Old Crow BIB

[scratchline]

I came across a couple of Old Crow BIB pints today. I literally had to come across the counter and rummage around in a bunch of dusty bottles to find them. Thankfully, the owner allowed me to do this. Anyway, I had only ever found one other bottle of OC BIB and the strip was so faded that I had no idea when it was distilled and bottled. These strips were legible and I was able to make out that they were distilled in 70 and bottled in 79. NINE YEARS? I thought the bonding period was shorter than that. Is the bonding period just a minimum? I found it interesting that it was in the barrel for over 5 years.

-Mike

[cowdery]

Four years is simply the minimum for a bond. There is no maximum.

Bourbon sales really began to collapse in the early 70s and no brand was hit harder than Old Crow, a fact which some have attributed to some bad whiskey they made during that period. I would assume that the whiskey stayed in the barrel so long because they simply didn't have enough demand to bottle it. During that period a lot of standard whiskeys were using extra-aged stock because they simply had too much of it. Somewhere in there they stopped putting the actual dates on the tax stamps, so you didn't necessarily know unless someone tipped you off. I bought a lot of Kentucky Tavern during that period when someone at Glenmore told me it was actually 10-year-old whiskey.

[EllenJ]

The way I understood it (in addition to what Chuck has pointed out) is that when American Brands bought out National Distillers they found themselves with a bourbon whose market was the same as that of Jim Beam. Why they didn't simply disappear Old Crow instead of turning it into the horrible 36-month-old attrocity it is today is totally beyond me. The only explanation I can think of is that it was a personal grudge sort of thing, with reduction of the Old Crow brand to sub-lower-shelf status an intentional result. They didn't do that with Old Grand Dad, nor with Old Overholt. In fact, Beam's version of Overholt is an improvement and truer to the original flavor profile than was the National Distillers version they inherited. The other ND bourbon, Old Taylor, was also not well-supported, but I feel it fared better than Old Crow did.

National Distillers supposedly lost the original Old Crow recipe and came up with a new and not very well-received one (à la Coca Cola) but the ND examples of Old Crow BIB I've tasted have all been first-rate, and far better than 8-year-old Bonded Beam whiskey from the same period. One favorite (there's still a little bit left) was distilled in fall 1971 and bottled in spring 1981 (nine years). I think the recipe change must have occured after that time.

[cowdery]

The story I heard is only slightly different from John's and comes from the last master distiller at Crow prior to the "merger" in 1987. Supposedly in the 1960s, the distillery went through an expansion and mistakes were made in "scaling up" the recipe for the new capacity. The significant error was in the percentage of backset used. According to my source, he and the distillery tasting panel protested that the new whiskey they were producing "wasn't right," but the owners only cared about maximizing production volume. They supposedly fixed it in the early 1980s, shortly before the distillery was closed following the "merger."

I agree that every taste of Old Crow I have had from that period has been acceptable, although it has also invariably been aged 8 to 10 years, which standard Old Crow was not.

I too have felt that Beam's debasement of Crow has to do with an old grudge, since the two brands had long battled each other for category leadership. On the other hand, the people in Deerfield (Beam's headquarters) have never shown much interest in the history of any of their brands, except as they could make a little hay from it.

From direct personal experience, I can tell you that the decision to maintain the Old Grand-Dad formula and to provide some minimal support for the brand, at least initially, was solely due to the fact that it still supported a premium price, which Crow did not. The issue with Taylor was that, by the time Beam got it, it was simply very small, although they did keep it a 6-year-old.

At the time of the "merger" (I use quotes because it was, in fact, an acquisition), Beam was essentially a one-brand company while National had a huge portfolio, including a lot of cats and dogs. They discontinued about half of the brands and still had a lot of them that only sold in one or two markets, but sold enough to be profitable. They didn't give much support to any of the acquired bourbons (they bought the company primarily to get the DeKuyper line, which was very hot at the time) and just let them seek their own level.

The current Old Crow is so bad I'm surprised by it. I can tell you that it is made at the recently renamed Booker Noe distillery, which Beam insiders regard as inferior to Clermont and is the source of all of their bottom shelf products.

[Brewer]

I too have felt that Beam's debasement of Crow has to do with an old grudge, since the two brands had long battled each other for category leadership. On the other hand, the people in Deerfield (Beam's headquarters) have never shown much interest in the history of any of their brands, except as they could make a little hay from it.

The current Old Crow is so bad I'm surprised by it. I can tell you that it is made at the recently renamed Booker Noe distillery, which Beam insiders regard as inferior to Clermont and is the source of all of their bottom shelf products.

Chuck,

Why doesn't Beam just shut down Old Crow if they don't give a hoot about it? They ought to eliminate it from their array of products, because it is crap. Especially since so many distilleries are putting out excellent bourbon, this makes Old Crow stand out as one to stay away from.

[bourbonv]

Bob,
The short answer is that they need a cheep product for the paper bag crowd. They certainly don't want them to start drinking Beam White label and they don't want to surrender that area of the market to another company.

Mike Veach

[cowdery]

Enough people still buy it for them to be able to sell it at a profit. That's all that matters.

[gillmang]

I am surprised that more "equity" isn't perceived in this hallowed old brand names. Even if (and it is sometimes an inevitable course) a brand is turned into a price item, a higher quality line under the same name (extension if you will) could be made available to recall the history of the brand. We have been reading on these various pages that at one time Old Crow rye came in two age statements, for example, and the bourbon was available at different ages over the years. Let some of the barrels occupy choicer space in a warehouse, let it age a year or two longer, maybe put out a single barrel version. One would think brands such as Taylor and Crow would be treated thusly. Someone might consider writing a marketing plan for it. Where I see the value is not just the budgeted profit on the line but the reinforcement of the brand identity, it keeps the franchise going in a sense. Then too, I, who do not work in the distilled spirits industry, may be completely out to lunch..

Gary

[gillmang]

I am surprised more value isn't perceived in these venerable old names. Even if (sometimes an inevitable thing) a brand is turned into a "price" item, sometimes a higher quality version is made available. It's a nod to the history of the brand and to offer something for the more discriminating buyer. We have been reading on these pages that at one time Old Crow rye came in two age statements and the bourbon was available at different ages over the years. So why not return to tradition? Say, place some of the barrels in a choicer part of the warehouse, or let some age a year or two longer, maybe put out a single barrel version. Where I see the value is not just, or even mainly, budgeted profit on the line extension but supporting the brand identity. Then too, I do not work in the distilled spirits industry. Maybe there is a good reason to position and manufacture Old Crow and Old Taylor as they have been in recent years..

Gary

[cowdery]

It's hard to argue with Beam's success, but the fact is that they market all of their products the same way, and that is the same way Proctor & Gamble markets soap. Even so, you would expect they would see some exploitable brand equity there, which is Gary's point. However, to do that effectively would require a sensitivity that, from my experience, Beam doesn't possess. Other companies have acquired what seemed to be valuable brand equity and seemingly didn't know what to do with it. My best example of this is Westinghouse, in which I have a personal stake as my father worked there (and at successor companies) for more than 40 years. CBS/Viacom seemingly saw no value in what I, at least, considered a very valuable brand for appliances and possibly other things. Now a company in the UK is licensing the name and using it on appliances made in China. I wonder how much Beam would want to license the Crow name. Of course it might not be worth much now after they've degraded it for 20 years.