Charlie The Tuna

[fishnbowljoe]

How many of you remember the old StarKist Tuna tv commercials? 

"But Charlie, StarKist wants tunas that taste good. Not tunas with good taste."

This can also be applied to bourbon, whether real, or in a rhetorical sort of way. Does a $60 bottle of Blanton's taste good because the price dictates it should? Or, should HH 6 yr BIB taste just so-so because it generally costs around $12.00 or so.

I have a few higher dollar bourbons that taste pretty good, whether the price dictates they should or not. I also have a few Charlies. The same applies here, only conversely. Some Charlies I have taste absolutely wonderful. Great bourbons, available at a pretty decent cost. 

Yes this subject may have been covered somewhat in other different threads. QPR, value bourbons, etc… but I thought this might be fun in a different sort of way. 

Do you all want tunas with good taste, or tunas that taste good?  I'm pretty sure that I know what most folks replies will be, but what the heck? Ya gotta have some fun. Right?

Cheers! Joe

 

[Richnimrod]

Hmmmmmm, I want BOTH!    I would love to stumble upon a readily available Bourbon at around $15/750 that is non-chill-filtered, around 111-proof, and tastes like ...say... Four Roses Sm. Batch LE 125th Anniversary,.....or maybe William Larue Weller from 2011.    But lacking that unicorn, I'd certainly be a regular consumer of any Bourbon with the somewhat variable characteristics of Blanton's at that $15 rate.   No?   OK, how about just making one that approximates any decent year/barrel of EWSB at $15?

Any of these would find case space reserved in my bunker.     Lacking such opportunities, let me specify the rare and wonderful nose of a well-aged Old Charter from about 1966 or thereabouts at whatever the retail price would've been then.    I'll take several gallons.

But, in all seriousness.... I don't mind paying for a premium Bourbon that I truly find exciting and different enough to be worth the freight (which is becoming steeper all the time, I know).     I have had a few 'dogs' that wouldn't be bought again, even if available; but most of the ones I've paid retail for into the $100+ range have been worth the cheddar for the experience rendered.     I WON'T pay flipper rates for anything; on principle.

[mbroo5880i]

The bigger concern is finding dolphin in my tuna or a less expensive bourbon disguised in a pricier bottle.  Another concern is the incremental value.  I love Blanton's and like HH 6-Yr BIB.  Do I love Blanton's 5x as much?  On the first pour, yes!  On the second pour, not as much.  By the third pour, I probably can't tell the difference.    Of course, I rarely have three pours in a row.  Or do I? 

[Jacket]

I do like canned tuna!

[El Vino]

When I read the title, I thought you were going in the direction of barrel selection.  In these days of crazy demand, I wonder how many barrels get in to the pricier labels that would not have in periods of lesser demand?  We all decry the loss of age statements, but I suspect we would be equally interested to know how many compromises are made in barrel selection in order to keep up with demand for the mid/upper shelf labels.  

Edited February 28, 2016 by El Vino

[DeluxeReverb]

6-8 years from now when I am 60-62 years old, there is going to be a surplus of excellent bourbon and it will be affordable.  We can have our tuna and drink it, too.

[mbroo5880i]

45 minutes ago, DeluxeReverb said:

6-8 years from now when I am 60-62 years old, there is going to be a surplus of excellent bourbon and it will be affordable.  We can have our tuna and drink it, too.

I wouldn't mind drinking a pour or two with the Big Tuna (Bill Parcells) and discussing football. 

I think what Joe is talking about is the concept of unheralded bourbons not making the cut to be top shelf bourbons, even though they may in reality be equal or better than those we perceive to be the best.  I do notice a "quality" step up on some offerings.  BT is a simple example.  Buffalo Trace is decent.  I can drink it straight but it fits well in a cocktail.  ER10 is a step up and much more enjoyable straight.  GTS is just on another level.  I know I can taste the difference in a blind sampling and my ranking would not change.  However, I also know that I probably unconsciously enjoy GTS even more just by knowing it is GTS.

Edited February 28, 2016 by mbroo5880i

[fishnbowljoe]

mbroo's kinda on the right track here with what my intentions were with this topic.

Here's an example that illustrates what I'm referring to. I remember seeing an article two or three years ago where Woodford Reserve was named the favorite bourbon of the affluent. The price for Woodford Reserve around here is generally, and at best, in the mid to upper $30 price range. WR isn't bad, but it just doesn't suit my own personal taste preferences. As for my own personal taste, I'd much rather purchase ETL for about the same price, or a few dollars less, or BT and OWA for about $10.00 less. 

I can afford WR despite the fact that I don't consider myself affluent.  I just prefer the others more based on taste, not the hype. 

Cheers! Joe

[ken_mays]

Marketing and image.   I see your point about WR. It seems to be the bourbon most recommended by people who don't know very much about bourbon.  Jack Daniel's is another one I see people buying when they want a brown liquor.  Not because it's such a great whiskey but from force of habit or brand recognition. There have been quite a few of these folks who have been blown away by some great bourbons that I've let them taste.  Their eyes bug out when I tell them it costs less than JD too.  "Why am I buying this crap?" they always ask themselves. 

 

Probably because they don't want to take a chance on something new, or aren't interested enough to do any research.