, it is clearly a tribute to the 1939 Royal Tour, the event which created Crown Royal. The label doesn't indicate if the whisky replicates the 1939 original or if not, how it is different (presumably) from the other CR iterations. However, I found this:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/food-and-wine/wine/wine-reviews/lapostolle-cuvee-alexandre-apalta-vineyard-cabernet-sauvignon-2011-chile/article21697220/It looks like a high proportion of two Coffey ryes are in it, so sounding good although presumably it is not 100% flavouring whisky. I'll have to get this one.(I gather the company owns the one Coffey still and moved it from Ontario or Quebec to Manitoba where it still does service. When it was "back east", some of the spirit it made is still aging here, or so I infer).Gary Edited January 8, 2015 by Gillman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorvallisCracker Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Sounds interesting. I doubt it will be sold in the US. Hood River Distillers has a bottom-shelf line of spirits under the Monarch label (http://hrdspirits.com/the-brands/monarch-brands/) and if the CR was sold here with that name it would likely trigger a lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Sounds interesting. I doubt it will be sold in the US. Hood River Distillers has a bottom-shelf line of spirits under the Monarch label (http://hrdspirits.com/the-brands/monarch-brands/) and if the CR was sold here with that name it would likely trigger a lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorvallisCracker Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 It is already here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 It's Canadian.Which vests jurisdiction under International Trade Agreements. Can't see HRD taking legal action unless they think their brands will benefit from the publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Trying it now. High quality blend. It is CR to a higher degree, soft and rich, good flavours, not at all a straight in U.S. terms so I have no idea how it compares to the Texas SBs. I just wish they would dispense with the fancy gold-colored closure, grey bag and presentation box that probably add $20 to the price. An excellent alternative to a fine Cognac.Gary Edited January 9, 2015 by Gillman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Starting to wonder if the reference to the 1939 tour and the original CR, etc., is a code for the replication of that original. Why talk about such an old event which has no meaning to most buyers of the drink? True, it is 75th anniversary, but that could be a convenience more than anything else. (75 isn't 50 or 100, not one of the gilt-edged anniversaries). I've had CR from the 50's and this seems similar if not actually better. I'm starting to think this may be the "original" (1939 inaugural) CR: either way it's very good, about as seamless and rich as a traditional Canadian blended whisky can be. But it is very different to the Alberta Springs rye that has appeared in various guises, very different to Dark Horse, CC single rye, Lot 40, etc. It's very much CR but a super-luxury version, more than Limited Edition and the others that have appeared to date. Slight bourbon smell on the glass frame after, presumably the Coffey whiskies.Gary Edited January 9, 2015 by Gillman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Good notes Gary, sounds like high tone whisky. Disregarding the packaging and history this does appear to be what the producers of Crown Royal can do when they put there mind to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camduncan Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Trying it now. High quality blend. It is CR to a higher degree, soft and rich, good flavours, not at all a straight in U.S. terms so I have no idea how it compares to the Texas SBs. I just wish they would dispense with the fancy gold-colored closure, grey bag and presentation box that probably add $20 to the price. An excellent alternative to a fine Cognac.GaryGary, do you happen to have an XR bottle on hand to compare to? Or does it more closely resemble another CR bottling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Gary, do you happen to have an XR bottle on hand to compare to? Or does it more closely resemble another CR bottling?Cam, I had tastings of XR recently, the reputed Lasalle version, and the Monarch is much superior IMO. The Lasalle lacks the pinpoint balance and silky depth of Monarch despite costing more than double, IIRC. And the previous version of XR was not as good as Lasalle. Monarch is definitely the best whisky CR has done, better than Cask 16, the black label or any other. (I should say I only had early bottles of Cask 16 and some people told me that later versions were better but I like the pure whisky taste of Monarch, dollars to donuts there are no sugars or other flavoring in it).This is a perfect whisky when you haven't had other alcohol, you will only appreciate it fully as a first drink, and neat. Also, it needs a large dram, 2-3 ounces, say, to really get what is going on. Very small sips don't convey the full experience (unlike a good straight, say).Gary Edited January 9, 2015 by Gillman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camduncan Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Thanks Gary, that's awesome! We just got XR (Lasalle) here last month, which I'm keen to try. This sounds better again. I'll live in hope that Monarch makes it to our shores! I've become a big CR fan of late. It seems to suit my mood when I don't a strong pour (if that makes sense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 Thanks Gary, that's awesome! We just got XR (Lasalle) here last month, which I'm keen to try. This sounds better again. I'll live in hope that Monarch makes it to our shores! I've become a big CR fan of late. It seems to suit my mood when I don't a strong pour (if that makes sense).Certainly understand! Lasalle is certainly a good blend with a fairly assertive taste, but it doesn't have the elegance or focus of the Monarch, IMO. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorvallisCracker Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) It's Canadian.Which vests jurisdiction under International Trade Agreements. Can't see HRD taking legal action unless they think their brands will benefit from the publicity."It's Canadian" was a reference to the proof level. Edited January 9, 2015 by CorvallisCracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorvallisCracker Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Cam, I had tastings of XR recently, the reputed Lasalle version, and the Monarch is much superior IMO. The Lasalle lacks the pinpoint balance and silky depth of Monarch despite costing more than double, IIRC. And the previous version of XR was not as good as Lasalle. Monarch is definitely the best whisky CR has done, better than Cask 16, the black label or any other. (I should say I only had early bottles of Cask 16 and some people told me that later versions were better but I like the pure whisky taste of Monarch, dollars to donuts there are no sugars or other flavoring in it).This is a perfect whisky when you haven't had other alcohol, you will only appreciate it fully as a first drink, and neat. Also, it needs a large dram, 2-3 ounces, say, to really get what is going on. Very small sips don't convey the full experience (unlike a good straight, say).Sounds pretty good, Gary. Unfortunately right now $75 is a budget buster for me. Maybe later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 Sounds pretty good, Gary. Unfortunately right now $75 is a budget buster for me. Maybe later.Hey Scott, hope all is well. I just wish they would ditch the fancy packaging, maybe it could halve the price. I think the assumption is that well-heeled target markets will buy this but I really wonder about that, are people really attracted by the bound book-style format? You can't even see the knobby gold-colored closure and grey bag unless Diageo is counting on repeat buys. They can make it look nice enough and sell more at half the price (approximately) IMO, but I'm not a whisky marketer...Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Hey Scott, hope all is well. I just wish they would ditch the fancy packaging, maybe it could halve the price. I think the assumption is that well-heeled target markets will buy this but I really wonder about that, are people really attracted by the bound book-style format? You can't even see the knobby gold-colored closure and grey bag unless Diageo is counting on repeat buys. They can make it look nice enough and sell more at half the price (approximately) IMO, but I'm not a whisky marketer...GaryI am all for getting rid of excess and unnecessary packaging to save on cost but I can't imagine the swanky top and bag add more than a dollar or two, if that much, to the whole thing. Half seems optimistic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) "It's Canadian" was a reference to the proof level.Quite so and I hope you didn't think I was lifting your comment out of context. Edited January 9, 2015 by squire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorvallisCracker Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Hey Scott, hope all is well. It is now. I went through a rough patch, but seem to be on smoother ground now.BTW, I acquired a Canadian son-in-law last April. One of the reasons I'm back here on SB is to read your posts, which serve to remind me that not all Canadians are goofballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conquistador Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Prices on the CR Monarch 75th have dropped in some markets, down to around $50. Hopefully it will come down a little more, over time.Sounds pretty good, Gary. Unfortunately right now $75 is a budget buster for me. Maybe later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camduncan Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Prices on the CR Monarch 75th have dropped in some markets, down to around $50. Hopefully it will come down a little more, over time.That gives me hope that if it makes it here, it will land at a reasonable price. XR is $150 here, so I assume this one is similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portwood Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Justified, or not, I can get my head around charging a premium for a bottle of: older whisky, higher proof, different grains, different maturation (ie Scotch finished in various casks), single barrels, etc. What I can't accept is Crown Royal (or others) changing packaging and charging double the price simply because the box says "75th anniversary" - no evidence* of older whisky, same minimum proof, same blend, etc. IMO what makes the Monarch price even more objectionable is the availability of the single barrel discussed in another thread that DOES offer some of the variables that warrant a premium, for a LOWER price than the Monarch. That tells me the Monarch is aimed at the CR lifetime drinker that feels like slurging for a "special occasion".With due respect to Gilman's palate and glowing review, I will NOT pay Cdn$75 (or $50 for that matter) for this same old-same old traditional Canadian Whisky. The single barrel, OTOH, is a little more tempting, though a "single barrel" without a single shred of information on age, distillation date, warehouse location, grains, etc. does not warrant much of a premium.*by evidence I mean information on the label, not what some blogger or "journalist" says the producer told him is in the bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailor22 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Justified, or not, I can get my head around charging a premium for a bottle of: older whisky, higher proof, different grains, different maturation (ie Scotch finished in various casks), single barrels, etc. What I can't accept is Crown Royal (or others) changing packaging and charging double the price simply because the box says "75th anniversary" - no evidence* of older whisky, same minimum proof, same blend, etc. IMO what makes the Monarch price even more objectionable is the availability of the single barrel discussed in another thread that DOES offer some of the variables that warrant a premium, for a LOWER price than the Monarch. That tells me the Monarch is aimed at the CR lifetime drinker that feels like slurging for a "special occasion".With due respect to Gilman's palate and glowing review, I will NOT pay Cdn$75 (or $50 for that matter) for this same old-same old traditional Canadian Whisky. The single barrel, OTOH, is a little more tempting, though a "single barrel" without a single shred of information on age, distillation date, warehouse location, grains, etc. does not warrant much of a premium.*by evidence I mean information on the label, not what some blogger or "journalist" says the producer told him is in the bottle.This is one of those times when I wish this forum had a like button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) This is one of those times when I wish this forum had a like button.Price and quality are two different things (as we know amply from the bourbon world).IMO, CC single grain rye is a much better value, Dark Horse too. But does that mean this Monarch is "old-same old-traditional"? Not at all. And I don't see how one can say that without having tried it.Plus, even if one considers it old-same, old-traditional, lots of Canadian whisky is priced today in this neighbourhood. It is not as if Diageo is breaking new ground here.Gary Edited January 10, 2015 by Gillman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) ...One of the reasons I'm back here on SB is to read your posts, which serve to remind me that not all Canadians are goofballs. Thanks Scott, but taken tongue in cheek for the implication of the second part of the sentence. Although I know you're serious about about our deficiencies in bottling proof. Edited January 10, 2015 by Gillman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portwood Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 ... old-same, old-traditional...Bad grammar on my part. I meant to type: same old, same old, traditionalby which I meant: 40% abv with little other information on the label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts