Don't miss a post -- follow @SippnCorn on Twitter

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Very Old Barton 6-Year vs. Very Old Barton NAS vs. Very Old Barton 6-Year Bottled in Bond.

Tax day hurts, so I’m hitting the bottom shelf for this review.  At least I picked a brand that has gotten high praise despite its price, shelf placement and limited distribution.

Very Old Barton – or “VOB” – is distilled at the Barton 1792 Distillery, in Bardstown Kentucky (f/k/a the Tom Moore Distillery).  The VOB brand comes in several different varieties, including an 80 proof, 86 proof, 90 proof and 100 proof Bottled in Bond.  For the three that I compared, both 86-proof versions cost $8.83 on sale (regular price $9.99) and the BIB version cost $11.99.  I wanted to see if a bottle containing the age statement was distinguishable from the NAS version, and whether either variety was materially different from the BIB version.

Along with its praise, though, VOB (and its owner, Sazerac, and its other distillery, Buffalo Trace) has received a healthy dose of well-deserved criticism for how it removed the 6-year age statement.  See Sku's Jan. 27, 2014 post -- "Sazerac's Funny Numbers" as one great example.  Removing an age statement is one thing, but the necks of VOB continue to carry a deceptively prominent numeral 6, just without the smallish font words “aged” and “years” on either side.

Color:
Medium amber for all three.

Nose:
The nose has a little honey and fruit sweetness, with the BIB version having more of the tell-tale smell of higher proof, but black pepper and rye were the dominant scents for all three.  Overall it’s a light nose.  The nose of the BIB version held up better to ice.

Taste:
VOB has even less sweetness than the nose might indicate.  It’s not a powerhouse, but the rye and pepper spice has a nice bite, and it rounds out with toffee and corn flavors, while still overall being dry.  There was a very slight medicinal quality too, which detracted from the other flavors, but it went away with an ice cube (which also brought out some of the fruit).  These are very solid classic bourbons.

Finish:
The finish was medium in length for each, with predominate notes of black pepper and oak, and it was dryer than the taste.  Ice gave the finish a sweeter taste for each.

Bottom Line:

Many people have sung the praises of VOB as a hidden gem on the bottom shelf.  While I’m surprised at its cost, and while it no doubt is one of the top “value bourbons,” I think that it doesn’t rank any higher than mid-shelf.  I’d buy it over a few brands in the $20-$30 price range, but it can’t touch my favorites.  Every time that I had a favorable impression of the nose, taste or finish, it followed in my mind with “for the price.”  Additionally, while the 86 proof 6-Year and NAS versions are virtually indistinguishable now, I suspect that Sazerac won’t be able to keep up with the relative quality of the profile, and upcoming releases will taste younger and less balanced.  The 100 proof BIB version was only distinguishable by the clearly higher alcohol content, and given the choice between the two, I’d pick the 86 proof because I prefer it neat.  If you prefer ice or a splash of water, definitely go with the BIB version.

When you’re broke on tax day, or for any other occasion where you’re looking to spend only $10.00, VOB probably can’t be beat (which helps the score on the Sipp’n Corn Scale).  If you’re looking for other great values for just a few more dollars, try Old Grand-Dad BIB and Four Roses “Yellow Label.”

Scores on The Sipp’n Corn Scale
Very Old Barton NAS:  2.5
Very Old Barton 6-Year:  3.0 (bonus points for age statement)
Very Old Barton 6-Year BIB:  2.5


The Sipp’n Corn Scale:
1 – Wouldn’t even accept a free drink of it.
2 – Would gladly drink it if someone else was buying.
3 – Glad to include this in my bar.
4 – Excellent bourbon.  Worth the price and I’m sure to always have it in my bar.
5 – Wow.  I’ll search high and low to get another bottle of this.



Friday, April 11, 2014

Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Garrison Brothers Texas Straight Bourbon Whiskey

Because of very limited distribution, it took a trip to Texas for me to finally find Garrison Brothers.  I had heard so many promising reviews of Garrison Brothers, so I was really looking forward to my trip last week to San Antonio.  But I had also heard that it was a bit pricey.  The website embraces its price by stating “Garrison Brothers Texas Straight Bourbon Whiskey is NOT for everyday drinking.  It’ll set you back a little.  It should be enjoyed in moderation, straight up, or with just a little ice.”

After striking out at several restaurants on the River Walk and at the market, I finally found Garrison Brothers served at The Republic of Texas Restaurant on the River Walk, where they were kind enough to also show me the bottle (pictured below).  Would this young bourbon be worth the steep price?

Bourbon:         Garrison Brothers Texas Straight Bourbon Whiskey

Distillery:        Garrison Brothers Distillery, Hye, Texas.

Age:                Two years.

Proof:              94 proof.

Cost:                About $70.00 ($12.00 by the drink)

Tasting Notes

Color:
The color is a lot darker than I’d expect from a young bourbon; it’s an appealing dark amber. 

Nose:
Honey sweetness, grassy and a ton of corn.  There wasn’t any real spice to speak of on the nose, but it was pleasant.

Taste:
I only drank it neat.  The taste was mostly corn sweetness, with only a little cinnamon spice and no earthy or oaky flavors.  It was definitely young from a lack of depth or complexity, but it was good nevertheless.  It seemed a little syrupy at the end, but not in a bad way.

Finish:
The finish was medium in length but it lingered, and it again had mostly sweet flavors.

Bottom Line

Garrison Brothers Texas Straight Bourbon Whiskey isn’t bad by any stretch – it’s a decent whiskey – but it’s no $70.00 bottle of whiskey.  There are plenty of $20-$30 bourbons that are better any day of the week, and several sub-$20 bottles too.  Unless the price gets more realistic, leave this one on the shelf. 

Score on The Sipp’n Corn Scale:  2.5 (because of the price)


The Sipp’n Corn Scale:
1 – Wouldn’t even accept a free drink of it.
2 – Would gladly drink it if someone else was buying.
3 – Glad to include this in my bar.
4 – Excellent bourbon.  Worth the price and I’m sure to always have it in my bar.
5 – Wow.  I’ll search high and low to get another bottle of this.



Sunday, April 6, 2014

Churchill Downs Distilling Co. v. Churchill Downs, Inc. – Bourbon and The Kentucky Derby Collide.


It’s finally warm in Louisville and Derby fever is about to strike again in Kentucky and beyond.  So in celebration of the upcoming 140th running of the Kentucky Derby on May 3, 2014, I found yet another example of how bourbon history and American law are intertwined. 

Just as bourbon litigation has guided American courts and helped develop the then-emerging areas of unfair competition, consumer fraud and trademark protection, bourbon played a critical role in the notion that a trade name could be protected outside of the actual business pursuit of the owner.  In Churchill Downs Distilling Co. v. Churchill Downs, Inc., 262 Ky. 567 (1936), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky (Kentucky’s highest court at the time) established the right of an owner to protect his trade name against use by anyone else.  Imagine if the name “Coca-Cola” could be used by any business that didn’t sell beverages; a bourbon lawsuit helped change that.

It all started in 1933, when B. J. Frentz decided to get into the whiskey business by opening “Churchill Downs Distilling Co.” in Nelson County, Kentucky, about thirty miles from Louisville.  None of his business partners were named “Churchill” or “Downs,” and he had no connection whatsoever to the real Churchill Downs, but he used that name prominently on his bottles, along with identifying Louisville as his place of business.  His label included an image of the grandstand located at Churchill Downs, along with horses and jockeys racing on a track.

The real Churchill Downs had never agreed to the use of its name in this manner.  Mr. Frentz even admitted in his testimony that he used the name “Churchill Downs” precisely because it was well-known and he hoped it would increase sales.  He admitted that there was no connection with the real Churchill Downs and that he was trying to profit from the reputation of Churchill Downs, which since opening and featuring the first Kentucky Derby in 1875, had gained worldwide renown.

It seems obvious to us now that Mr. Frentz was not allowed to profit from the reputation of Churchill Downs by using its name without its permission.  But that wasn’t necessarily the law in 1933.  Mr. Frentz argued that the law only protected the name “Churchill Downs” from use by competitors, and a company’s goodwill in its name only extended to its own actual line of business.  Since Mr. Frentz did not operate a horse racing track, he argued that he was free to use the name without permission or consequence, and he was able to cite plenty of cases that supported this argument.

But the Court decided to adopt an emerging trend in the law that expanded the scope of protection for unfair competition, so that it was not confined to actual market competition.  Instead, now the law would protect against use of a trade name by anyone else who tried to pass off his goods or services as being connected to or endorsed by that that business.

There was also a thread of protectionism in the Court’s opinion, or at least an extreme sense of pride in the history of Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Derby.  The Court recited the founding of Churchill Downs in 1875 and the running of the first Kentucky Derby, and added this flowery ode to the Derby:

Louisville has always been a great racing center, commencing in 1839.  In 1875, Colonel M. Lewis Clark was a spectator at the annual running of the English Derby, at Downs, England…  He acquired [land] from his uncles, John H. and Hugh Churchill… [and] named it Churchill Downs.  In the year 1875, at the racing plant, they inaugurated the Kentucky Derby, which was modeled in general outlines after the English Derby at Downs. 

Continuously since that date the soil of Churchill Downs has been a field of honor of the winners of the Kentucky Derby.  Chivalry springs from the handsome, polished horse.  The Kentucky Derby exemplifies Kentucky chivalry…  The Kentucky Derby is a true reflection-directly from the first derby at Epsom Downs.  For the Kentuckian it sums up all the history of his forbears, their nativity and horses.  To it, annually, pilgrimages are made from distant shores.  The élite, the middle class, the captains of industry with the occupants of cabins, from every section of our country, attend it, yet in them thereat is the democracy of peers…

The celebrity of the Kentucky Derby is in every country.  Each year the royal blood of the world’s turf competes thereat…  The name “Churchill Downs” is inextricably interlaced with the origin, history, and fame of the Kentucky Derby.  Indeed, in the esteem of the general public, they are synonyms-signifying the classic home of only cultured racers.

With that kind of endorsement of Churchill Downs, it should be no surprise that the Court affirmed an injunction against the distillery for its deceptive use of the Churchill Down name and prevented any further use.

This is all still relevant today, too.  Just last month, spirits giant Diageo was sued by The Explorer’s Club – a New York City club founded in 1904 – for Diageo’s alleged infringement on the name “Explorer’s Club.”  Diageo has used the name without permission since 2012 on its Johnnie Walker line in duty-free stores.  (Click here to see the Complaint.)  Maybe Diageo hasn’t read the Churchill Downs case.

Regardless, bourbon and Churchill Downs get along fine now, so sip your favorite bourbon while enjoying a spectacular Derby Day!


Photograph credit:  Item no. 1994.18.0853 in the Herald-Post collection, University of Louisville Photographic Archives, Louisville, Kentucky, accessed at: http://digital.library.louisville.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/heraldpost/id/953/rec/10