Discussion of private labels/independent bottlers

[cowdery]

My enjoyment of any whiskey is diminished when I can't answer the fundamental question "who made this?" Having to guess about something so fundamental is wrong and I hold it against products that won't tell me. That is why I have never been able to muster much personal interest in Black Maple Hill, even though I respect what they have accomplished in the marketplace.

[jeff]

Having to guess about something so fundamental is wrong and I hold it against products that won't tell me. That is why I have never been able to muster much personal interest in Black Maple Hill...

That's a character flaw that I share with you Chuck:lol:

However, having tried the 16yo and now the 21yo, they are some of the best bourbons I have tasted. I'm starting to come around to the idea that whoever "made" the bourbon is not as important as who selects the barrels that are to be bottled. I assume (:skep:) that in this case it was Even and/or Drew and, judging by this and other labels that they bottle for themselves and on contract, they have well-trained palates and know good bourbon when they find it. Unfortunately, I think current market conditions will/are making it harder to find the good stuff; enter the BMH "small batch."

My usual practice for selecting "bottler brands" is to wait a while and let others spend their money, and then I evaluate several opinions before I drop the bucks.

[Hedmans Brorsa]

Well, eventually the debate went in the direction i desired.

Needless to say, I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. With all due respect, Jeff, I do not care about minor changes in taste profile. It just doesn´t turn me on, y´know?

I think this is what so great about the Scotch industry. There are so many distillers that you don´t have to choke yourself on a small bunch of distilleries. I simply don´t need to taste every single bottling of Springbank that there is. Nor do I yearn for it, either. There are so many other Scotch products out there begging for exploration that the need never arises.

I also think this is the main reason why so many here whine like crazy when a WT 14yo happens to be sold on the Fiji Islands only. If we had as many distillers in the bourbon industry as in Scotland, people would never had the time to moan, simply because there would be so many great products out there waiting to be discovered.

What we need, of course is MORE DISTILLERIES!

[jeff]

Lennart,

Good bourbon is good bourbon, regardless of who bottles it. That is my only argument. Any prejudice against a particular label doesn't change what's in the bottle. But one must be cautions when trying something new that is unfamiliar, but that goes for products of a known source as well.

[cowdery]

The great thing (well, one of many great things) about the independent bottling of single malt scotch is that while the distilleries may grumble, the bottler's ability to reveal the whiskey's maker is undeterred. American independents usually aver that the producers prohibit them from advertising the whiskey's maker, presumably by making such a pledge a condition of sale. I can see Max doing that.

However, if the distillery that made the whiskey is now silent, who has an interest in supressing the information then? Only the bottler, who would rather create the illusion that he is a distiller.

Sometimes a bottler will tell you verbally who the producer was, but they won't put it on the label, or a hang tag, or post it in public view on their web site. Why not?

Even the "can't" situations would be negotiable if the bottlers would acknowledge and honor the interest of consumers in having that information.

Buffalo Trace does those fact sheet for the Antique Collection, and they're so geeky, and I feel so geeky when I read them, but God I love them. I want everybody to do them for everything and that would make some of these products a lot more interesting to me than they are.

But I have to say, I'm like you, Jeff, in all things, but in particular in that if you hear a lot of people saying a particular line or expression is A+, then by all means buy and enjoy it. That has been the case with Black Maple Hill. A lot of people whose palates I listen to say Black Maple Hill usually gets it right.

[CrispyCritter]

I think this is what so great about the Scotch industry. There are so many distillers that you don´t have to choke yourself on a small bunch of distilleries.

Overall, I'd agree, although there are Scottish distillers that have tried to suppress independent bottlings through the legal system (example: the Leapfrog controversy). Grant's, on the other hand, uses a different tactic: when they sell malt whisky from one of their distilleries for blending purposes, they add a shot of whisky from one of their other distilleries to each cask, specifically so that it cannot be bottled as a single malt.

Even so, it's unfortunate that there are few enough US distillers that independent bottlers usually can't state their sources.

Of course, what with currency fluctuations and supply vs. demand problems driving the price to insane levels, not to mention that I found I love bourbon and rye, Scotch is no longer my first choice, even though I love it too.

[Hedmans Brorsa]

Enjoy your bourbons, Jeff! I was only trying to explain my stance.

I was born and raised on the British music press, which may explain my occasional penchant for going for the throat. Believe me, I´m a real sweetie compared to some of those writers. :grin:

As for Chuck´s last post: isn´t it a question of totally opposed problems? In Scotland, the independent bottlers desperately want to put the original distillery´s name on their labels. In the US, on the other hand, it seems to me, that they, more often than not, attempt to make the product appear as their own. Sometimes using morally questionable tactics.

[smokinjoe]

Enjoy your bourbons, Jeff! I was only trying to explain my stance.

I was born and raised on the British music press, which may explain my occasional penchant for going for the throat. Believe me, I´m a real sweetie compared to some of those writers. :grin:

As for Chuck´s last post: isn´t it a question of totally opposed problems? In Scotland, the independent bottlers desperately want to put the original distillery´s name on their labels. In the US, on the other hand, it seems to me, that they, more often than not, attempt to make the product appear as their own. Sometimes using morally questionable tactics.

Companies buying product from other manufacturers (and service providers), and rebranding as their own, is nothing new, and quite widespread in our world today. Automobiles, electronics, tools, call centers, you name it...it's standard practice. Same goes for whiskey. Nothing "morally" questionable about it at all, IMO. Just efficient use of manufacturing/service capabilities and capacity.

JOE

[cowdery]

I agree with Hedmans. The "morally questionable" part is when they try to make it appear that they are the distiller that made the product. Virtually every independent bottler does this to a greater or lesser extent and to call the practice "morally questionable" is the mildest way of putting it.

[Gillman]

I have a friend who likes Knob Creek and he thought it was made by a small company. The label reads, Knob Creek Distillery, Clermont, Kentucky. He had no idea it was made by liquor giant Beam Brands. The hang tag does refer to the historical Jim Beam through its reference to Booker Noe and Baker Beam being descendants of Jim Beam. That is kind of a suggestion that the small batch line has a Beam connection. I wonder how many people would read that hang-tag, or get the connection, but then most don't really care I am sure. For those who do, a careful reading of the tag will twig them to the origin of the bottles. I guess I just expect a bit of creativity and salesmanship in this area (far from limited to the liquor business). Isn't all advertising about trying to create an image, or aura? There are boards like this one where people interested to learn can find out more...

Gary

[nor02lei]

I agree with Hedmans. The "morally questionable" part is when they try to make it appear that they are the distiller that made the product. Virtually every independent bottler does this to a greater or lesser extent and to call the practice "morally questionable" is the mildest way of putting it.

I do also agree with Hedman Chuck. Here in Sweden were we have probably one of the highest interest in single malts in the world American straight is no big thing. However I am sure that the bourbon boom will hit Sweden sooner or later. This said I am sure that American whiskey will never ever be nearly as big as single malt here as long as this stupid label policy continues.

Leif

[jeff]

I do also agree with Hedman Chuck. Here in Sweden were we have probably one of the highest interest in single malts in the world American straight is no big thing. However I am sure that the bourbon boom will hit Sweden sooner or later. This said I am sure that American whiskey will never ever be nearly as big as single malt here as long as this stupid label policy continues.

Leif

Leif,

Are you saying that people in Sweden will not buy a bourbon from a private bottler? How would they know the difference? I'll add to Gary's post that many people over here don't even know, or care, that Knob Creek belongs to Jim Beam, and they certainly wouldn't know that BMH isn't it's own distillery somewhere. I know we're all bourbon connoisseurs here, but we make up a small fraction of the overall market. I doubt anything will change any time soon without some kind of legislation to force the issue.

[Gillman]

Leif, the scotch blends including the famous luxury names (Johnnie Walker, etc.) achieved great success in Europe and the world for 100 years before the malts had a resurgence. No one knew where the components of those blends came from (and still don't).

How is it different with private label bourbons?

Gary

[smokinjoe]

What about the actual producing distillery, who has product made for them by another? Even in a time of need? Would we call this producer morally questionable? Or a supermarket that private labels their canned green beans? Or an auto manufacturer who basically buys a car from another producer, changes the sheet metal on the outside (read repackage) and sells as their own? Or, going the other way, Gary's KC example is a great one. How many times, when learning the origin of a product, have you gone "Huh, I didn't know this was made by ABC MegaCorp. It doesn't say it on the label."? I could go on, and on, and on. It all doesn't matter to me, if the product is good. If it's not, then I won't buy it. The marketplace has a way of working these things out (See Old Crow).

I just don't see a "morality" question in this. This is standard practice in business, and life. We all project things to the world that aren't 100% genuine. There's alot of immoral crap in this world, I just don't think that a bottler putting his name on something that someone else knowingly produced for him, is one.

JOE

[nor02lei]

Leif,

Are you saying that people in Sweden will not buy a bourbon from a private bottler? How would they know the difference? I'll add to Gary's post that many people over here don't even know, or care, that Knob Creek belongs to Jim Beam, and they certainly wouldn't know that BMH isn't it's own distillery somewhere. I know we're all bourbon connoisseurs here, but we make up a small fraction of the overall market. I doubt anything will change any time soon without some kind of legislation to force the issue.

Leif,

It is a culture matter Jeff. People who are in to whisky here (and that is many) want to know what they drink. Most of them love to bay from private bottlers as long as the label say were it is distilled. There are people here that can name every working distillery in Scotland and maybe at least 25 silent ones just by pure interest. If the interest in bourbon were as big as in single malt of cause everybody with an interest would know that Knob Creek is a JB product and that BMH isn’t a distillery.

Leif

[Gillman]

Just to explain my view more fully, I would prefer (no question) to be told the origins of the products I buy. More info is better than less. That is my personal preference, but it seems a marketplace reality that in practice there will be wide variation in what we know or are told.

I suppose too, in the classic era when the blends were building share, there was no inquisitiveness amongst consumers about origin. Now there is, as exemplified by the single malt craze. So that is the other side of it although I still think most buyers of these products aren't greatly affected by origin information. E.g. my friend I mentioned in relation to KC still buys it, he was interested that it was made by a big company but it didn't put him off the brand.

Gary

[cowdery]

It goes back to what I said in the post that now starts this thread: "My enjoyment of any whiskey is diminished when I can't answer the fundamental question 'who made this?' Having to guess about something so fundamental is wrong and I hold it against products that won't tell me."

I'm not saying I can't enjoy or won't drink such products, or that they can't be very good, but my enjoyment of them is diminished by not knowing who made them.

This isn't necessarily true of everything. I don't really care who made my toothpaste. But I don't participate in a bulletin board about toothpaste either. And if there is a bulletin board about toothpaste, I bet one of the things they talk about is who makes what.

I know who makes Knob, but you're right that's it's the same in principle and it's the same to someone who falls for the dba. Even many people who know Jim Beam makes Knob Creek think they make it in a tiny, little still out back.

Ideally, yes, if I was king, every bottle would say truthfully where it was made. If it was a mix of whiskeys made at several places, or might be whiskey made at any of several places, it should tell me that. That's what I want. Yes. That's what I want.

[Hedmans Brorsa]

Well, I can´t add much more than Chuck and Leif already have said.

Only, the tendency of some to put an equation mark between whiskey and just about any other business might be part of the problem? Just like in Scotland, there is growing tendency in the bourbon industry to promote bourbon as the national treasure it is. More of that, please.

Also, there seems to be a tendency to discuss two entirely different things. The Knob Creek example is certainly relevant if we discuss the potential success of isolated brands. For my part, I was more keen to explore the possibilities of bourbon world domination, and in that perspective I see the issue of clarity in terms of who-made-what as fundamental. But, as Leif, pointed out, it might all be a matter of cultural differences. I hope not.

Finally, Gary, your point about Johnny Walker was certainly valid in the past, but I don´t think it is now. The premium blends have, at least here in Europe, since long, been overtaken by the single malts. Isn´t it more or less the same in North America? I think it is only in certain Asian markets that the premium blends still reign supreme.

[Gillman]

Hedmans, in relation to scotch whiskey blends, what I meant was, they had tremendous growth at a time when their origin was simply the company that produced them and in essense was the trade mark the brand was sold under. That was its guarantee. People were not put off by not knowing where the constituents were from or indeed how the product was made.

I think this model can continue to apply for many kinds of liquor products including bourbon. It is true (as I myself said in a comment after my initial one) that single malts have since become very popular but it is still a minority market. Worldwide I believe blended scotch represents some 95% of total sales of scotch whisky. Still, I take your point and certainly in enthusiasts' circles, knowledge of origin counts for a lot for many.

This applies e.g., to many specialty coffees today, whether estate-grown, the specific type or genus, fair/free trade, etc., and many other consumer products (cheese, some bread, etc.).

I guess there are many potential markets out there. Some in this discussion are in the part that would like to know origin and whose buying habits are influenced by that. Fair enough, and as I said, I always want to know the origin if I can be told it. If I can't though, I will still buy the product if I like it enough. "Different strokes for different folks", as the saying goes here, but I wanted to explain the other view, both from the consumer's standpoint (many are not concerned about origin, probably most are not) and the producer's, as I see it.

Gary

[jburlowski]

Lennart,

Good bourbon is good bourbon, regardless of who bottles it. That is my only argument. Any prejudice against a particular label doesn't change what's in the bottle. But one must be cautions when trying something new that is unfamiliar, but that goes for products of a known source as well.

This pretty well sums up my feelings.

While it would be great to eliminate the silly / strange US bottling / labeling rules, it doesn't change the quality of the whiskey. Big, well-disclosed companies make both very good and very bad products. So do indepenednt bottler-only companies.

It's what is inside that counts.

[full_proof]

Ideally, yes, if I was king, every bottle would say truthfully where it was made.

Well, you have my vote :bowdown:

[Stu]

I don't believe there is as much difference in single malt scotch and bourbon as you think. Two brands that immediately come to mind are Finlaggan and McClelland. There is no Finlaggan distillery on Islay, every bottle of Finlaggan that I have tasted says "Caol Ila"on both nose and pallet, and I'll continue to buy it as long as it's 1/2 the price of a bottle labeled Caol Ila. McClellan has an Islay, a highland and a lowland. There is no McClelland distillery anywhere in Scotland. I have had McClelland's Islay that came from Bowmore, Lagavulin, and Laphroaig. When I got the one from Laphroaig I returned to the vendor and bought him out. A third example is Smokehouse. The nose said Lagavulin (maybe Caol Ila?) the color said Lagavulin, but the pallet and finish said Ardbeg. I know the bottler and he told me (in confidence) which it was. There is nothing on any of those three single malts which tell you where it was distilled, but I enjoy them and will continue to drink them. If I wanted to buy a few barrels from Laphroaig, move them to Glasgow and age them for three years, I could bottle them labeled as Glen Stewart single malt Islay whisky and be within UK law.

[CrispyCritter]

DBA's aren't always a bad thing - take Van Winkle, for instance. Even though we know that various bottlings have come from S-W, Bernheim, and BT, and some from sources that have been kept confidential, I've never been disappointed by Van Winkle bottlings.

As much as I'd prefer a little more transparency, I'm enough of a realist to recognize that this isn't always possible.

[cowdery]

The bottled-in-bond rule in this regard is interesting. A BIB has to give the DSP number of the distillery where it was distilled. The producer can use a dba but must use the actual DSP number, so bottles of Rittenhouse Rye BIB say "Continental Distilling," which is Heaven Hill's dba for the brand, but they correctly identify the distillery as DSP 354, which is Brown-Forman.

The fact that truthfully identifying "who made this" is part of the BIB law supports both the general principle and the vitality of the BIB designation.

[Pharaoh]

My enjoyment of any whiskey is diminished when I can't answer the fundamental question "who made this?" Having to guess about something so fundamental is wrong and I hold it against products that won't tell me. That is why I have never been able to muster much personal interest in Black Maple Hill, even though I respect what they have accomplished in the marketplace.

Great thread here Chuck.

Maybe somebody already hit on this, I did see someone mention the MM "Leapfrog" and the subsequent back and forth with Laphroaig over the said whisky...

By my guess both in the scotch & single malt trade as well as American whiskey, a portion of the secrecy is controlling price and other aspects. with less emphasis really being on one wanting to take credit or hidde the original crafter of the products etc.

If you can get a distillery to off you discount whiskey that you can sell under their staple product base-line, or that has a tendancy to taste better than the brands they support, it definitely isn't in the interest of the distillery to let it be known - is it?

I hope no-one will take this personally but Heaven Hill is an example that only puts out so many products I gravitate towards. Some may agree, some may not but to me a lot of the products tend to have a certain component with-in the profile that I can identify as HH whiskey. Some people like that component and thus they aren't going out of business.

Now on the flipside they obviously sell whiskey to IBs, and NOT all of that whiskey seems to have the component I pick up in a lot of labeled HH product. It's obvious to me, by the barrel, it's possible to avoid the common component I'm not fond of with a lot of HH product.

So I ask you guys, in the reality of the [X] factor like myself, Is it to Heaven Hill's, ( or any makers for that matter), benefit or advantage to announce that they supply brand Y and risk being confronted by someone like myself who asks the logical question, how is it brand Y's cheaper or smaller pool tastes so much better (to me) than it's maker's products. Or worse, the private bought tastes awful and a backlash ensues towards the known original maker.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm guessing the: "See no evil - Speak no evil" concept is probably considered the wiser, safer approach. This allows the whiskey to be sold off, without prejudice towards the purchaser or original owner, probably fends of a great deal of comparison shopping & other comparison factors, and keeps us all confused and in need of another drink!

What do you guys think?

P.S. Chuck I agree with your point wholeheartedly. I'm just taking my own stab at what might be driving the wedge.