Brian Haara
Bourbon. Law. Author.
Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – “The Woodford Challenge” – Woodford Reserve Distiller’s Select vs. Woodford Reserve Double Oaked vs. Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Four Wood
For this Bourbon Review, we compared three Woodford Reserve bourbons from three price-points. The entry-level Woodford Reserve is generally well-liked, but it has its share of critics for essentially being expensive or for being too soft. The Woodford Double Oaked generally gets some better reviews, while the Four Wood has a few supporters but mostly detractors. I wanted to see whether – even within the Woodford family – it’s best to stick to basics.
Bourbons in order of blind tasting:
· Woodford Reserve Distiller’s Select
Age: NAS
Proof: 90.4
Cost: $31.99
· Woodford Reserve Single Barrel Double Oaked
Age: NAS
Proof: 90.4
Cost: $59.99 (the more typical non-single barrel costs $53.99)
· Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Four Wood
Age: NAS
Proof: 94.4
Cost: $95.99
1st Glass (Woodford Reserve Distiller’s Select):
The first glass had a clear amber appearance and a light nose of caramel and fresh herbs and corn. It was followed by a sweet taste of corn, caramel, vanilla and slight fruit, and it was immediately recognizable by the tasters; so much for the blind tasting. The finish was moderate, with more light and sweet flavors, and not much warmth. Given the proof and the light flavors, this is a bourbon to drink neat, although the chill of a single large ice cube or sphere works as well.
2nd Glass (Woodford Reserve Double Oaked):
The second glass was slightly darker in color, more of a deep copper, with a more complex nose, taste and finish. It was recognized as being related to the first glass, but it filled in many of the gaps of the first glass. The nose had more earthy tones like leather and walnut, along with new hints of brown sugar. The taste still had similar caramel sweetness, but added new oak flavors and spicy warmth, with honey and spiced apple cider. The finish was smoky and slightly warm with a balance of rich caramel, with moderate length, although a little longer than the first glass. This bourbon was best with the slow melt of large ice. Water or too much ice seemed to give it a medicinal finish.
3rd Glass (Woodford Reserve Four Wood):
The third glass was the darkest of the three in appearance, but what really stood apart was the nose. The nose was as complex as we’ve experienced. It was very sweet with toffee, floral tones (roses?) and berries, but to me, it smelled like the sweet corn of a bubbling fermentation tank. The taste, unfortunately, was harsh and the numerous flavors of corn, maple, oak, leather, spice and vanilla seemed to be competing instead of complementing each other. Plus, the taste was nothing like the nose predicted. Similarly, the finish had the same disjointed flavors.
Winner:
Double Oaked was narrowly preferred by the tasters, but Distiller’s Select seemed to be the comfortable choice, and when taking value into account, Double Oaked really loses ground. The safest bet is to call a draw. The Four Wood was a distant third with most tasters – except one who rated it first. While the nose of the Four Wood was truly remarkable, most of us thought that the rest of it just fell apart.
Bottom Line:
Those in the know say that Woodford Reserve and Old Forester share the same mash bill (72% corn; 18% rye; 10% malted barley) and yeast strain, and that Distiller’s Select contains bourbon distilled at both Versailles and Louisville. So while the standard Distiller’s Select is certainly popular, many people stick with the very affordable “Old Fo” (sometimes known as Louisville’s house bourbon). It’s hard to argue with that logic. Either bourbon is a comfortable option, but make no mistake, they are different Bourbons. The blending of Bourbon distilled at Brown-Forman and Bourbon distilled in Versailles was the subject of a lawsuit in 2003 that I’ll write about later, and it has also been confirmed by Chris Morris.
Double Oaked improves Distiller’s Select in a few areas. Double Oaked starts with the Distiller’s Select when it is matured and ready for bottling, but instead it is dumped and re-barreled into new oak barrels that have first been “deeply toasted” and then “lightly charred.” It is aged in these second barrels for some undisclosed length of additional time to pick up more sweet oak flavors “without aggressive charred notes.” The result is bourbon with much deeper sweet flavors than Distiller’s Select, but it’s still primarily a sweet bourbon, and I wished that it would have picked up some “aggressive charred notes” to better distinguish itself from Distiller’s Select.
Master Distiller Chris Morris is known to take some chances, and thankfully Brown-Forman encourages this, but the latest in the “Master’s Collection” is a miss. The shtick this time is that standard Woodford Reserve was aged in four types of wood – American White Oak, where it is aged to maturity, then followed by maple barrels, Sherry barrels and Port barrels for finishing. Brown-Forman should keep trying these innovative finishing expressions, but selling an iffy product for $100 is just going to give this series a bad name.
My final recommendations:
Distiller’s Select: Despite its softer flavors, Distiller’s Select ran close to Double Oaked, and at $20+ less than Double Oaked, that really increases its score. While Distiller’s select lacks many of the complexities found in comparably-priced bourbons, always keep a bottle of Distiller’s Select in your home bar because it has so many fans that your guests are likely to request it. Have Old Forester on the side if your guests want to compare the two so they can see the differences.
Double Oaked: It’s priced high for a NAS bourbon barely over 90 proof (I’d expect to see it in the low-$40’s), but especially if you already have your other bourbon staples, Double Oaked is still a high recommendation for your home bar. The price really keeps Double Oaked from scoring higher.
Four Wood: Completely avoid Four Wood, especially at this price. Hopefully you can avoid it since it is a limited edition. I’ll pay for experiments and innovations that turn out well, but nearly $100 for this NAS bourbon at 94.4 proof is way too much. There were certainly other 2013 limited editions that retailed for similar prices, but were vastly superior.
Scores on The Sipp’n Corn Scale
Double Oaked: 3.5
Distiller’s Select: 3.0
Four Wood: 1.5
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.
Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – “The High Octane Challenge” – Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength vs. Stagg Jr. vs. Knob Creek Single Barrel
For this Bourbon Review, I wanted to pay tribute to the recent trend of releasing barrel strength bourbons, so we compared these three high-proof premium bourbons from different distilleries, in order of blind tasting:
Knob Creek Single Barrel Reserve
Distillery: Jim Beam, Clermont, Kentucky
Age: Nine Years
Proof: 120
Cost: $39.99
While not barrel strength, Knob Creek Single Barrel is almost there, and it otherwise fits the profile of the other two choices. Plus, in light of the extremely strong following for the standard Knob Creek, I wanted to see how it fared with another 10% ABV over the standard issue. Barrel strength would have been 132.4 proof (according to my private selection barrel), and I’m betting that soon we’ll see a true barrel strength version of Knob Creek.
Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength
Distillery: Heaven Hill, Bardstown, Kentucky
Age: Twelve Years
Proof: 129.7
Cost: $54.99
The Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength is the barrel proof version of the popular Elijah Craig 12 Year Small Batch, distilled by Heaven Hill and named after one of the (or so the legend goes) first Kentucky bourbon distillers who accidentally discovered the benefits of using charred oak barrels. I found my bottle at the new Evan Williams Bourbon Experience in downtown Louisville.
Stagg Jr.
Distillery: Buffalo Trace, Frankfort, Kentucky
Age: NAS, but the bottle claims “nearly a decade”
Proof: 134.4
Cost: $54.99
The Stagg Jr. Barrel Proof is an unfiltered limited release from Buffalo Trace. Stagg Jr. doesn’t need to include “barrel strength” in its name because everyone knows that you’re getting it straight from the barrel. As “Jr.” indicates, this is not the acclaimed George T. Stagg of the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection fame, but instead it is meant to be a younger, “more accessible” version of GTS.
1st Glass (Knob Creek Single Barrel):
The color of the first glass was on the brown side of amber; definitely darker than typical bourbons. The high proof was evident in the nose, but it was balanced by nuts and vanilla. The high proof was also immediately evident in the taste, but after an initial burn, extremely rich flavors of pepper, vanilla, oak and maple emerged. A splash of water or ice (highly recommended) helped reduce the burn and helped open more nutty flavors. The finish was robust and long. Overall, the only thing that the first glass seemed to be missing was some balance on the fruit side, but it was still an incredible in-your-face experience.
2nd Glass (Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength):
The second glass was darker in color, pretty much passing the amber standard and embracing brown; it’s dark. The nose was much more complex than the first glass – blending caramel, oak and apple – with only a slight burn from the high proof. But the taste blew us away with more sweetness of caramel, vanilla and butterscotch, along with pepper and cinnamon spice and hints of oak and almonds, with some slight dark chocolate bitterness. The finish featured these same flavors too, along with a hint of mint, and it was really long and warm. Despite the high proof, ethanol was never predominant in the nose or taste. Try this one sparingly neat for the experience, but then drink it with a large ice cube.
3rd Glass (Stagg Jr.):
The third glass was not as dark as the second, but was darker than the first (it looks darkest in the bottle because of a black back label). The nose was the hottest of the three, with alcohol burn, pepper and oak predominating, but also with a hint of rich toffee. The heat kicks you on the taste too; plan ahead to drink this one with ice and a splash of water. Water and ice really opened up bold flavors of oak and finally some vanilla, along with raisins, while maintaining its spice. It was still hot and lacked complexities that come with fruit and candy flavors, but this bourbon clearly isn’t aiming at the sweet crowd. As expected from the nose and the taste, the finish had extreme warmth reminding you that you’re experiencing pure bourbon.
Winner:
This was a challenge of some heavy-hitters, not just because of the high proof, but because of the robust flavors. Still, the Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength was the unquestionable winner. It had the best nose, we were stunned that it was drinkable neat (which is questionable with the Knob Creek and highly inadvisable with the Stagg Jr.), and it had the best balance of flavors. You’ll remember this one for a long time.
Bottom Line:
None of these bourbons are for the timid or for mixing. I’m also sure that they all cure ancient ailments, and they just might make you grow hair, maybe even in places you don’t need it. But wow, they’re good. The quality of these three bourbons makes them hard to rate, and it’s really hard to give Stagg Jr. third place, but that’s where it lands. I’d be interested to see how the BTAC George T. Stagg compares to the Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength; I hear that big brother is pretty hard to top in this category.
All three are still recommended, but your real problem is going to be finding anything except the Knob Creek, so the Knob Creek Single Barrel warrants an immediate purchase. The hardest to find will be the Stagg Jr., and you might just leave that to the collectors who seem to sniff it out fast. With just a little luck, you’ll still be able to find the Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength, and if you’re looking for a truly robust bourbon experience, buy it quickly. I wish that I had bought two when I had the chance.
Scores on The Sipp’n Corn Scale
Stagg Jr.: 3.0
Knob Creek Single Barrel: 4.0
Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength: 4.5
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.
Maker’s Mark v. Diageo – The Fight Over Bourbon’s Most Recognizable Trademark.
Until now, all of my posts about history-making lawsuits between distillers have involved really old cases. Some have dated back practically to the birth of bourbon, like my post on the lawsuit between James Pepper and Labrot & Graham (How Woodford Reserve got to keep the (old) name of its Distillery), which traced events beginning in the late 1700’s. The “newest” lawsuit discussed in my posts (the origin story of Maker’s Mark: The Rise of Maker’s Mark) still dealt with events occurring 70 years ago. History is usually old by definition, but a decision not even two years ago helps show how the bourbon industry is still at the forefront of trademark law. Even though it’s not old, it is already part of bourbon lore.
This new history, of course, was the lawsuit between Maker’s Mark and Diageo over trademark rights to the iconic dripping red wax seal. Bill Samuels, Sr. broke from Country Distillers and struck out on his own, and ever since Maker’s Mark began production in 1958, it has capped its bottles with a red dripping wax seal that partially covers the neck of the bottle and drips down to the bottle’s shoulder. As noted by the District Court in Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc., 703 F. Supp. 2d 671 (W.D. Ky. 2010), “That design was the brainchild of Margie Samuels, mother of Maker’s Mark’s current president Bill Samuels, who was still at home when his mother perfected the dripping wax in their family’s basement.”
Maker’s Mark registered this trademark in 1985, describing it as the “wax-like coating covering the cap of the bottle and trickling down the neck of the bottle in a freeform irregular pattern.” This coincided with an extensive marketing push by Maker’s Mark, and through even more marketing ($22MM annually in 2010) Maker’s Mark eventually reversed its ratio of selling 90% of its bourbon in Kentucky to selling 90% of its bourbon outside of Kentucky.
Problems arose in 2001 when Diageo marketed “Jose Cuervo Reserva de La Familia,” which used a red freeform wax-like seal cap. Here are the two competing products:
Maker’s Mark filed its Complaint in 2003 and that was enough for Jose Cuervo to start snipping the wax tendrils, although it continued to use a red wax seal and it used the lawsuit to ask the court to cancel the trademark registration on the ground that it was functional and because other alcoholic beverages were already being sealed in colorful wax. A six-week trial was held beginning in November 2009. Bill Samuels testified, along with then-Master Distiller Kevin Smith, company finance and marketing officers, and even experts on issues like markets and consumer recognition of brands, damages, wax composition, Maker’s Mark memorabilia and a bottle closures.
On April 2, 2010, the District Court ruled that Diageo infringed on Maker’s Mark’s trademark, and therefore it issued an injunction in favor of Maker’s Mark. However, the District Court refused to award any damages because Maker’s Mark did not prove that anyone was actually confused or that it lost any sales. But because Maker’s Mark won on the injunction claim, the Court awarded nearly $67,000.00 in costs to Maker’s Mark.
The case was far from over, however. Diageo appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012). On appeal Diageo argued that purchasers of Jose Cuervo Reserva de la Familia – “a $100 per bottle luxury tequila” – were unlikely to ever be confused that their prized tequila was affiliated with an inexpensive bourbon like Maker’s Mark, especially Cuervo consumers, who “generally are tequila connoisseurs who spend more than $100 for a bottle of tequila, or $16-20 for a drink in a bar.” Reading the brief, I could feel the pretentiousness dripping from those words.
Plus, Diageo argued that Maker’s Mark was hardly the first company to use a dripping wax seal on a bottle. Wax seals have been used for centuries, and Diageo emphasized that Bill Samuels admitted that the inspiration for the Maker’s Mark freeform wax coating was old cognac bottles that had wax seals with an irregular or uneven edge. Maker’s Mark’s experts admitted that numerous other bourbons and other spirits have used red wax seals or dripping wax seals. Wines and even beers have also used wax seals, many of them red, and many with tendrils. Non-alcoholic products such as olive oil and vinegar have also used red dripping wax seals. So why should Maker’s Mark get special protection?
You could have guessed the answer to that question by reading just the opening lines of the Sixth Circuit’s May 9, 2012 ruling, which followed with a veritable history lesson about bourbon, discussing:
· the origin and history of bourbon;
· the difference between “whiskey” and “bourbon;”
· the different spelling between “whiskey” and “whisky;”
· bourbon mash bills and Dr. James Crow’s perfection of the sour-mash method;
· early marketing of bourbon and early fans, like Ulysses S. Grant and Henry Clay;
· the rise and fall of rectifiers and President William Taft’s 1909 interpretation of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act;
· distiller consolidation after the repeal of National Prohibition;
· more name-dropping of bourbon fans, like President Harry S. Truman and Ian Fleming, who reportedly switched from martinis to bourbon;
· the action of Congress, in 1964, to designate bourbon as a distinctive product of the United States, and Federal Regulations prescribing restrictions on which distilled spirits may be called “Bourbon;”
· the Samuels family’s important role in the history of bourbon (“Maker’s Mark occupies a central place in the modern story of bourbon.”), including having been distillers since 1783; and
· Maker’s Mark’s rise, especially after now-legendary 1980 Wall Street Journal front-page article.
Despite spending four pages on this significant history, the Circuit Court did not discuss any of the even longer history of tequila (16th Century) or Jose Antonio de Cuervo’s purchase of a blue agave farm from King Ferdinand VI of Spain (1758), and instead wrote a mere three sentences, only to reference the name of the Cuervo brand, its initial use of a straight-edged wax seal, and its transition in 2001 to a “red dripping wax seal reminiscent of the Maker’s Mark red dripping wax seal.” Then the Circuit Court went on to affirm the injunction and the award of costs to Maker’s Mark, protecting Maker’s Mark’s exclusive use of its red dripping wax seal.
Other bourbon brands still use wax seals, like my bottles of Evan Williams Single Barrel, Michter’s 10-Year Single Barrel and Knob Creek (like Maker’s Mark, also owned by Beam, Inc.), among many others.
But these are all black wax, and all neatly trimmed. My guess is that no other current bourbon brand is willing to use red wax at all, and that we won’t see freeform tendrils of any color. And that seemed to be part of the District Court’s reasoning for imposing an injunction: the Court recognized that its ruling “also protects Maker’s Mark from other competitors or quasi-competitors in the industry, in that it may serve to discourage them from treading too closely on the mark.” Mission accomplished.
Update:
Here’s a picture with retired federal Circuit Court Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr., the author of the Court of Appeals opinion, when Judge Martin and I were filmed in January 2015 for the upcoming documentary Straight Up: Kentucky Bourbon from Beard Force Films.
Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel
*Updated July 11, 2014 after a private barrel selection at Buffalo Trace where we selected barrels of Elmer T. Lee and Blanton’s, among many other Buffalo Trace Brands, and where I learned the typical ages of Elmer T. Lee and Blanton’s.
Bourbon: Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel
Distillery: Buffalo Trace Distillery, Frankfort, Kentucky
Age: NAS, but typically nine years
Proof: 90 proof
Cost: $31.99
Color:
Amber gold.
Nose:
Light spice, mostly sweet cinnamon apples, vanilla and caramel.
Taste:
More spice comes through than indicated from the nose, but sweetness still predominates, although not overpowering. Mostly honey, caramel and toffee flavors, but with an interesting balance of oak, cinnamon and spice. Not overly spicy or hot, but comforting warmth. A splash of water opened up some more fruit and sweetness, but it lost complexity, so I prefer this one neat. This was really a wonderful balance.
Finish:
Extremely pleasant and smooth finish, finally transitioning to more spices than sweetness; water really shortened it, so again, drink it neat.
Rating:
For starters, I can’t believe this is a low-$30’s bourbon. Also, while I’m a huge fan of Blanton’s, I’m not sure why I’d spend the extra money on it. ETL uses the same mash bill as Blanton’s Single Barrel (the Buffalo Trace mash bill #2, maybe about 15% rye, used for all Ancient Age bourbon), and ETL is aged for about nine years compared to around six years for Blanton’s, although Blanton’s is aged in Warehouse H, said to have been Col. Blanton’s favorite. Regardless, ETL is deep and rich, but at the same time so drinkable without a drop of pretentiousness. This can really be your go-to bourbon.
On top of its outstanding balance, ETL has the legitimate history of the legendary Elmer T. Lee (1919-2013) himself, who has an incredible story starting with being hired (but initially rejected) by Col. Blanton when Buffalo Trace was called the George T. Stagg Distillery, and working his way up through the ranks . (Please check out the University of Kentucky Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History interview of Elmer T. Lee posted here: http://www.nunncenter.org/buffalotrace/category/people/elmer-t-lee-interviews/along with the short bio posted here: http://www.buffalotracedistillery.com/craftsmen/lee ). With so many bourbons having fake histories and “master distillers” who are blenders at best, it’s comforting to know that Elmer T. Lee is about real history.
Between Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel, the Weller line (also Buffalo Trace) and Four Roses, I really don’t think that there’s a reason to pay top-shelf prices. I definitely need to do a blind tasting between Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel and Blanton’s Single Barrel to see if I’m right, but however that might end, I highly recommend Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel.
Score on The Sipp’n Corn Scale: 4.0
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.
Kentucky Wasn’t Big Enough for Two Colonel Taylors.
I mentioned earlier that Col. Edmund Haynes (“E. H.”) Taylor, Jr. was one of the most litigious distillers of his era (see http://sippncorn.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-origin-of-col-e-h-taylor-jrs.html). In addition to his lawsuits, E. H. Taylor was also instrumental in passing the Bottled-In-Bond Act of 1897, meant primarily to protect the public against the “horrors” of whiskey rectifiers. The act required that any spirit labeled as “Bottled-in-Bond” be the product of one distiller at one distillery during one distillation season, and aged in a federally-bonded warehouse under federal government supervision for at least four years and bottled at 100 proof.
E. H. Taylor also focused his efforts against a prominent Louisville businessman, another Colonel with the same surname, Col. Marion E. Taylor. E. H. Taylor sued Marion Taylor alleging that Marion Taylor was misrepresenting his blended whiskey as “straight” bourbon whiskey, and that Marion Taylor was trying to defraud the public by using a brand name similar to E. H. Taylor’s bourbon.
Marion Taylor was a well-known Louisville businessman, and his name still fits prominently in downtown Louisville with the Marion E. Taylor Building,
and the Wright & Taylor Building.
Marion Taylor formed Wright & Taylor with John J. Wright in 1886, and together they sold Kentucky Taylor, Pride of Louisville and Cain Spring Whiskey, and by 1892 Wright & Taylor had added Fine Old Kentucky Taylor, which became their most popular brand. In 1896 Marion Taylor bought and expanded the Old Charter Distillery and brand, which allowed him to distill and sell Old Charter straight bourbon, but he also continued to sell his very popular blended Fine Old Kentucky Taylor brand.
E. H. Taylor’s straight bourbon was the similarly-named “Old Taylor.” He complained that Marion was creating confusion between the “inferior” blended whiskey and the “superior” (and much more expensive) straight bourbon whiskey. E. H. Taylor sought an injunction and $100,000.00 in damages (in today’s dollars, about $2.7MM). The Jefferson County Circuit Court dismissed E. H. Taylor’s claims, finding that Marion Taylor was not infringing on any trademarks, nor unfairly competing.
E. H. Taylor appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and in E. H. Taylor, Jr. & Sons Co. v. Marion E. Taylor, 27 Ky.L.Rptr., 124 Ky. 173, 85 S.W. 1085 (1905), the court ruled partially in his favor by granting an injunction that required Marion Taylor to specify in advertising that Old Kentucky Taylor was a blended whiskey. However, Marion Taylor did not have to pay any damages, and he was still allowed to use his brand name.
While the Court’s ultimate ruling might seem might seem like only a slap on the wrist, the Court was more critical of Marion Taylor in explaining the basis for its ruling. First, the Court noted the difference between blended whiskey and straight bourbon:
Rectified or blended whisky [*the Court used the traditional Scotch spelling throughout its ruling] is known to the trade as “single-stamp whisky,” while bonded whisky is known as “double-stamp goods.” The proof shows that the rectifiers or blenders take a barrel of whisky, and draw off a large part of it, filling it up with water, and then adding spirits or other chemicals to make it proof, and give it age, bead, etc. The proof also shows that from 50 to 75 percent of the whisky sold in the United States now is blended whisky, and that a large part of the trade prefer it to the straight goods. It is a cheaper article, and there is therefore a temptation to simulate the more expensive whisky.
After establishing this distinction and comparing the advertisements used by E. H. Taylor and Marion Taylor, the Court concluded that consumers who were “not familiar with the whisky trade would understand that ‘Old Kentucky Taylor’ was a straight whisky.” The Court further concluded that Marion Taylor intentionally misled consumers through his advertising by trying to pass off his blended product as E. H. Taylor’s straight bourbon, “which had attained a very high reputation as a pure Kentucky distilled whisky.”
Marion Taylor’s blended whiskey “was a cheaper article, and could be sold at prices at which [E. H. Taylor] could not afford to sell his whisky,” and because his deceptive advertising could confuse consumers, the Court ruled that Marion Taylor had to be truthful in his advertising:
[Marion Taylor] may properly sell his brand of “Old Kentucky Taylor,” provided he so frames his advertisements as to show that it is a blended whisky, but he cannot be allowed to impose upon the public a cheaper article, and thus deprive [E. H. Taylor] of the fruits of its energy and expenditures by selling his blended whisky under labels or advertisements which conceal the true character of the article, for this would destroy the value of the [E. H. Taylor’s] trade.
In the end, Marion Taylor seems to have complied with the Court’s order, as can be seen by comparing this Wright & Taylor add in the Wine and Spirit Bulletin from May 1, 1904 (before the court’s 1905 ruling):
with this add in the Wine and Spirit Bulletin from June 1, 1906 (after the court’s ruling):
In compliance with the Court’s ruling, Marion Taylor made clear that his Fine Old Kentucky Taylor was a blended whiskey, and distinguished it from his Old Charter brand, which was a straight whiskey. But E. H. Taylor still couldn’t let go, and in 1913 he published this over-the-top full-page letter in the Pacific Wine, Brewing and Spirit Review(double-click on the letter and enlarge it; it’s a funny read):
In the same edition, E. H. Taylor also published this full-page “Important Notice” which slightly exaggerated the Court’s ruling:
Marion Taylor’s Old Charter Distillery and the Old Charter brand continued to thrive (and E. H. Taylor could have no legitimate complaint about Old Charter), but “Fine Old Kentucky Taylor” has been lost to history, probably due in part to E. H. Taylor’s persistence. There just wasn’t enough room for two Col. Taylors.
Brian Haara 