What bourbon did you pass on, Summer 2019?

[kevinbrink]

1 hour ago, Supercharger said:

 

WT doesn’t age state except on RR or special releases to my knowledge. 

They have a general statement of age on the back of 101 bottles now of 6-8 years which apparently is OK per the TTB, don't like it myself. I appreciate knowing what is in the bottle but only when it carries actual weight, implied statements of age mean very little to me and unless it is spelled out otherwise on the front of the bottle I assume it's 4 years old and hope for better.

[Mako254]

3 hours ago, BottledInBond said:

So a 4 year rye then. They seem to really try to dance around the rule that says you’re only allowed to list the youngest age juice in a blend, at least on the label

I don’t take it that way. They have said Rare Breed is a blend of 6,8, and 12 for a while. 

 

Eddie told me that RB Rye would be a blend of 4,6, and 8 yr barrels. 

I haven’t had a rye yet that I like so it doesn’t bother me either way. 

 

[BottledInBond]

20 minutes ago, Mako254 said:

I don’t take it that way. They have said Rare Breed is a blend of 6,8, and 12 for a while. 

 

Eddie told me that RB Rye would be a blend of 4,6, and 8 yr barrels. 

I haven’t had a rye yet that I like so it doesn’t bother me either way. 

 

Well, what they are saying is not a legal age statement. The TTB rules say that they can choose to list the youngest whiskey included, or they can list multiple ages of components of a blend, but only if the list the % each component represents in the blend. It annoys me when WT says Rare Breed is a blend of 6/8/12 and 101 is a blend of 6/8 when they aren’t fulfilling those requirements. As far as TTB rules are concerned, they should only be able to say Rare Breed is a 6 year whiskey, unless they are going to provide the %s of the blend. That isn’t just my interpretation either, the TTB rules are clear 

 

 

[flahute]

11 minutes ago, BottledInBond said:

Well, what they are saying is not a legal age statement. The TTB rules say that they can choose to list the youngest whiskey included, or they can list multiple ages of components of a blend, but only if the list the % each component represents in the blend. It annoys me when WT says Rare Breed is a blend of 6/8/12 and 101 is a blend of 6/8 when they aren’t fulfilling those requirements. As far as TTB rules are concerned, they should only be able to say Rare Breed is a 6 year whiskey, unless they are going to provide the %s of the blend. That isn’t just my interpretation either, the TTB rules are clear 

 

 

I think that's a dumb rule and it's why Four Roses doesn't list the ages and recipes on the back of LE Small Batch anymore.

I'm much more interested in having MORE information about what's in the bottle than adhering to a legalistic interpretation of the rule that shortchanges this information.

[Kepler]

3 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

They have a general statement of age on the back of 101 bottles now of 6-8 years which apparently is OK per the TTB, don't like it myself. I appreciate knowing what is in the bottle but only when it carries actual weight, implied statements of age mean very little to me and unless it is spelled out otherwise on the front of the bottle I assume it's 4 years old and hope for better.

 

1 hour ago, Mako254 said:

I don’t take it that way. They have said Rare Breed is a blend of 6,8, and 12 for a while. 

 

Eddie told me that RB Rye would be a blend of 4,6, and 8 yr barrels. 

I haven’t had a rye yet that I like so it doesn’t bother me either way. 

 

 

1 hour ago, BottledInBond said:

Well, what they are saying is not a legal age statement. The TTB rules say that they can choose to list the youngest whiskey included, or they can list multiple ages of components of a blend, but only if the list the % each component represents in the blend. It annoys me when WT says Rare Breed is a blend of 6/8/12 and 101 is a blend of 6/8 when they aren’t fulfilling those requirements. As far as TTB rules are concerned, they should only be able to say Rare Breed is a 6 year whiskey, unless they are going to provide the %s of the blend. That isn’t just my interpretation either, the TTB rules are clear 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, flahute said:

I think that's a dumb rule and it's why Four Roses doesn't list the ages and recipes on the back of LE Small Batch anymore.

I'm much more interested in having MORE information about what's in the bottle than adhering to a legalistic interpretation of the rule that shortchanges this information.

 

 

I'm a Turkeyhead as y'all know, but I have to say I side with Chuck on this topic. 

 

http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2018/04/wild-turkey-takes-broad-swipe-at.html

 

It ain't kosher and they need to cut it out.  I blame Campari marketing.

 

 

[flahute]

19 minutes ago, Kepler said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a Turkeyhead as y'all know, but I have to say I side with Chuck on this topic. 

 

http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2018/04/wild-turkey-takes-broad-swipe-at.html

 

It ain't kosher and they need to cut it out.  I blame Campari marketing.

 

 

I'm going to disagree. The rule is dumb. I participated in a blending exercise at Wild Turkey where we were given the component parts of Rare Breed and were tasked with recreating the blend. I know what goes into it and have a very good idea of the proportions. To call it a 6yr old whiskey is a disservice. NAS, fine. But tell me the damn component parts because it matters and don't make me go to the website to find it. The TTB treats consumers like they are fools and then let the damndest things get through. If a major distillery wants to tell me what goes into a blend then I want to know.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever looked at the back of a Four Roses LE Small Batch and was tricked into thinking it was a 17yr old bourbon. Now you have to go the website to find the component parts because some weenie complained.

[Kepler]

4 minutes ago, flahute said:

I'm going to disagree. The rule is dumb. I participated in a blending exercise at Wild Turkey where we were given the component parts of Rare Breed and were tasked with recreating the blend. I know what goes into it and have a very good idea of the proportions. To call it a 6yr old whiskey is a disservice. NAS, fine. But tell me the damn component parts because it matters and don't make me go to the website to find it. The TTB treats consumers like they are fools and then let the damndest things get through. If a major distillery wants to tell me what goes into a blend then I want to know.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever looked at the back of a Four Roses LE Small Batch and was tricked into thinking it was a 17yr old bourbon. Now you have to go the website to find the component parts because some weenie complained.

 

Well okay, but what you advocate for is impossible to control and just opens up cans of worms all over the place.  

Just look at the latest WT101 label:  "...this iconic bourbon is perfectly aged for up to six to eight years...,

What the hell does that mean?  Absolutely nothing.   You're a whiskey geek like me and we want to trust the people behind it, because we admire the Russells, but as Woodard and Cowderly write, there's no getting around that they are playing fast and loose with facts.  I don't like it and think it should be beneath them.  

 

Btw, there's nothing wrong with a 6 year age stated whiskey.

 

[flahute]

5 minutes ago, Kepler said:

 

Well okay, but what you advocate for is impossible to control and just opens up cans of worms all over the place.  

Just look at the latest WT101 label:  "...this iconic bourbon is perfectly aged for up to six to eight years...,

What the hell does that mean?  Absolutely nothing.   You're a whiskey geek like me and we want to trust the people behind it, because we admire the Russells, but as Woodard and Cowderly write, there's no getting around that they are playing fast and loose with facts.  I don't like it and think it should be beneath them.  

 

Btw, there's nothing wrong with a 6 year age stated whiskey.

 

I don't think there were any worm cans when 4R was listing the recipes and ages on the back. It was useful info however.

The Wild Turkey label could easily be revised to say minimum 6 years with some 8 year, or whatever. The problem with requiring the distiller to list the % is that it takes away their flexibility to blend in the proportions that actually taste the best without having to constantly change the labels. So because of this the TTB would prefer you have less info while they otherwise fuck up and let other dumb labels through.

You are correct that there's nothing wrong with a 6yr age statement but in the case of Rare Breed there's more to the story so simply calling it 6yrs old would rob the consumer of valuable info. Don't make us victims of the lowest common denominator. 

For our recent Willett barrel that we did with the Bourbon Crusaders (where we got to do a custom label) we included our typical crest with a numeral in the middle to represent which numerical barrel pick it was. This number is tiny. You have to squint pretty hard to see it. The TTB made us delete is lest someone confused with the age. We referred to our charity event on the label. The event was called 'Willett to be Cured' and we referred to it in quotes. The TTB made us remove that lest someone think we were claiming that whiskey is a cure. They are fucking idiots.

[Kepler]

3 minutes ago, flahute said:

I don't think there were any worm cans when 4R was listing the recipes and ages on the back. It was useful info however.

The Wild Turkey label could easily be revised to say minimum 6 years with some 8 year, or whatever. The problem with requiring the distiller to list the % is that it takes away their flexibility to blend in the proportions that actually taste the best without having to constantly change the labels. So because of this the TTB would prefer you have less info while they otherwise fuck up and let other dumb labels through.

You are correct that there's nothing wrong with a 6yr age statement but in the case of Rare Breed there's more to the story so simply calling it 6yrs old would rob the consumer of valuable info. Don't make us victims of the lowest common denominator. 

For our recent Willett barrel that we did with the Bourbon Crusaders (where we got to do a custom label) we included our typical crest with a numeral in the middle to represent which numerical barrel pick it was. This number is tiny. You have to squint pretty hard to see it. The TTB made us delete is lest someone confused with the age. We referred to our charity event on the label. The event was called 'Willett to be Cured' and we referred to it in quotes. The TTB made us remove that lest someone think we were claiming that whiskey is a cure. They are fucking idiots.

 

Yeah agree in that I don't doubt that the TTB are fucking idiots, and the fact they let the current WT101 label go through is proof of that.  And your experiences with private picks are evidence as well.

 

The current 101 label is so messed up that revising it to a minimum of 6 years isn't the problem -- the problem is that it is obviously telling us (without having the straightforward transparency to really tell us) that the minimum age in the bottle is actually less than 6 years old.  At least with some batches presumably.

 

Four Roses Limited Edition is a rare $100-plus bottle and the quality of the packaging and the contents within are unfortunately the exception rather than the rule.  Unfortunately there are a lot more sketchy bottlers out there that would take advantage of the rules if we let them.

 

There's nothing keeping Campari from disclosing the actual percentage of 8 and 12 year old whiskey contained in Rare Breed, other than the cost of variable labels that would have to be reprinted with each batch, as you rightly said.  However I'm not convinced it would amount to much.   With recent RB batches they change the label anyway to update the final proof (e.g. 116.8 versus 112.8, etc).

 

I hear what you are saying though.  I just feel they need to enforce the traditional rules that are already on the books, and they aren't. 

[Mako254]

A typical Wild Turkey 101 batch is 1,500 barrels and it batched on average twice a week. There were some batches this time last year that had some 9 and 10 year stock. Other batches are 7-8 yr. 

 

I agree that the ‘up to 6 to 8 year’ is 100% campari marketing BS. 

That said, when you are feeding the beast that is 101, dumping 3,000 barrels a week,  the profile is consistent while the component barrels to used to get that profile change. 

 

I just looked at my Rare Breed bottle and I don’t see any reference to age unlike my 101 bottle. 

 

In all honesty, the words I really want to see on 101 and Rare Breed are ‘non chill filtered’. 

 

 

[BottledInBond]

10 hours ago, flahute said:

I think that's a dumb rule and it's why Four Roses doesn't list the ages and recipes on the back of LE Small Batch anymore.

I'm much more interested in having MORE information about what's in the bottle than adhering to a legalistic interpretation of the rule that shortchanges this information.

I understand that many of us are interested in as much information as possible. But, I also understand the value of the rule that says they should disclose the %s. Think about a scenario when one the shady characters in the world of whiskey puts on their label that their product includes “straight Kentucky bourbon whiskey aged up to 20 years” without complying with the rules and disclosing the blend %s. The bottle could contain 99% 4 year old whiskey and 1% 20 year old whiskey. Does that seem like a good scenario for consumers? 

 

And the current WT “aged up to 6-8 years” is basically that. If we want to have faith we can assume/hope most of it is 6-8 but why would they word it that way if they didn’t plan on including some under 6 juice? I’m not a slave to age=better and I like the current WT products but this stuff still rubs me the wrong way. 

 

I also understand that the TTB seems to be somewhat incompetent. But, a good respectable company shouldn’t try to get through questionable labels just because they expect the TTB to not adequately enforce their own rules. They should have a high enough moral/ethical standard to do it right even if they could get away with cheating

[Richnimrod]

4 hours ago, BottledInBond said:

I also understand that the TTB seems to be somewhat incompetent. But, a good respectable company shouldn’t try to get through questionable labels just because they expect the TTB to not adequately enforce their own rules. They should have a high enough moral/ethical standard to do it right even if they could get away with cheating

Ahhhh, if only we lived in that ideal world where what "should be" is the common reality.    Sadly, though it isn't necessarily a frequent occurrence, dastardly crap happens waaaaay too often to be ignored.   And, those 'respectable' companies are always made up of human folx, and the wrong one in the marketing department, or on the board, or even in production can slip a great deal of garbage by the rest before it becomes known for what it is.   Not a ringing endorsement of the whiskey business; but also not an inaccurate one.    And, today it's loads better than it was for a long time, before the Bottled in Bond Act and other regulations came into being.   So. . .  for good or ill, those regulators do serve a purpose, though they aren't always using good sense, or even any sense, I'm afraid.

[Bob_Loblaw]

Splitting the baby here.  Generally I prefer more information and in the case of Rare Breed am perfectly content with no age statement on the bottle, but being told on the side it is a mix of 6,8, and 12 year.  Flahute makes a fantastic point that having percentages could handcuff the distiller in future blends.  But, if the age is not being put on the bottle and we are being told after the fact, why not also tell us the % of each for each batch?  Not sure how large that Rare Breed batches are, but probably pretty big seeing as how we have been on 116.8 for some time now.  

 

I do see the issue with the current 101 label assuming it does in fact read "up to 6-8 years"  This is really ambiguous and as pointed out does not even state that the juice is at least 6 years old.  Now once again I am content with the explanation of ages that we are hearing from Jimmy and Eddy and until proven otherwise will accept those statements as made.  But it does open the door for abuse by a less scrupulous company.  So I guess I would prefer if that language is removed.   

[flahute]

@Kepler, @BottledInBond, and @Bob_Loblaw all making good points. It just seems to me there's a way to state a minimum age more prominently while mentioning the other component parts.

The % listing would be tough on WT101 because of the size of the batches and how much it changes from batch to batch to hit the profile.

[macdad]

Man, you guys take your bourbon serious!  I really don't give 2 hoots what the label says.  For the mass produced stuff, I am more interested in it tasting the same every time I buy a new bottle.  

 

Now, if I am buying a higher priced bourbon with an age statement, I want it to be accurate.

 

Thanks for posting your thoughts, though.  I have found it quite enlightening!

[Kepler]

4 hours ago, macdad said:

Man, you guys take your bourbon serious!  I really don't give 2 hoots what the label says.  For the mass produced stuff, I am more interested in it tasting the same every time I buy a new bottle.  

There  were  plenty  of whiskey rectifiers before  the bottled in bond act that would  have loved to have you as their customer.  And a few NDPs in the present  day too!

[macdad]

5 hours ago, Kepler said:

There  were  plenty  of whiskey rectifiers before  the bottled in bond act that would  have loved to have you as their customer.  And a few NDPs in the present  day too!

Well, I look at it like the way food is labeled.  In my opinion, NAS bourbon is like "Low Fat" food.  That is a fairly relative term.  It is just a general statement.  Age Stated bourbon is more like "No "Fat.". It has to be "No Fat.". Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but it is how I think about it.  This keeps me from getting my panties in a bunch

Edited September 18, 2019 by macdad

[Rick M.]

On 9/17/2019 at 2:03 AM, flahute said:

I'm going to disagree. The rule is dumb. I participated in a blending exercise at Wild Turkey where we were given the component parts of Rare Breed and were tasked with recreating the blend. I know what goes into it and have a very good idea of the proportions. To call it a 6yr old whiskey is a disservice. NAS, fine. But tell me the damn component parts because it matters and don't make me go to the website to find it. The TTB treats consumers like they are fools and then let the damndest things get through. If a major distillery wants to tell me what goes into a blend then I want to know.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever looked at the back of a Four Roses LE Small Batch and was tricked into thinking it was a 17yr old bourbon. Now you have to go the website to find the component parts because some weenie complained.

What’s your guess as to the proportions of each age used in Rare Breed?

[TehRegion219]

KC SiB rye store picks, like 6 different ones. The bourbon was sold out. Also passed on some more JD SiB store picks, LIKE 6 of them too, as well as RR store picks. I’m holding out for the weller full proof

[JSpartan]

Passed on Traverse City Barrel Proof. I thought long and hard about it and almost went back to get a bottle, but ultimately passed. I have heard great things about it and have tried some of their other stuff which I liked, but didn’t feel like dropping the $80 on something I haven’t tried yet.

[The Black Tot]

On 9/7/2019 at 9:54 PM, FasterHorses said:

Jeff .. thats how ridiculous this is getting. A PERENNIAL bottom shelf bourbon has been moved up top because of hysteria. I actually laughed when i saw this. The exact same feeling I had when HMck10 showed up as a lottery item last year.I truly hope this isnt where we’re headed. 

 

Grist mills keep on turnin',

Bourbon barrel insides keep on burnin',

Rollin, 

Rollin,

Rollin' out a whiskey river...

Edited September 20, 2019 by The Black Tot

[HoustonNit]

KC SiB rye store picks, like 6 different ones. The bourbon was sold out. Also passed on some more JD SiB store picks, LIKE 6 of them too, as well as RR store picks. I’m holding out for the weller full proof

All the RR barrel picks would’ve came home with me. It’s a favorite.

[HoustonNit]

Bakers $39
ER $29
WSR $25.99
Blantons $65
Ezra 101 $21
WT 6 Rye $35.99
W12 $99.99
2014 HW Rendezvous Rye$54
FR Yellow older label $19
 
grabbed a 9 yr age stated KC pint though thats getting opened tonite

Best price I’ve seen for Bakers in a while, I would’ve bought a couple.

[HoustonNit]

Easy pass. I figured at that price it might of been there normal bourbon release, I don’t get the Owl craze, other than the first batch of rye which I regret not getting when I saw it for $80 something.

[FasterHorses]

45 minutes ago, HoustonNit said:

 

Best price I’ve seen for Bakers in a while, I would’ve bought a couple.

 

This place seems to be in its own world..I think theyll stay at that price for a little longer. The kind of place that still has KC9 year age stated available and the actual yellow label FR (not tan). Bought some FC6 there a couple months ago.  But yeah good price on the Bakers.