Oh dammit there goes my afternoon.
2 Likes
Note that (unless things have changed since I last looked into this) their rye, like so many others, is sourced from MGP. While MGP’s rye is good, it’s kind of amusing to see how much marketing BS each bottler of their rye puts on its label.
3 Likes
There’s another infographic on this that I saw recently, but damned if I can find it. It’s even nicer than these. Shoot! Now I need to find it.
Update! Searching my browser history helped!!! And it’s the same place, vinepair or whoever they are.
These graphics are even better, cleaner, clearer. Love that dendrogram at the top.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, almost every spirit on the market is owned by one of five or so companies. And their standards of quality are about the same as any other mass produced product. Fear not, though. There are loads of distillers rediscovering the true art of distillation and probably in your neighborhood:
http://www.distilling.com/DSP-map/DistilleryMap.html
Sure, there are certainly quality issues with some, but there are many that are emerging as real quality leaders. Bourbon is a pale shadow of itself and has been for decades. The next decade is going to absolutely rock consumer perception to the core.
5 Likes
Yeah, I have that problem with Diageo, Constellation Brands, and increasingly, the ImBev/SABMiller juggernaut.
Even the stuff that looks smaller, craft, etc. is generally either spun up by one of those to look that way, or something I liked bought out by one of them. Ugh.
4 Likes
It was not my favorite rye. But it was fairly good, not too expensive, and widely available. So it was my go-to. But not anymore, I simply cannot support a company with that type of mindset with my dollars. nope nope nope.
7 Likes
Ah crud. I really liked Bulleit bourbon.
2 Likes
This thread was slightly more entertaining withe the homophobic troll footprints still in it.
2 Likes
It sounds like Diageo has been remiss in enforcing their rules for its Bulleit division. But for now at least they’re saying nothing fire here with a boiler-plate nopology. I guess it will depend on how many people get wind of the smoke.
2 Likes
Thanks for the link.
I have to admit my house bourbon has been Bulleit for some time. My own private bottle I share only with good friends is a bottle of Bookers.
Brewers, vintners, distillers - all fine professions, they manufacture mild intoxicants, yay for mild intoxicants!!
Marketers and distrubutors of the above though - their profit motive makes them encourage overconsumption and addiction, and they are selling poison.
Not every good things scales up to a great thing. See also, burning man.
That’s my 2c.
4 Likes
If I may offer some alternatives, Heaven Hill makes several nice rye whiskeys and while they are a big company, they’re a fraction the size of Diageo and not publicly traded. If you like Bulleit Rye, you might enjoy Rittenhouse in particular at about the same price point.
5 Likes
I don’t entirely agree, but they certainly push shite. I mean Crown Royal is one of the best selling whiskeys in the world thanks to their marketing, product placements and endorsements, and it’s revolting.
A lot of better stuff comes out of independent bottlers. While they might source from goliath distilleries, much of the character of a good spirit comes from how it’s blended and/or aged. It’s been interesting watching a lot of indy bottlers build their brands by staring with easily available sources from established distilleries and then put out better product when they can do more of the production in house.
I think anyone who profits from the lack of self control of others, which they also encourage, is a poisoner.
We should be free to poison ourselves, don’t get me wrong, but the tax rates on making a living that way should be positively draconian.
2 Likes
Oh, I see what you mean. I agree with heavily taxing Big Business in general, if not breaking them up under anti-trust legislation. Unfortunately instead politicians hand them obscene corporate welfare like the $3B in tax subsidies Wisconsin gave Foxconn for a few thousand jobs they might not even create.
2 Likes
wow, this is news to me. i haven’t had it a ton, but i enjoyed it when i did, and i didn’t have anything against it until now. sad.
Well, it’s not like they are being forthright with the consumer. In fact, this may be the most deceitful industry in terms of consumer disclosure. I drink “macro” spirits all the time, Old Overholt being my go-to (low cost+straight+capable distillation= a permanent spot).
A really good mark of authenticity in macros is a “Bottled in Bond” label. This is a highly regulated Federal term meaning, among other things that it is: distilled by one “distiller” (read: distillery), from one year’s crop (read: vintage), aged a minimum of 4 years and bottled at no less than 50% abv. It’s fairly uncommon, but I’m willing to bet you start seeing it more often as a designation of high quality and authenticity.
You can also pay attention to ADI’s “Certified Craft” label and their annual awards listing. I don’t agree with a lot of their assessments, but it is the only blind tasting judging by actual industry veterans focused solely on craft spirits. They won’t be easy to find, but neither is a good heirloom tomato.
EDIT: The linked article mentions Four Roses. I have nothing but respect for Jim Rutledge and the extraordinary lengths he went to to preserve it. It’s a really great example of big Bourbon done well (well, actually done really well, then done horribly, then ignored, then sold to people who know how to listen to true masters).
5 Likes
Big distilleries and distributors disclose only what they’re forced to, which varies a lot by country, but is generally atrocious in the US where the laws are pretty lax compared to say Germany.
4 Likes
Absolutely. And add to that the level of confusion both within the industry and the direction given by legislators. There are some subtleties of law that vary widely in interpretation from one TTB officer to the next.
2 Likes
Less about all business, more about big business that profits from misery. Like Big Drinks cousins Big Heroin and Big Cocaine, they’re profitable at scale only because people lack self control and we lack the will to address the issues sensibly,
But specifically NOT like foxconn. There are scale issues there as well, and surely some stuff to look at about worker/employer issues but no, those are unrelated to the personal/societal addiction issues.
There is a commonality in terms of externalizing the social costs, but the social cost of not so good jobs at taxpayer expense and the social cost of addiction encouraged and supplied are quite different things I think.
2 Likes
