Jump to content

Jim Rutledge Cream of Kentucky


kevinbrink
This topic has been inactive for at least 365 days, and is now closed. Please feel free to start a new thread on the subject! 

Recommended Posts

I know sourcing barrels is a complicated and expensive endeavor these days and from what I've read/heard most of what is on the market these days is either very young or older and high priced, but I do wonder if this had been released at a younger age (say 8 years) and high proof for less money if it would have went over better. I have respect for Mr. Rutledge and hope he hasn't burned too much good faith between this and the failed crowdfunding thing.

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2019 at 9:17 AM, wadewood said:

I tried it and it is what I thought it was.  A big money grab.  It's a $40 bottle of Barton selling for $150 because they need capital to build a distillery.  Jim should have just retired.  

It showed up here at $170. I hope Jim does well but I just can't justify the pricing, even though I really like Barton. I bought 2 1792 full proof store picks instead, for about $95 total with tax.

 

I was talking to a friend with some access to wholesale barrels who said he could get 10 year old Barton, but the cost was going to be about $13,000 for the barrel and $80+ a bottle if at barrel proof, and that's before bottling, taxes, etc. So the pricing of this thing isn't really surprising, and I don't doubt that Jim isn't making much money on it, but still I can't see any justification for actually buying it beyond collecting it for collecting sake or flipping it.

Edited by EarthQuake
  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 11:45 PM, EarthQuake said:

It showed up here at $170. I hope Jim does well but I just can't justify the pricing, even though I really like Barton. I bought 2 1792 full proof store picks instead, for about $95 total with tax.

 

I was talking to a friend with some access to wholesale barrels who said he could get 10 year old Barton, but the cost was going to be about $13,000 for the barrel and $80+ a bottle if at barrel proof, and that's before bottling, taxes, etc. So the pricing of this thing isn't really surprising, and I don't doubt that Jim isn't making much money on it, but still I can't see any justification for actually buying it beyond collecting it for collecting sake or flipping it.

yeap! goes back to my post in the thread on Dec 8th - They aren't giving the stuff away.  They know what they can sell it for and what they will make in profit after all the overhead of bottling and marketing that goes into.  If an NDP approaches a large KY distillery with 11.5 year old bourbon and offers to pay more than what they could profit on it themselves, hell yes they sell it.  Of course now the NDP has overpaid for whiskey that now they have to in turn mark up for a profit and that's how you get $100+ 11.5 year old bourbon.  In normal times folks would see this for what it is, but these days if you say something is 'limited' in bourbon all common sense goes out the window.

  • I like it 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wadewood said:

yeap! goes back to my post in the thread on Dec 8th - They aren't giving the stuff away.  They know what they can sell it for and what they will make in profit after all the overhead of bottling and marketing that goes into.  If an NDP approaches a large KY distillery with 11.5 year old bourbon and offers to pay more than what they could profit on it themselves, hell yes they sell it.  Of course now the NDP has overpaid for whiskey that now they have to in turn mark up for a profit and that's how you get $100+ 11.5 year old bourbon.  In normal times folks would see this for what it is, but these days if you say something is 'limited' in bourbon all common sense goes out the window.

Absolutely, even though it is sort of absurd, it makes a certain sort of sense from all ends.

 

For the distiller, they can make more on these barrels, which may not fit the typical profile, than they would have bottling themselves.

 

For the NDP, they get a quality product, and especially when you have someone like Jim leading the way, you can easily sell this sort of thing.

 

For the buyer, it's a new rare/limited and there's enough fear of missing out that people will gobble this up. Heck, it's probably pretty good whiskey too, so it's unlikely that people will feel all that bad about it at the end of the day. I think there's a lot of people that want to see Jim succeed here too, so that's reason enough to pick up a bottle if it fits in your budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my little bottle of CoK. Next time fishnbowljoe, Galvin0791 and I get together we'll have to try it.

 

Cream of KY.jpg

  • I like it 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2019 at 9:24 PM, Vosgar said:

Here's my little bottle of CoK. Next time fishnbowljoe, Galvin0791 and I get together we'll have to try it.

 

Cream of KY.jpg

It will probably taste like Jim Beam White or some other bottom shelf whiskey.

I have a feeling it's counterfeit. The tax stamp is a 1935 series, but the label wasn't adopted for use until May of 1936.

Plus the fact the whole label is low quality as if scanned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2019 at 2:29 PM, Don Birnam said:

It will probably taste like Jim Beam White or some other bottom shelf whiskey.

I have a feeling it's counterfeit. The tax stamp is a 1935 series, but the label wasn't adopted for use until May of 1936.

Plus the fact the whole label is low quality as if scanned.

While I can't disprove anything you've said, it sure seems like a lot of work for a bottle that cost me a whopping $3.75 6 or 7 years ago

  • I like it 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vosgar said:

While I can't disprove anything you've said, it sure seems like a lot of work for a bottle that cost me a whopping $3.75 6 or 7 years ago

It looks legit to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vosgar said:

While I can't disprove anything you've said, it sure seems like a lot of work for a bottle that cost me a whopping $3.75 6 or 7 years ago

Being a year apart it is more likely one of the two tax strip or label was just in flux and either new labels were rotated in early or old tax strips were still being used up, more than likely the bottle is just from late in '35 or early in '36. As far as label quality not sure how someone would be able to tell that from a photo on the internet. And I agree with your price assessment as well if someone was going to fake it the fill level would probably be better and the cost higher. It would cost more to fake this than the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vosgar said:

While I can't disprove anything you've said, it sure seems like a lot of work for a bottle that cost me a whopping $3.75 6 or 7 years ago

 

I am only commenting on the inconsistencies I noticed. And yes it is a lot of work for a tiny bottle.

 

10 hours ago, flahute said:

It looks legit to me.

It does? 

 

2 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

Being a year apart it is more likely one of the two tax strip or label was just in flux and either new labels were rotated in early or old tax strips were still being used up, more than likely the bottle is just from late in '35 or early in '36. As far as label quality not sure how someone would be able to tell that from a photo on the internet. And I agree with your price assessment as well if someone was going to fake it the fill level would probably be better and the cost higher. It would cost more to fake this than the price.

Yeah, that must be it, the state of Illinois just wanted to use up old tax decals. [/sarc]

Simple, because all the tiny letter openings are crowded and filled in, these happen during scanning and subsequent printing.

Why would the fill level be higher? That would only serve to make it appear fraudulent, it's an eighty-three year old bottle of whiskey, it's going to evaporate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Don Birnam said:

 

I am only commenting on the inconsistencies I noticed. And yes it is a lot of work for a tiny bottle.

 

It does? 

 

Yeah, that must be it, the state of Illinois just wanted to use up old tax decals. [/sarc]

Simple, because all the tiny letter openings are crowded and filled in, these happen during scanning and subsequent printing.

Why would the fill level be higher? That would only serve to make it appear fraudulent, it's an eighty-three year old bottle of whiskey, it's going to evaporate.

 

Out of curiosity what are your sources for your info on the label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kevinbrink said:

Out of curiosity what are your sources for your info on the label.

I am not sure what you mean by sources?

 

I merely looked closely at Vosgar's image. The Illinois tax stamp decal is circa 1935, the bottom of the label states 'New label adopted May 25.1936'.

All the lettering is crowding and a little fuzzy, not crisp as it should be on a properly printed label.

The voids in certain letters are filled in, i.e. the A, E, N, and A in 'Made in U.S.A.'. There are two periods missing in Made in U.S.A..

The voids are filled in in the letters R,E,G,S,P,A,F,F  in the text Reg. U.S. Pat. Off..

The 'r's' in straight and bourbon are also crowded and filled in. 

 

Bottom line I am simply pointing out inconsistencies that point to a counterfeit bottle. 

 

As far as the price, face it, who but I would scrutinize a miniature? It's the same reason most counterfeit currency is low denomination, no one really looks at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Don Birnam said:

I merely looked closely at Vosgar's image. The Illinois tax stamp decal is circa 1935, the bottom of the label states 'New label adopted May 25.1936'.

Completely overlooked that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If anyone is looking for one of these send me a PM found a store at retail that ships. I'm not a buyer so I figured I would pass it along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2019 at 11:22 AM, Don Birnam said:

I am not sure what you mean by sources?

 

I merely looked closely at Vosgar's image. The Illinois tax stamp decal is circa 1935, the bottom of the label states 'New label adopted May 25.1936'.

All the lettering is crowding and a little fuzzy, not crisp as it should be on a properly printed label.

The voids in certain letters are filled in, i.e. the A, E, N, and A in 'Made in U.S.A.'. There are two periods missing in Made in U.S.A..

The voids are filled in in the letters R,E,G,S,P,A,F,F  in the text Reg. U.S. Pat. Off..

The 'r's' in straight and bourbon are also crowded and filled in. 

 

Bottom line I am simply pointing out inconsistencies that point to a counterfeit bottle. 

 

As far as the price, face it, who but I would scrutinize a miniature? It's the same reason most counterfeit currency is low denomination, no one really looks at it.

I want this guy on my team...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2019 at 9:59 AM, kevinbrink said:

If anyone is looking for one of these send me a PM found a store at retail that ships. I'm not a buyer so I figured I would pass it along.

Thanks for the tip Kevin.  Mine arrived safely today.

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoeTerp said:

Thanks for the tip Kevin.  Mine arrived safely today.

Glad to help!

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2019 at 7:20 PM, kevinbrink said:

Glad to help!

Yes, many thanks Kevin, thanks for sharing.

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 3/11/2019 at 9:19 PM, JoeTerp said:

Thanks for the tip Kevin.  Mine arrived safely today.

 

On 3/19/2019 at 7:02 PM, robertckim said:

Yes, many thanks Kevin, thanks for sharing.

Any thoughts on the juice? Ran into a few bottles at MSRP and considering going back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on the juice? Ran into a few bottles at MSRP and considering going back. 
Haven't cracked it open yet! It's probably barely worth msrp, but i picked one up because of Rutledge.
  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Barton releasing a 12 year 1792, will that hurt the demand for this (not sure there is much of a demand), or will the likely large difference in price keep people buying Cream of Kentucky due to the perceived premium. It would be interesting to try those 2 and a PS 1792 SiB sbsbs. I'm not shelling out the cash for CoK to do it, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I actually did try in once at the tail end of a tasting and recall it being good, but not great.  But then a few weeks later my friend (who has the bottle) revisited and said it was much improved and was really really good.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2019 at 9:07 AM, Bob_Loblaw said:

 

Any thoughts on the juice? Ran into a few bottles at MSRP and considering going back. 

I'm likely going to open mine up next Saturday.  Will let you know what I think if I do.  I think the general reviews I've seen are that it's somewhere between ok and pretty good, but falls short of expectations and isn't a very good value.

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried this last night and didn't like it at all. Had a very funky finish. Granted I was trying a lot of different things last night but it didn't hold up to even some more basic offerings like 1792 BIB or even other distillery's stuff like OE7/101.

  • I like it 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.