Episode 10: Sourced Whiskey - Passable or Plagiarism?

The Pot Still Column: Episode 10

Sourced Whiskey: Passable or Plagiarism?

Proof: N/A

Age: N/A

Source: MGP, Buffalo Trace Distillery, Barton 1792, George Dickel, etc.

Price: N/A

Before I begin reviewing the first of this week's bottles, allow me a moment to vent.

The next whiskey on the docket is a very nice rye sourced from MGP, and while I stand by my promise to review all whiskeys with as little bias as possible, I cannot help but address my mixed feelings about sourced whiskey. I am always hesitant and perhaps a little reluctant to taste and review sourced whiskeys released under independent labels. I understand the need for new distilleries to source their first few releases as they get their feet under them, but the decision to perpetually source someone else's whiskey and appropriate it as one's own creation strikes me as dishonest and, for lack of better words, lame.

The vast majority of sourced whiskey in the current market comes from a handful of goliath distillers: MGP, Buffalo Trace, Barton 1792, and George Dickel being the primary suspects. Each of these distilleries has brands of its own and is responsible for some of the most renowned bourbons and ryes in existence. Every one of these companies has been established for hundreds of years, passing the tests of time and becoming something great in the process. At some point in the long history of whiskey in the United States, smaller distilleries began sourcing whiskey from the aforementioned companies, often aging it or finishing it in their own warehouses and releasing it under private labels. This symbiotic relationship allowed new distilleries to sell quality products as they laid the groundwork for their physical distilleries and prepared to produce their own distillate. Whiskey of any kind takes time and resources to make, with statutes demanding prolonged aging in oak barrels being the greatest contributors to these limitations. Such laws made it practically impossibly for a distillery to sell a viable whiskey in the first few years of its existence, so sourcing was an obvious remedy for those unwilling to produce clear spirits in the interim. The trouble with modern day sourcing is that the system once meant to inspire originality as a temporary form of relief for aspiring distilleries has become a permanent business model for those who choose to exploit it indefinitely.

MGP of Indiana is without a doubt a producer of incredible whiskeys, and I continue to find excitement in MGP products despite having tried more than I care to count. While MGP has a variety of in-house brands such as George Remus, Rebel (previously Rebel Yell), Rossville Union, and Ezra Brooks, its distillate can be most frequently found through the non-distilling producers (NDPs) that source it. A few of these sourced brands include Smooth Ambler, Smoke Wagon, Nulu, and Nashville Barrel Company, all of which comprise an almost negligible fraction of the hundreds of brands sourcing MGP. My discomfort has nothing to do with MGP itself (or any brand that sources to other distilleries), but has rather to do with the flagrant use of the mega-distillery's product by NDPs in such a way that foregoes transparency about the whiskey's origin. It is a rarity to find a bourbon or rye that markets itself as MGP distillate; the closest one might come to this is seeing a label that reads, "distilled in Indiana," typed in the smallest font legally possible. Thankfully, MGP is one of a very small number of Indiana distilleries with the ability to sell distillate to others, making the state of distillation a telling clue about the whiskey's origin. However, such is not always the case with whiskey sourced from Kentucky, as several distilleries out-source from within that state.

There is a great deal of pride that goes into distilling great whiskey--- it is a craft after all, bordering on art. You can scoff or fight me on this if you'd like, but you must admit that some distillers produce masterpieces while others... not so much. This pride is what motivates the stories (truth and lies alike) that many distilleries spin about their age-old recipes passed down through the generations and first crafted with nothing but a rusty bucket in a ramshackle hut. This pride exists in large part because distilling is hard! It is not easy to distill a quality spirit, and the process requires great skill. The stories exist to highlight the importance of the product and the difficulty with which it was produced--- it is all very romantic. However, this romantic element is threatened when consumers encounter tales of a distillery's incredible, billion-year-old whiskey recipe, only to discover that it was made entirely by someone else. The adoption of another entity's work as one's own without proper citation, especially in the realms of art and craft, is a soft form of plagiarism. And plagiarism is reprehensible.

Now, of course, there are exceptions.

There are plenty of brands on the market that source whiskey but add enough of their own creative flair to earn the right to call it their own. Better yet, some of these brands are very transparent about the source of their distillate, taking credit not for the distillation of the product, but for the final outcome. Blending and finishing are the two primary methods by which NDPs procure the right to call a sourced whiskey their own. An excellent example of blending can be found in Smoke Wagon, a Nevada-based company that sources bourbon and rye from MGP. Aaron Chepenik, the cowboy hat-wearing mastermind behind the Smoke Wagon brand has established himself firmly as an artist in his own right, painstakingly measuring and testing from dozens of different barrels to produce unique batches of MGP blends. Moreover, Smoke Wagon is very transparent about the source of its distillate, never having claimed to produce it in-house. So firmly has Smoke Wagon established itself as an MGP-sourced brand that it has bought out nearly every barrel of a specific bourbon mashbill, making that particular high-rye expression almost exclusively its own. Another honest brand that sources from MGP is Savage & Cooke, a winery-turned-distillery from Sonoma, California that imparts unique combinations of homemade wine finishes on sourced bourbon.

Other brands are significantly less ethical about their sourcing, making every effort to portray their product as something it is not. While I won't call out any specific distilleries, they are far from few in number, and several have a dominating presence in the market backed by an absurd amount of hype. While there is nothing inherently wrong with sourcing whiskey, the crux of my dismay is that the world simply does not need another dishonest brand sourcing an out-of-house or even out-of-state product. Bottles of "Maryland whiskey" or "Alabama whiskey" should not be made in Indiana or Tennessee. Liquor store shelves do not need another $100 single barrel pick of 4-year MGP with a flashy label and a tater sticker. We don't need dozens of brands, each with its own bullshit origin story and misleading website that ultimately sells the same exact whiskey as the next bottle over. We don't need independent bottlers selling 4 to 6 year old bourbon for twice what it is worth, or companies capitalizing off of the ignorance of the public.

I know better than to think that the great behemoth of sourced whiskey will slow any time soon--- there is far too much momentum, and the low-hanging fruit is ripe for picking. Still, I can inform my readers about the current state of affairs, and perhaps convince consumers to think more about the product they are buying. Think twice the next time you hear about an amazing new brand on the market offering 4 to 6 year old bourbon for $80 to $100 a bottle. Look closely, and if the label doesn't say where the product was distilled, not just produced or bottled, think thrice.

MGP, Buffalo Trace, George Dickel, and the other common sourcing distilleries produce some of the most incredible whiskey on the planet. Of this there is no doubt. Still, their omnipresence in the market and the support they get for having such a monopoly disincentivizes distillers to produce creative products of their own. Every sourced whiskey born is a creative idea killed, and a new flavor left unseen. Without the innovation and boldness discouraged by the large-scale normalization of sourcing whiskey from the same few distilleries, whiskey will stagnate as a spirit and industry. Every small distillery that becomes too comfortable sourcing is one less producer of "wow" moments, and one more roadblock in the path of discovery.

Despite its ancient history, whiskey is a spirit with much maturation left to do. While established techniques and ingredient will surely remain relevant for centuries to come, the idea that whiskey is a completely developed and fully-tapped craft is foolish. Certain grains such as rye and styles such as the American single malt are just now being explored to what is almost certainly just a fraction of their full potentials. The fast-growing presence of sourced whiskey as a staple in the market is a threat to such exploration, primarily because of its tendency to establish the profiles of the sourced products as the golden standards. If the desire to uncover new grains, flavors, blends, and techniques is expunged in the pursuit of a generic standard, then whiskey has truly reached its peak, and we must embrace the possibility that we have nothing better to look forward to when we inevitably tire of what we have.