I should be home now...likely sleeping off my jet lag and going through unpaid bills. I should have lots of good stories for you in the next few weeks (months).
Also, if you live in the Greater Boston Area, I'm supposed to be a guest on WBZ 1030's Jordan Rich show this Saturday Evening/Sunday Morning (June 11th) at Midnight. Tune in if you are a night owl. I say "supposed" because I'm writing this in early May, and you never know with Radio schedules.
Another day, another rant:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't had the opportunity to pick on a poorly researched article from the New York Times in a while.
Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal stepped right in, granting me a new target at which to "unleash the fury."
The following excerpts (through the glory that is the fair use doctrine) are from an article released on Saturday, December 10, 2005 in the Wall Street Journal and written by G. Bruce Knecht.
One too many "e's" in Whisky
Let's start with the title - which immediately shows that the WSJ
has writers and editors who aren't qualified to write on the subject: "Whiskey's Risky Moves - Makers of scotch roll out new twists on an ancient quaff."
As YOU know, but the WSJ writers and editors obviously
don't, when referring to a whisky made in Scotland, it is spelled
whisky - no 'e'. But if only that were the least of the transgressions.
There are a number of small mistakes and stupid statements
throughout the article, but I don't have all day,so I'll stick to the
big ones. For example, the third paragraph:
The
appeal of single malts is based on a singular proposition. Each spirit
comes from a particular distillery and has been aged, generally for 10
years or more, a period that is usually specified on the bottle.
Silly me, I thought that the appeal of single malts was based on taste.
Do you even know how this "stuff" is made?
From the fourth paragraph:
Some distilleries, like Bruichladdich, are creating a new type of single malt by blending whiskeys of different ages.
Did
you know that Bruichladdich (since it reopened in 2001) invented
vatting??? Jim McEwan will be delighted to hear that he has now been
credited with yet another innovation!!!
And here I had foolishly thought that distillers had been vatting
the product of different casks/ages for a couple hundred years. My
mistake.
Others are adding flavors by pouring
their stuff into barrels that have previously been used to age
different types of spirits and wines.
Whisky
makers have been "pouring their stuff into barrels that have previously
been used" since whisky was first transported - for several hundred
years at least. Yes, I know what the writer is trying to say here. The
problem is that he doesn't know what he is saying.
1.5 hour interview distilled into 2 sentences
I know that the Wall Street Journal spent quite a while interviewing
Dr. Bill Lumsden of Glenmorangie at the New York Whisky Fest this past
November. Are you telling me that all they walked away with was this:
"We
took up so little shelf space that we weren't being noticed." says Bill
Lumsden, the maker's master distiller. "So we took some of our whiskey (sic) and put it in a barrel that had been used to age port."
The
author also mentions a Glenmorangie Cognac finish that "flopped." My
source at Glenmorangie tells me that Bill mentioned the Cognac finish
to the writer as an example of experimentation. The whisky was wholly
matured, not finished in a Cognac cask. The experiment was done with a
single cask, and produced 250 bottles, which sold out immediately. I'd
hardly call that a flop, would you? In the end, Bill decided that the
resulting whisky did not truly represent the Glenmorangie house style,
so the experiment was not repeated. Another thing to note is that the
Cognac experiment took nearly ten years from start to finish - I think
this shows the patience of the Scotch industry. You can hardly pull off
a marketing gimmick over ten years.
Also considering that Glenmorangie is the top selling single Malt in Scotland, and is not doing too shabby in the U.S., I can't believe that Bill said this.
"Expert" Opinion????
And after deriding Glenmorangie about their line of finished
products -- comparing it to a Proctor and Gamble line extension -- the
author goes on to talk about the purity of the Glenlivet line:
Not every distillery has jumped on the bandwagon. Glenlivet offers just four products and it's going to stay that way, says Joe Uranga,
a marketing executive with Pernod Ricard, which owns the distillery:
"We believe in being true to a heritage that goes back a couple of
hundred years."
Hmm. What about The Glenlivet 12 year old French Oak Finish, The Glenlivet 15 year old French Oak Finish, and the 12 year old American Oak Finish.
Granted these aren't ex-Madeira casks, but the term "Finish" is proudly
displayed on the label. Sounds like "brand extension" to me!
Better yet, the Joe Uranga who is quoted is apparently the Global group director for Wild Turkey.
In my book, getting a person who markets Wild Turkey to comment on
Scotch is like getting a Budweiser delivery guy to comment on the
nuances of Chateau Lafitte.
Another "expert" opinion which raised my ire:
Others worry the rush of new products could threaten the industry's proud heritage. 'Single Malts are like liquid history, says Nick Semaca,
a senior consultant with McKinsey & Co. "You look at a bottle and
think this is something they have been making in a certain way for
generations. There is a mystique and aura to that, and that's the
reason why it is so dangerous to tinker."
Yes, Nick Semaca does work for McKinsey, which IS a respectable and revered consulting firm. However, according to McKinsey, Nick Semaca is the Sector Leader, Americas, Travel & Logistics Practice, and he does not do consulting for the beverage industry. Nor does he consult about anything even remotely related to Scotland.
Making up Stuff
At the end of the article this:
In New York,
Park Avenue Liquor carried fewer than 40 single malts a few years ago.
All of them were 12 years old except for one 21 years old, and none
cost more than $100.
The above is quite untrue.
I spoke with Jonathan Goldstein at Park Avenue Liquors. The above
statement may have been true in the early 1980's (20 plus years ago),
but as far back as ten years ago, Park Avenue carried a couple of
hundred distinct expressions.
"Reviews"
To throw salt in the wound, the article was accompanied by a
"review" of 10 expressions -- only four of which were finished
expressions. And the reviewers? Well, the reviews were the results of
"an informal tasting among the scotch lovers on our staff."
Are you kidding me?
The Glenmorangie Madeira Wood Finish was described as "a little too metrosexual."
- I didn't know Scotch wore Banana Republic.
- I'm not sure if the perceived metrosexuality was referring to the nose, balance or finish.
- Whoever said this is an idiot.
Plus, the price points which accompany the review are based
specifically on the prices at Park Avenue Liquor, who supplied the
Scotch for this story, but which is not necessarily representative of
your local liquor store. (This is the first time I've EVER
seen a 12 year-old Glenlivet priced higher than the 10 year-old
Glenmorangie) They do say "Prices will vary" in the footnotes -- but
couldn't they have made even a little effort?
Christ Almighty. When will established news sources start doing a
decent job of reporting on the Scotch industry? How hard is it to check
your facts?
I have a rolodex full of industry insiders and experts. The next
time, I'll be happy as hell to give you the numbers of people who
actually know what they are talking about. Me included.
