The Whiskey Rebellion

Post by excuse-me » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 7:23 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #46

excuse-me wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they are obvisouly going to be worth a few $$$ just because they sell so much of it. But the cynical engineer in me assumed that all the "Billy-Bob still pisses in every barrel just like his grand-pappy did in 1869" type advertising, meant that it was actually made in a chemical plant in New Jersey by Union Carbide! Must admit I've never tried the stuff - always worked on the principle that if it's not a single…

Based on how you describe yourself you're right not to have tried JD, you probably wouldn't like it - personally I only drink it with coke when I'm out drinking, not for taste. But I think limiting yourself to Speyside is foolish. The fact that you do this makes me assume you've tried single malts from other areas, and I also presume that you didn't just try one once and jump to the conclusion that everything not Spe…

Post by excuse-me » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 7:31 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #9

krogsgard wrote: post #5

It baffles me why more companies can't be like this. Surely some testing could provide data on success ratio of sending "friendly" c&d letters versus the normal threatening kind. I suspect people are much more likely to play nice in this kind of scenario (especially when the reason for the c&d is not as strong), but why not at least put it to the test?

There might be misaligned incentives at play here. I'd bet that in a lot of cases lawyers have a strong inventive to settle those things in court.

Post by tptacek » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 7:41 PM UTC

mapgrep wrote: post #66

jsolson wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, Jack Daniels is not bourbon; it's Tennessee whiskey. Second, if you're going to tell people to drink Evan Williams, at least point them towards the single barrel. It lacks most of the abrasive industrial solvent characteristics of the black label, and if I recall correctly it's still typically cheaper than JD.

You're way off on standard Evan Williams ("black label"). It's very good, even if you don't factor in the remarkably low cost. Calling it "abrasive" or like an "industrial solvent" is way inaccurate. Maybe you're just used to very mellowed and sweet sipping whiskies. That's fine but it doesn't make brawnier whiskies trash as you imply. As someone who mixes many of his Manhattans and Old Fashioneds with Williams (alon…

Post by krogsgard » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 7:45 PM UTC

justincormack wrote: post #76

krogsgard wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the definition of bourbon varies based on country, but pretty much it's anything over 50% corn based. The difference in "Tennessee Whiskey" is the charcoal filtration. They pour the whiskey over an enormous pile of charcoal, which provides a unique flavor, independent of standard bourbon. They obtained the legal right to distinguish it this way a long time ago. To me, technically, Tennessee Whiskey could be called bo…

Surely charcoal filtration not coal?

Post by ConstantineXVI » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 8:45 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #39

tptacek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you look into it, you'll find that almost every American whiskey --- both the stuff you can get at Safeway and the enthusiast bottles --- rolls up somehow to a large corporation.

Yeah, I'm a scotch man myself (get that "e" out of me whisky), largely because of taste but I do also like the fact that so many great scotches come from family-owned distilleries - of course, even "family-owned" can be a big company with lots of money, but it's still nice that most of them aren't huge companies. Edit: worth pointing out that there are a bunch of independent distilleries in America, which I'm led to…