Are we becoming accustomed to inferior whiskey ?

[Cranecreek]

One undeniable fact is when you ask such a polarizing question as I did in the OP, you can count on civil and informative debate from the SB community.  It's one of the things about SB that makes it unique.  "The glass is half-full" camp has presented plenty of evidence to cause me pause and review my fatalistic view on the state of bourbon production.  Nostalgia aside, there is plenty to be positive about.  I can imagine worse conditions than having today's immense selection whether it be good, bad or indifferent.  Still it is valuable to reexamine the present and look to the future of what may come.  Availability would calm a lot of the frustration when visiting the LS.  But those are the times we are in.  I can't help but think of C. Dickens opening lines of "Two Cities".  Anyhow thanks to my fellow SBers for steering me back to "half full" thinking.

  As the first snowflakes of the year begin to appear, I find myself eyeing the dark Mahogany colored bottles in the back of the cabinet, knowing they will soon find their way to the front.  And with the fireplace ablaze and a hardbound Hemingway or Steinbeck in my lap and a glass at my side, all is well !

[Harry in WashDC]

2 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

. . .  "The glass is half-full" camp has presented plenty of evidence to cause me pause and review my fatalistic view on the state of bourbon production.  Nostalgia aside, there is plenty to be positive about.  I can imagine worse conditions than having today's immense selection whether it be good, bad or indifferent . . .

Yup, CC, my activities have started moving inside as well.  The conversation on this thread got me thinking (while I tossed and turned at 3AM with a slight case of flu) coupled with relatively recent comments on a few others: Just what WAS readily available to the bourbon geek in, say, 1958, 1978, and 1998?  What were the available brands, expressions, proofs, and ages (if stated)?  I remember seeing REALLY fancy decanters commemorating all sorts of stuff but not much advertising/featuring of high proofs or exceptional ages, etc., not that I was looking for them in the late 1950s, 1980s, or 1990s.  Looking for such stuff is indoor work.  Maybe I found a project . . . and I have an up-to-date Library of Congress card so . . .

[chasking]

Since most people don't have the option of drinking only dusties, or have deep bunkers of the old pals that are no longer readily available, on one important level it doesn't really matter whether bourbon is better or worse nowadays, even if you could get any consensus on what those terms even mean.

 

Can you get good bourbon at any decent boozeteria today?  I suspect even the most curmudgeonly among us would admit that yes, you can.  Demand for bourbon (and particularly premium bourbon) has gone up by several orders of magnitudes since I got into whiskey as a hobby 16 or so years ago, and prices for premium bourbons reflect this.  But they're still available (and often at reasonable prices if you compare with similar levels of Scotch, for instance), even if they may take a little more work to find.  But there's as much or more really good whiskey in the lower tiers of the market.  And if whiskey X of today is younger than whiskey X of yesteryear, is it actually inferior?  If you drink it and it tastes good, then nothing good can come from debating or whining about it being better before, because  you can't get the old stuff anymore, and frankly I doubt that you can clearly remember what it taste like to the extent that you can reasonably compare something from years ago to something from today.  If you've side-by-sided an old expression with the current version and like the old one better, than I will concede that you have an informed opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't get the old stuff anymore, so the only relevant question is, is the new stuff bad?  And in most cases I don't think it is.

[mbroo5880i]

Plenty of good bourbon available at reasonable prices.  Unfortunately, many old favorites are not as readily available and, when they are, the price is out of line with the value they provide.  Today's bourbon is not inferior but it is different.

[uncork_it_already]

I can’t speak for anything made 10+ years ago, but the whole NAS thing I believe will pass. Many people in the industry who’ve been around a long time say age statements will eventually be back.

 

Distilleries are catching up to the crazy surge in demand (same thing happening in Japan) and you know once supply catches up and people can get these bottles anyplace anytime, half the people scooping them up now won’t want them.

 

It may take 5, even 10 years, but we will get it back eventually. Personally, I’ve never understood the dusty bottom-shelf obsession. How and why was whiskey made so much better decades ago? I can’t think of a single thing off the top of my head that isn’t produced (significantly) better today than yesteryear, except whiskey apparently. Yet I see people swoon over some 1970’s cheap bottle like it’s better than a Stagg.

 

I love bourbon and rye but can very easily move to Irish and scotch if it gets even crazier than it is right now. I think the bubble will burst within a couple years, but who knows.

[Whiskeythink.com]

14 minutes ago, uncork_it_already said:

 

 

Distilleries are catching up to the crazy surge in demand (same thing happening in Japan) and you know once supply catches up and people can get these bottles anyplace anytime, half the people scooping them up now won’t want them.

 

This is s great point about what is bound to happen. There's many that are having fun with the whole collecting, hunting, & bragging rights part of it. But when it's aplenty, will it still hold it's appeal? Is the industry in 2030 gonna be like the 1960s, where they have too much old whiskey available? As the crafts start dropping, & they already have started dropping, will peeps hunt for the obscure craft bottle? And will I even still be alive to see & taste all this?

[Cranecreek]

13 hours ago, chasking said:

and frankly I doubt that you can clearly remember what it taste like to the extent that you can reasonably compare something from years ago to something from today. 

The senses of taste and smell are capable of creating the strongest memories in the brains of humans and other animals.  They are not forgotten at all but inscribed in our memories.  And for good reason, as it is / was critical for survival.  When nosing or tasting a spirit and noting certain attributes like brown sugar, bubblegum,banana or such you don't have to go get a bite of them to validate yourself.  I am going to venture a guess that you have never had pie crust made with lard, or sourdough pancakes from your own starter, or maybe not even eggs from the same day they were laid.  To say someone cannot reasonably compare these foods tasted years ago to something consumed today is frankly absurd.  In the case of whiskey, because of the great amount of congeners it is even more capable of producing these memories.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Cranecreek

[chasking]

3 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

The senses of taste and smell are capable of creating the strongest memories in the brains of humans and other animals.  They are not forgotten at all but inscribed in our memories.  * * *  In the case of whiskey, because of the great amount of congeners it is even more capable of producing these memories.

And yet, what I have observed over and over and over again in blind tastings is that confirmation bias outweighs almost every other factor when it comes to evaluating whiskey.  I've also observed that it is quite possible to taste the exact same whiskey on two different days, and one day experience nectar of the gods, and the other day find it only meh.  So if someone posits that the new stuff is not as good as the old stuff, unless that person has actually done a blind side-by-side comparison of the two, I take that evaluation with a big grain of salt---especially considering that "the old stuff you can't get anymore was better" is practically an article of faith in the whiskey hobby.  The longer ago said person actually tasted the old stuff, the more salt.

[Cranecreek]

5 hours ago, chasking said:

So if someone posits that the new stuff is not as good as the old stuff, unless that person has actually done a blind side-by-side comparison of the two, I take that evaluation with a big grain of salt---especially considering that "the old stuff you can't get anymore was better" is practically an article of faith in the whiskey hobby.  The longer ago said person actually tasted the old stuff, the more salt.

 

From left to right  - age stated 12 year (back label) -NAS circa 2016 -new NAS - BP C917

Edited October 29, 2018 by Cranecreek

[PaulO]

20 hours ago, uncork_it_already said:

... Personally, I’ve never understood the dusty bottom-shelf obsession. How and why was whiskey made so much better decades ago? I can’t think of a single thing off the top of my head that isn’t produced (significantly) better today than yesteryear, except whiskey apparently. Yet I see people swoon over some 1970’s cheap bottle like it’s better than a Stagg.

...

Bottom shelf is bottom shelf, unless you are just talking novelty of an older bottle.  Dusty (discontinued) mid shelf bottles - that's a whole different story.  There's some really awesome stuff there.  

My opinion, mid shelf has taken the biggest hit in the bourbon boom.

Age statements are still around, if you're willing to fork over the $$$.

[tarheel]

Cranecreek, thanks for starting this thread, really interesting. I've been feeling the same way lately. I started my bourbon journey around 2010, so I had some time pre-boom. Back then, here in NC the shelves overflowed with OWA and an email to a local ABC board got you any member of the BTAC lineup on demand. This year, people line up an hour ahead of store openings on random truck days in the mid summer because they heard a few bottles of OWA might be on the shelves. Without spending days hunting in rural NC, your only BTAC/Pappy hope is a lottery.

 

I agree with those above that say our cups overflow with amazing selections on the shelves, particularly high proof - ECBP, KCSB, MMCS, RRSB, etc. That said, unfortunately for me BT juice is pretty much squarely in my wheelhouse, and the only reliable on shelf product is ER, which I always have on hand. This summer some snooping around locally got me a couple of bottles of Stagg Jr. which I love (it's never on the shelf anymore, you have to ask for it). So bottom line is we are just spoiled and I should stop complaining. Everything boils down to me being a complainypants that I can't get any bottle of BT product I want anymore. But I can't shake the feeling that any bottle of scotch I want is always sitting right there. 

[chasking]

17 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

 

From left to right  - age stated 12 year (back label) -NAS circa 2016 -new NAS - BP C917

So clearly your evaluation of the relative merits of new vs. old EC would be an informed opinion.  (Although, have you tasted the three 94 proof expressions blind?)  What I'm doubting the general proposition that most people can accurately compare a whiskey they're drinking now with a whiskey they drank years ago.

Edited October 30, 2018 by chasking

[BDanner]

4 hours ago, tarheel said:

Cranecreek, thanks for starting this thread, really interesting. I've been feeling the same way lately. I started my bourbon journey around 2010, so I had some time pre-boom. Back then, here in NC the shelves overflowed with OWA and an email to a local ABC board got you any member of the BTAC lineup on demand. This year, people line up an hour ahead of store openings on random truck days in the mid summer because they heard a few bottles of OWA might be on the shelves. Without spending days hunting in rural NC, your only BTAC/Pappy hope is a lottery.

 

I agree with those above that say our cups overflow with amazing selections on the shelves, particularly high proof - ECBP, KCSB, MMCS, RRSB, etc. That said, unfortunately for me BT juice is pretty much squarely in my wheelhouse, and the only reliable on shelf product is ER, which I always have on hand. This summer some snooping around locally got me a couple of bottles of Stagg Jr. which I love (it's never on the shelf anymore, you have to ask for it). So bottom line is we are just spoiled and I should stop complaining. Everything boils down to me being a complainypants that I can't get any bottle of BT product I want anymore. But I can't shake the feeling that any bottle of scotch I want is always sitting right there. 

While I think that we are luckier than a lot of states here in NC, it's a shame that the only BT products that are available with any regularity are Ancient Age and Benchmark. I do find it odd that the Eagle Rare doesn't seem to move (at least in my area) as fast as some of the other BT brands.

Edited October 30, 2018 by BDanner

[kevinbrink]

4 hours ago, tarheel said:

Cranecreek, thanks for starting this thread, really interesting. I've been feeling the same way lately. I started my bourbon journey around 2010, so I had some time pre-boom. Back then, here in NC the shelves overflowed with OWA and an email to a local ABC board got you any member of the BTAC lineup on demand. This year, people line up an hour ahead of store openings on random truck days in the mid summer because they heard a few bottles of OWA might be on the shelves. Without spending days hunting in rural NC, your only BTAC/Pappy hope is a lottery.

 

I agree with those above that say our cups overflow with amazing selections on the shelves, particularly high proof - ECBP, KCSB, MMCS, RRSB, etc. That said, unfortunately for me BT juice is pretty much squarely in my wheelhouse, and the only reliable on shelf product is ER, which I always have on hand. This summer some snooping around locally got me a couple of bottles of Stagg Jr. which I love (it's never on the shelf anymore, you have to ask for it). So bottom line is we are just spoiled and I should stop complaining. Everything boils down to me being a complainypants that I can't get any bottle of BT product I want anymore. But I can't shake the feeling that any bottle of scotch I want is always sitting right there. 

Your post really hit the nail on the head for me, I think it is very true that for those that love BT products the boom has had the most impact specifically when your go to products are effected. Interestingly though even there the number of available premium products has increased with the addition of things like the CEHT line or Stagg Jr. which were both launched post boom and post widespread allocation.  My perspective is definitely different since none of the BT brands has really been a go to for me in a while and the brands I enjoy the most haven't really been impacted quite as much and my favorite WT has actually, to me, improved.

[tarheel]

35 minutes ago, BDanner said:

While I think that we are luckier than a lot of states here in NC, it's a shame that the only BT products that are available with any regularity are Ancient Age and Benchmark. I do find it odd that the Eagle Rare doesn't seem to move (at least in my area) as fast as some of the other BT brands.

It's all availability. Sazerac keeps ER on the shelf here, so no one buys it up. No perceived scarcity. The levels of BT have been increasing so I suspect that will soon be widely available here as well. It will be a while before you see OWA on an NC shelf for any period of time IMHO.

 

For what it's worth, I emailed Mark Brown at Sazerac this year about this imbalance - no OWA anymore, but tons of ER here in NC. He said that Sazerac does this on purpose. NC was a state that was late to Weller products, but early to ER so we get ER until supply improves. The counter example is Texas - lots of Weller, not a lot of ER. I have no idea why historical allocations (from who knows when) matter in 2018, but this is the explanation I was provided. Another pessimistic way of looking at it is to artificially create high demand for regionally misallocated products. 

[kevinbrink]

1 hour ago, tarheel said:

Another pessimistic way of looking at it is to artificially create high demand for regionally misallocated products. 

It's certainly the way I look at it. 

[Charlutz]

8 hours ago, tarheel said:

 That said, unfortunately for me BT juice is pretty much squarely in my wheelhouse, and the only reliable on shelf product is ER, which I always have on hand. This summer some snooping around locally got me a couple of bottles of Stagg Jr. which I love (it's never on the shelf anymore, you have to ask for it).

I support both BT and UNC with my wallet (my kid is a sophomore.) Are you near chapel hill? We’re driving down Friday for the weekend. Shoot me a pm if you want me to mule a few bottles of Stagg Jr to you. 

[BDanner]

3 hours ago, tarheel said:

It's all availability. Sazerac keeps ER on the shelf here, so no one buys it up. No perceived scarcity. The levels of BT have been increasing so I suspect that will soon be widely available here as well. It will be a while before you see OWA on an NC shelf for any period of time IMHO.

 

For what it's worth, I emailed Mark Brown at Sazerac this year about this imbalance - no OWA anymore, but tons of ER here in NC. He said that Sazerac does this on purpose. NC was a state that was late to Weller products, but early to ER so we get ER until supply improves. The counter example is Texas - lots of Weller, not a lot of ER. I have no idea why historical allocations (from who knows when) matter in 2018, but this is the explanation I was provided. Another pessimistic way of looking at it is to artificially create high demand for regionally misallocated products. 

Wow...great info. It's refreshing that you got a direct and seemingly honest response to your question. I wish I was more of an Eagle Rare fan. I almost pick up a bottle every time I go to the ABC, but always leave with something else.

[Harry in WashDC]

On 10/29/2018 at 8:28 AM, Cranecreek said:

. . .  sourdough pancakes from your own starter, . . .

My wife's dates from 1984 - a gift from a 1960s college friend of hers who got it from HER mother.

 

Quote

Paul O 22 hrs ago wrote: " My opinion, mid shelf has taken the biggest hit in the bourbon boom. "

A recent release from the Distilled Spirits Council re: bourbon sales growth 2002-2017 indicates that, while bottom shelf has grown a bit while top shelf and LES have ballooned.

 

ALL #s 9 liter cases -

2002 Bottom 3.0, Mid 4.3, Top 5.6, LE 0.3

2017     "       3.7, Mid 6.0, Top 11.0, LE 2.4

 

SOURCE - https://www.distilledspirits.org/products/bourbon-tennessee-whiskey/ - click on FACTSHEET

Edited October 31, 2018 by Harry in WashDC

[Cranecreek]

18 hours ago, tarheel said:

It's all availability. Sazerac keeps ER on the shelf here, so no one buys it up. No perceived scarcity. The levels of BT have been increasing so I suspect that will soon be widely available here as well. It will be a while before you see OWA on an NC shelf for any period of time IMHO.

 

For what it's worth, I emailed Mark Brown at Sazerac this year about this imbalance - no OWA anymore, but tons of ER here in NC. He said that Sazerac does this on purpose. NC was a state that was late to Weller products, but early to ER so we get ER until supply improves. The counter example is Texas - lots of Weller, not a lot of ER. I have no idea why historical allocations (from who knows when) matter in 2018, but this is the explanation I was provided. Another pessimistic way of looking at it is to artificially create high demand for regionally misallocated products. 

Well isn't this interesting !  Some months back I e-mailed the biggest supplier here in Wisconsin.  It is called Franks.  I was hoping to get an in on obtaining a Weller.  He sent me back a nice reply but said they get precious few every 6 months or so.  He went on to say because "there was not an early market for Weller here in Wisconsin so we are at the end of the list"  I just wrote that off as an off hand explanation for not having it.  But now after I read what you have wrote there must be something to it.

  By the way ER is $30 and BT is $25 and it's everywhere.

[Cranecreek]

9 hours ago, Harry in WashDC said:

My wife's dates from 1984 - a gift from a 1960s college friend of hers who got it from HER mother.

 

A recent release from the Distilled Spirits Council re: bourbon sales growth 2002-2017 indicates that, while bottom shelf has grown a bit while top shelf and LES have ballooned.

 

ALL #s 9 liter cases -

2002 Bottom 3.0, Mid 4.3, Top 5.6, LE 0.3

2017     "       3.7, Mid 6.0, Top 11.0, LE 2.4

 

SOURCE - https://www.distilledspirits.org/products/bourbon-tennessee-whiskey/ - click on FACTSHEET

Good work Harry, Now what is considered top shelf ?  Jeffersons, Tincup, Russels ?

[smokinjoe]

21 minutes ago, Cranecreek said:

Good work Harry, Now what is considered top shelf ?  Jeffersons, Tincup, Russels ?

Unless things have changed, these levels from value, premium, super premium, etc, are strictly based on price, and the upper end of the range is not that high, as it tops out at a relatively low price.  In other words, an “Ultra Premium” product price is much lower than many of us would guess.   Many whiskies are bumped up to higher levels, simply because their new higher price points put them there.  “Quality” And worthiness of segment placement judgements are arbitrarily perceived by the individual.  For instance, as I may not believe a brand is worthy of a placement in Ultra Premium simply because of its lofty price, I similarly would believe Virgin 7yr 107 is more worthy than its placement in the Value segment.  In addition, I’m not sure the numbers are adjusted for standard inflation, let alone the advanced inflation of pricing in many areas of the American Whiskey Market these past several years.  In effect, the bourbon pricing market is out running the DISCUS measuring stick.  I’ve often thought when seeing this info, that a bigger than “some” portion of the explosive growth of the Premium and above segments is the addition of popular mid market bourbons going there due to price increases, and not all by cognizant consumer demand for so-called Ultra Premium.  

[Don Birnam]

23 hours ago, chasking said:

So clearly your evaluation of the relative merits of new vs. old EC would be an informed opinion.  (Although, have you tasted the three 94 proof expressions blind?)  What I'm doubting the general proposition that most people can accurately compare a whiskey they're drinking now with a whiskey they drank years ago.

Charles (I presume), You make a few extremely valid points in your past posts, as well as this one, but I will say that CraneCreek shouldn't taste these 94° proofers blind, but from switched bottles, without his knowledge. You have mentioned confirmation bias, and believe me, I have seen it myself through mild chicanery. I have committed this 'crime' with whiskey, Folger's did it with coffee. "We're here in New Orleans, where we've switched the world famous Café Du Monde coffee with Folger's crystals, let's see if anyone notices." People are psychologically programmed to believe what they see and want to believe.

 

I am fairly assured if he were presented these bottles with their contents switched, he would still feel the old 12 year was the best even if it contained the freshest NAS liquor from the new style bottle. Also, he claims that the whiskey in the barrel proof, though newer, hearkens him back to the  good old days. " With the barrel proof you can experience what was available just a few short years ago" How can this be? The only difference between that bottle, and the bottle to its left is water. Both are batched, but the NAS 94° proof has been down proofed from 'barrel proof'. Unless the standard EC is watered down with water filtered through a lumberman's caulk boot it will taste like the barrel proof watered down to 94° proof in your glass. Drinking it neat of course is a entirely different story and no comparison can be made.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Don Birnam

[jshleffar]

1 hour ago, Don Birnam said:

Charles (I presume), You make a few extremely valid points in your past posts, as well as this one, but I will say that CraneCreek shouldn't taste these 94° proofers blind, but from switched bottles, without his knowledge. You have mentioned confirmation bias, and believe me, I have seen it myself through mild chicanery. I have committed this 'crime' with whiskey, Folger's did it with coffee. "We're here in New Orleans, where we've switched the world famous Café Du Monde coffee with Folger's crystals, let's see if anyone notices." People are psychologically programmed to believe what they see and want to believe.

 

I am fairly assured if he were presented these bottles with their contents switched, he would still feel the old 12 year was the best even if it contained the freshest NAS liquor from the new style bottle. Also, he claims that the whiskey in the barrel proof, though newer, hearkens him back to the  good old days. " With the barrel proof you can experience what was available just a few short years ago" How can this be? The only difference between that bottle, and the bottle to its left is water. Both are batched, but the NAS 94° proof has been down proofed from 'barrel proof'. Unless the standard EC is watered down with water filtered through a lumberman's caulk boot it will taste like the barrel proof watered down to 94° proof in your glass. Drinking it neat of course is a entirely different story and no comparison can be made.

The part missing from the bolded equation is that the barrel proof is 12 year (hearkening back to what you could experience a "few short years ago") and the NAS is not.

[Clueby]

2 minutes ago, jshleffar said:

The part missing from the bolded equation is that the barrel proof is 12 year (hearkening back to what you could experience a "few short years ago") and the NAS is not.

Yes that the BP still carries an age statement.  Whether that is truly better or perceived better is up for debate.  The BP MAY be a blend of "better" barrels as well.