KBD 1976, 1980 - Willett's or not?

[Strayed]

Unfortunately, many of the "small batch," extra-aged bourbons out there are from bottlers, who like to foster the illusion that they are distillers. Often they will aver that they are prohibited from revealing who made what but I doubt that's really true. (Why would Heaven Hill care?)

Of course, I have no knowledge of what requirements may be part of Heaven Hill's contract distilling agreement with any given bottler (or Barton's, or Buffalo Trace's, or any of the others for that matter), but just to offer a possible explanation, there could very well be language in the contracts that prohibit the distillery from acknowledging that they produced the whiskey that was bottled. This wouldn't be the distillery's demand (as you pointed out, why would Heaven Hill care?), but rather a stipulation of the independent bottler. And perhaps not only for vanity, either. Since the actual, taxable, alcohol being distilled is already paid for and considered the (again, taxable) property of the bottler, the distiller understandably would want no part of ownership. And on the other hand, the bottler can hardly be faulted for not wanting to confirm ownership claims that might be made by the distiller prior to bottling. It's also possible that bottlers (in the past, of course) sometimes handled product they purchased from distillers that, shall we say, forgot?, to properly document the origins and tax-paid status of the particular barrels in question. The fine old tradition of "don't ask; don't tell" didn't originate with the U. S. military; whiskeymakers have understood that principle at least since the Irish poteeners and Scots moonshiners.

Psst! if y'all enjoy these peeks at the backstage, behind-the-scenes pieces of bourbon (and rye and rum) lore, don't miss a chance to get the current Bourbon Country Reader, in which Chuck goes further out on that ol' limb than most folks in the media have. And maybe the issue of "where that wonderful whiskey really came from" will continue to pop up from time to time in that fine publication. I love to take issue with Chuck, but in order for you to understand that, you need to put into context that I've learned a powerful lot about bourbon and American whiskey in general from Chuck, and if you're not reading the Bourbon Country Reader, you're only reading the "official version" of what's happening in the the American whiskey world. (yes, Chuck, that's supposed to encourage more gutsy, honest issues like the current one, regardless that Paul Pacult still gets paid more than you do ).

[cowdery]

I understand Chuck's point of revealing information. I like to have all those juicy details, too; however, I will soon be one of those doing something for the store with a bottler.

And aren't you going to try to find out who made the whiskey you're buying? And won't you want to be able to tell your customers? And won't your customers be disappointed if you don't?

[tlsmothers]

What if I find out and am sworn to secrecy?

Maybe I should make up that lie to see how many of you will pour me some good bourbon to try to get my tongue loosened up!

[doubleblank]

I'll propose an answer for why HH doesn't want their name associated with a bottler's product.....this partially comes up in the wine trade all the time (I have a small vineyard in CA). Primarily, HH (the producer) has no control over what the bottler decides to blend. For example, Bottler X buys 30 barrels from HH. It also realizes it has some 22yo HH whiskey from an earlier purchase that is now too woody. Bottler X comes up with some label, blends the old and new together and ends up with a nasty tasting product. Puts "Distilled by HH.....Bottled by X" on the label. The customer buys it, exclaims "Tastes like crap"......and vows to never buy a HH product again. HH has now lost a customer as a result of selling some "oversupply" barrels to Bottler X. The risk that this could happen far outweighs any benefits that accrue from allowing HH's name to be put on the bottle.

Secondly......HH doesn't want any products to directly compete with its lineup on the shelf. If Bottler X's 10yo/86 proof product sits next to HH's on the shelf and is 29 cents cheaper.....well you know what happens. But if you're looking for HH distilled 10yo/86 proof, then you won't buy Bottler X's if its a mystery whiskey in the bottle.

Randy

[tlsmothers]

Very good points, Randy.

And back to Chuck's questions on a more serious note, the only folks who ask me where whiskey is from if they can't tell, are purists, collectors, and enthusiasts. The average whiskey drinker doesn't care and doesn't know enough for it to mean anything even if you tell them. I break through the myth often that there's a little old man with a donkey bringing barrels down from the mountains. Customers response is typically, "Really? That's interesting. There's only 8 distilleries for all these labels?" And that is usually the end of it.

[cowdery]

I envy the Scottish practice where a bottler acquires a cask of, say, Balvenie, bottles it up, and identifies it as such on the label. It's a plain type label, not Balvenie's label design. It says where, when, etc., as straightforward facts. The bottlings are for the 'hard core,' are usually much more expensive than the distillery's bottlings, and I don't see how this can do anything except bolster a distillery's cachet. It's not like the American producers can't figure out how it would work, since the Scots have been doing it for years.

In Scotland, of course, the brand is the distillery, at least in the case of many of the most familiar single malts.

I know there are some producers who grumble about the bottlers, but it seems to work fine of consumers.

Think about any other type of sub-contracting. Can you imagine a sub saying, "okay, I'll make those for you but you can't tell anybody I made them." Except for people who know they're making crap, who says that?

When Willie Nelson created Old Whiskey River, he wanted to make a point that it was made at a small, family-owned distillery, so he publicized the fact that Heaven Hill made it for him. Of course, he was dealing directly with the distiller. He wasn't dealing with a broker.

[bourbonv]

Chuck,
I agree with you. That is one reason why I personally mourn the deregulation that weakened the Bottled-in-Bond act eliminating the tax stamp. The distillery information was found on the tax stamp helping the consumers know exactly where the whiskey was made and when it was made. For a company like Schenley that had several distilleries and often used product from different distilleries in brands, it helps to figure out exactly where it was made.

Mike Veach

[White Lightning]

Very interesting discussion guys.

I'll take my own stab at things. For one Chuck I think you'd be very surprised at how many private bottled single malts are actually better priced than the same malt at same age put out by the originating distillery.

You are right that often a specialized private bottle might cost more but there are many examples of better priced IBs - I notice this particularly to be true with regards to OB's that are typically over-hyped, and therefore over-priced (distillery releases), or those that rarely release anything outside the blending pool... so as to when they are released, the distillery asks arm and leg prices.

That said, while most IB (independent bottlers) do list information, if you look the SMWS 'Society' is one big one that is forbidden from putting specifically which single malts it bottles. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is what - it simply isn't outright published or stated on bottled labels though.

In my view the secrecy is in that every now and then an IB gets a hold of a distinguished barrel / cask or two, that outshines anything the distillery can put out in any substantial and particularly vatted quantities - that's where the danger lies and the need to hide disclosure begins.

The basic premisis is the distillery controls the whisky to begin with. They'd never sell their better stock to an outside party, possibly making themselves look bad... thus the assumption the independent party can NOT have better whisky than the party of origin which opted to & allowed the whisky to be sold in the first place.

The snag in that thinking is even if you do restrict the purchasing parties;

(1) a good independent buyer is not going to take outright trash... I expect the very same is true with the better parties in the American whiskey bus - though I'm sure we can all attest to having seen some mediocre examples that say otherwise regardless of which side of the Atlantic we focus on.

(2) one never knows what whisky sold / bought today, might evolve to be the day it is bottled.

Hence when an indie bottler does get a hold of something that outshines a distilleries bottles and is able to offer the said whisky for a more reasonable price than the distillery would; it raises questions no distillery wants to face.

Questions like: If this is Macallan whisky and some 'bloque' from Macallan sold this to the 'bloques' at Murray McDavid (to name one indie bottler), why can't Macallan sell the same quality consistently from this price margin? Which evolves to is the 'bloque' at Murray McDavid that good at selecting potential whisky - and if so, why doesn't Macallan hire someone as witty to select for them etc. etc. etc.

I suspect the exact same thinking goes on with Heaven Hill and any other party that sells whiskey which might in the end be perceived as better or simply different than what the distillery itself actually puts out in its traditional marketed brands.

A very interesting scotch related event was when Laphroaig blocked Murray McDavid from putting the distillery name on a bottle about 3-4 years ago... they sued or threatened to in order to block the name, so MM put the title 'Leapfrog' on the bottle instead.

Laphroaig got pissed at that too and claimed it mis-represented +they weren't getting credit so they sued or threatened to again and eventually forced Murray McDavid (to I assume gladly) return to putting Laphroaig back on bottled product that was made from the said distillery.

I have other guesses about why Laphroaig went so extreme at that particular time, for one they were under scrutiny for adding caramel under the guise of that lettered numerical heading -- Murray McDavid released all unfiltered whiskey which might have added to to Laphroaig's questions.

Just a hunch, and sorry for the extended spiel on the non American whiskey front, but I'd bet much the same is true in both markets as to the discussion of why so much is hidden from the consumer's view.

[OscarV]

These 3 bourbons are rated in the new "Malt Advocate" magazine, vol.14no2.
They say they are only avaiable in New York and New Jersey.

"They're branded bourbons-the distillery where the boubons were produced is not disclosed." according to the article.

All are 94proof.

17yo-$50.00-92 rating
21yo-$80.00-82 rating
23yo-$120.00-84 rating

According to the taste notes I would like to try the 23yo. they say,"Thick and chewy. Notes of fig cake, glazed fruit,oak resin,tobacco and cedar. Bold, spicy finish balances the chewy sweetness."

Thick and chewy sounds like a 20yo Pappy Van Winkle review.

Now the million dollar question, how does this Michigan guy get his hands on a bottle?

Oscar

[Bourbon Joe]

I will soon be one of those doing something for the store with a bottler.

LeNell,
Let us know when it all comes together and you have some on the shelf.
Joe

[tlsmothers]

Joe, going down this month to taste through some barrels. Working on the labeling right now. Hope to find some goodies.