Looks like Diageo is using Stitzel-Weller as a brand name now

[squire]

NDP created fake brand tied by association with a famous name with a fake (since 1872) history. Scandalous.

[amg]

NDP created fake brand tied by association with a famous name with a fake (since 1872) history. Scandalous.

It's yet another Frank-Lin product ("makers" of Medley, Wathen's - another famous old name, Buck, Black Saddle, etc.). It would be nice if they bottle something that does the name justice, but I'm not holding my breath.

[squire]

I'm not opening my wallet.

[GrPeMi]

Another "Stitzel"...

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=15013001000092

And one will note that it is not "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey"...it's "Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey", "Straight Pot Stilled", whatever that last one means...

If it's all distilled in Kentucky, I wonder what disqualifies it from being straight...

[squire]

If it's all distilled in Kentucky, I wonder what disqualifies it from being straight...

Used barrels . . . . . . . . .

[Josh]

That would disqualify it from being bourbon too.

[oknazevad]

Sku pointed out on twitter that of the several "Other" labels included in the COLA, one states that it was aged using a solera system, one states that it was "inspired by" the Stitzel-Weller distillery, and one claims that it actually contains some amount of SW bourbon:

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=15063001000491

Interesting.

Very interesting. Those all look like possible options for a back label. Being that things that are approved may not wind up being used, it looks like they may have sought label approval before actually deciding the full nature of the product. It seems that they're contemplating tapping into a limited stock of existing S-W distilled juice they have in the warehouses there to blend with some other stuff, possibly using a solera system. If they do solera it, then conceivably they can continue the brand forever, as every bottle would contain some S-W juice, though it'd be little more than trace amounts after a while. The bourbonr article thinks they're sourcing HH wheater, which does defend (in a fashion) from S-W. Of course, they may just go with the "inspired by" back label, and use nothing but HH juice. That said, if they do age HH new make at S-W, the resultant bourbon wouldn't taste exactly like HH wheatears anyway.

[oknazevad]

Sku pointed out on twitter that of the several "Other" labels included in the COLA, one states that it was aged using a solera system, one states that it was "inspired by" the Stitzel-Weller distillery, and one claims that it actually contains some amount of SW bourbon:

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=15063001000491

Interesting.

Looks like these are a sequence of side labels (note the increasing number of keys on each) explaining the product. (A six-sided bottle would definitely stand out.) So it seems that they're contemplating tapping into a limited stock of existing S-W distilled juice they have in the warehouses there to blend with some other stuff, possibly using a solera system. If they do solera it, then conceivably they can continue the brand forever, as every bottle would contain some S-W juice, though it'd be little more than trace amounts after a while. The bourbonr article thinks they're sourcing HH wheater, which does descend (in a fashion) from S-W, and is definitely "inspired by" it. That said, if they do age HH new make at S-W (though probably not in the first bottlings), the resultant bourbon wouldn't taste exactly like HH wheatears anyway.

Though that does make me wonder. Since bourbon requires new barrels and at least two years aging to be called straight, how would a solera bourbon work? Would they age new make in a new barrel for at least two years and then introduce that into the top barrel of the solera stack as the older stocks work their way down the stack? How would that extra aging jibe with the labeling requirements. (I would presume they'd age the new stuff for at least 4 years so it doesn't require an age statement.) Would it count as a finishing? I hate to give Diageo credit for innovation, but this does sound like something that has never been done by a major bourbon producer.

Edited March 10, 2015 by oknazevad
Combine responses.

[amg]

And one will note that it is not "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey"...it's "Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey", "Straight Pot Stilled", whatever that last one means...

If it's all distilled in Kentucky, I wonder what disqualifies it from being straight...

Used barrels . . . . . . . . .

Wouldn't that disqualify it from being bourbon too?

[Tucker]

And one will note that it is not "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey"...it's "Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey", "Straight Pot Stilled", whatever that last one means...

If it's all distilled in Kentucky, I wonder what disqualifies it from being straight...

Aged under 2 years.

[oknazevad]

Sku pointed out on twitter that of the several "Other" labels included in the COLA, one states that it was aged using a solera system, one states that it was "inspired by" the Stitzel-Weller distillery, and one claims that it actually contains some amount of SW bourbon:

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=15063001000491

Interesting.

I'm not opening my wallet.

Me neither. Wonder I there's going be some lawsuits involved here. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Sazerac/Buffalo Trace sued all of them because of their ownership of the Weller brand.

[shoshani]

Me neither. Wonder I there's going be some lawsuits involved here. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Sazerac/Buffalo Trace sued all of them because of their ownership of the Weller brand.

If I'm reading the COLAs correctly, Diageo isn't claiming "Stitzel-Weller" as a brand, only that the product is from the Stitzel-Weller distillery. Which would technically be true, and Saz/BT would not be able to sue on those grounds because they bought a whiskey brand but not a distillery name. The disconnection between Stitzel-Weller the distillery and W. L. Weller as a brand has been firmly established for at least 20 years, and there have been NDP whiskeys that proclaim Stitzel-Weller as their source on the labels.

The Frank-Lin "Stitzel" whiskey might stand a chance of a C&D from Diageo, since they're going to be actively using S-W as a distillery name, presumably for new make as well as stock whiskey, but Saz/BT doesn't have a claim on Stitzel that I know of.

[MAKEITOUTOFWOOD]

Stitzel-Weller Sweet!

I'm in....

[squire]

After making the used barrels comment I realized they had Bourbon on the label but it was too late to edit the post. I think Tucker was closer with "aged less than two years". This is not to say the whisky will be that young, rather that it can.

[TunnelTiger]

I for one will let many of y'all buy, taste, and comment before I purchase. I'm becoming more and more conservative which I think is because I have so many bottles I enjoy now I really don't need another. Cheers!

[dcbt]

I can't tell for certain in this pic but it does look like it says "Straight Bourbon Whiskey" on both:

http://thewhiskeywash.com/2015/05/06/diageos-blade-and-bow-bourbon-to-be-next-collectible-whiskey/

[amg]

I can't tell for certain in this pic but it does look like it says "Straight Bourbon Whiskey" on both:

http://thewhiskeywash.com/2015/05/06/diageos-blade-and-bow-bourbon-to-be-next-collectible-whiskey/

Yep, both say Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey. Got confirmation from someone who saw a bottle in person that the 22-year-old does mention "solera" on the side label.

[jburlowski]

I have purchased both. The 22 y.o. does not mention "solera" (if you think about it, why would they). The NAS does.

The NAS is a solid pour --- good (but not great). Will open the 22 yo next week with some friends.

[Josh]

Some segments of WhiskeyTwitter have fired up their outrage machines over the use of the Stitzel-Weller name by Diageo.

"It's not real Stitzel-Weller! Diageo has no connection to the name! They're trying to make money off it!"

When it's pointed out to them that Guinness owned UD and that Heaven Hill, Luxco and Sazerac are all making money off the S-W legacy too, it doesn't seem to compute for them.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Josh

[amg]

I have purchased both. The 22 y.o. does not mention "solera" (if you think about it, why would they). The NAS does.

Ah. My friend had it backwards.

[stickly]

I have purchased both. The 22 y.o. does not mention "solera" (if you think about it, why would they). The NAS does.

The NAS is a solid pour --- good (but not great). Will open the 22 yo next week with some friends.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the 22 year. Recently found it at a liquor store, but hesitant to pay that much for it without seeing many reviews.

[The Black Tot]

I passed. Cheapest I saw it was $174. They can keep it at that price.

I'm not judging - I've got a stash of Old Blowhard (which I sipped from last week and still enjoy). But my wallet is going to be pretty hard for Diageo to pry open going forward.