WELL HOWDY! It sure has been a while. I’m glad you’re here and reading, even if I’ve been lax in writing. I’d give some long explanation about my slack in writing, but it would amount to bullshit.
Check that segue out. Masterfully executed.
This post is a grab bag of reactions and thoughts. I’m keeping it grab-bag style so I don’t get too long-winded on any one point, but rather long-winded on a collection of points.
Whiskey blogs and twitter dorks are all abuzz about Buffalo Trace’s latest back-slapping press release, which masquerades as information about the company, but is actually PR that would do Barnum proud. Proving the adage attributed to him, I’ve seen non-whiskey blogs lapping up Buffalo Trace’s dire warnings about a whiskey shortage and effectively acting like goldbugs or Jim Cramer, warning you to buy, buy, buy while you can, and hopefully, eventually, Buffalo Trace will make more.
This is no Schooner Tuna pitch. This is facts which may individually be true that have been woven into a tapestry of complete bullshit.
Let’s not forget, Sazerac et al were responsible for a vodka so completely gimmicky that you can still find it languishing on shelves years later. Had a similar tale been told about whiskey, that shit would have vanished in a heartbeat. Yes, whiskey lovers, the vodka fans we mock so readily have exercised better judgement and restraint.
There’s an undercurrent of worry, as if old whiskey will never be seen again, or perhaps no whiskey at all will exist in a few years. Let’s review some basic concepts.
Whiskey production is planned years in advance. Yes, the plan is subject to revision, but you’re fundamentally working with about a 4-year minimum window. If you forecast a downturn, you’ll start curtailing production years ahead. If you think your product will increase in popularity, you increase production. Generally that increase, plus a little price bump, will smooth things out.
Well, whiskey exploded about 3-4 years ago, and really in earnest in the last 18 months. We’ve seen products disappear for months at a time (how many times have you heard “there’s literally no [whiskey name] available in the state” from a retailer?). This is a supply shortfall, and in this case, it’s generally demand outstripping supply as opposed to yield problems (production errors – bad batches, etc) or channel inefficiencies (problem physically bringing product to retail shelves).
If you’re afraid that the distillers are losing their shirt, bear in mind that the current situation is that they are selling virtually everything they produce. This isn’t really a “go out of business” problem. This is a “best problem you could hope to have as a business owner”. Money is not being lost, it is merely being left on the table in the short term.
With full-sell through, buoyed by price increases and stretching supply (dropping age statements, lowering proof, repurposing bottom shelf booze to pad out your prize $35-50+ bottles), but faced with a large shortfall, expansion is the logical path. And this path is being taken.
Yes, you will see old whiskey on your shelves again – even sooner if people lose interest in seeing marketing hysteria around whiskeys they will literally never be able to taste. It may take a while, but it will happen.
The other thing to remember is that this affects a handful of producers. You can still find any number of mystery meat bottlings sourced from heaven only knows where. It’s not like some 1980s vision of Soviet market shelves: they’re not bare. They just might not have that bottle you really want.
And that bottle you really, really want that a bunch of other people want as bad as you? Well, good luck with that. Try finding some everyday choices so you don’t have to endure a lot of craziness.
Finally, and I’ve counseled this before with regards to the completely insane “Whiskey Investment” market: if someone has a vested financial interest in you making a purchase and is screaming that the sky is falling and you have to purchase now – you ought to consider opting-out (or at least not going all-in).
But I’ve never been to the distillery, so this could all be bullshit. What do I know? I’m just a dumb blogger.
Around Christmastime, I didn’t care about writing a traditional gift guide with lavish praise for questionable booze. However, I had a lot of fun at the expense of an anonymous spirits PR person who offered me JPGs of their client’s product in exchange for favorable coverage.
Sorry, anonymous spirits PR person. No one wants to work with me because I’m not great at playing ball. You can ask Exposure, who seemed to have a successful run in 2012 getting blogs to cover some of their clients’ products. I expressed my dislike for Glenrothes and never heard back. All good!
But it planted a seed in my head. Several weeks ago, almost a year to the day of my constructive criticism of noted wine critic Robert Parker, David Driscoll of K&L lightheartedly called me out in an email about a gin they were selling which Parker hailed as the best he’s ever tried. David set some aside for me to take the Pepsi challenge with; it seemed ridiculous enough to be fun. This is unfortunately not the entry where a series of gins are reviewed; that will be coming soon. (Seriously). Keep an eye out.
And yes, Beefeater will be covered.
So let’s wrap this thing up with an old whiskey that you won’t ever find. Maybe this seems unfair; pretend for a minute that I’m a better writer and have a more discerning palate and my name is Serge, and you’ll be able to accept this coverage of a long-since-gone bottle. Alternatively, you can just imagine that this is some coverage of Slappy van Oceanaged’s latest thirty-aught-six year old wheated bourbon from a typhoon-damaged warehouse housing nothing but lost and orphaned casks which serendipitously got a mixture of rye and hydraulic fracturing fluid in them.
Feel better? Let’s continue, then.
This Banff is part of a longer series of reviews of whisky from the closed Banff distillery. Why Banff? Banff was my first drink-your-age whisky; I really enjoyed it and it has a bizarre story.
Anyway, this Banff was distilled in November 1966 and bottled in June 2004, aged 37 years and coming from cask 3440. It’s at a whisky-enthusiast-galling 43%, but let’s be fair: it’s 37 years old and was bottled in ’04. It’s a MacKillop’s Choice Single Cask bottle.
The nose on this has some faint buttercream vanilla and a bit of light grassiness; there’s some white pepper and a little tobacco. The tobacco gives a little bit of dimension, but the nose is primarily vanilla and a touch of malt.
The palate is initially bland, with some general sweet and malty notes; honey and vanilla follow. There’s some white pepper and again, some light grassiness.
The finish perks up with a little spiciness – white pepper and cinnamon, some oak, and it’s all got a honeyed side to it as well.
It’s not a particularly complex one, but it does open up and give a pleasant, if not particularly challenging whisky. Interestingly, this is a whisky where the age seems more felt in a spicy wood flavor than a heavy oaken note. In some ways it’s not unlike Powers John’s Lane.
Today this whiskey would cost nine zillion dollars.
And that’s everything from the clown squad here at Scotch and Ice Cream. Stay tuned for the next post when we investigate if angry tweets and blog posts make whiskey taste better, we determine if Glenrothes is even suitable to use as an engine degreaser, and we react passive-aggressively to retailer blogs.
At a glance:
Banff 1966 Mackillop’s Choice #3440 D: 11-1966 B: 06-2004 43% ABV
Nose: An initial faint buttercream vanilla flavor with faint grassiness behind it; a little white pepper. A little tobacco in the background, but a stronger vanilla note above.
Palate: Kind of bland upfront, a little general sweetness and maltiness, some light honey and vanilla, a bit of white pepper and tobacco and a touch of grassiness.
Finish: A little spice! Some honey and white pepper, a faint dab of cinnamon, some oak.
Comment: The palate isn’t too interesting, but the ages come through more as spice than oak. Agreeable and easygoing; not too aggressive.