Bushmills Finish the Job

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Bushmills have finished repackaging the rest of their range.




READ REPORT HERE

[JohnM]

These look fine, but I kind of liked the old bottles.

[jcskinner]

Glad they're still squared off. They fit closer on shelves.
But I agree with John on this.
Probably I'm just a luddite who hates change.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

I do like them but never had an issue with the older ones either ...

However is it just me or have the Marketing Dept totally lost the plot ...

The new packaging has been designed with “heritage and authenticity” in mind, according to the Diageo-owned brand. Each outer case displays an image of the Old Bushmills Distillery, Ireland’s oldest operational distillery which was granted its licence in 1608, a date that is embossed prominently on the new bottles.

Okay I can live with “heritage and authenticity” but are they not paying any attention to the Irish WHiskey scene at all "Ireland’s oldest operational distillery" ahh no it's not Kilbeggan is up and running again lads ... and for 3 years now, even if it is small scale.

"which was granted its licence in 1608" ahhh no it wasn't ... how can a distillery that did not exist until at the earliest 1784 be granted a licence to distill

Lads cop on and get with the real world

[JohnM]

The look like the kind of bottles that a young barman with gel in his hair and a pierced eyebrow would pour from over his shoulder or something. But they're still okay, I suppose. Maybe I'll get used to them. The old bottles were kind of classic and I liked that.

I have a real hankering for a Bushmills 21 now. Might open a bottle.

[varizoltan]

looks like the cap on the 21 was done quick for the photo by hand...

[varizoltan]

and just wonder

why the worlds "oldest..." irish distilery launches the new look bottles in a london bar???

why not in Ireland somewhere?

[jcskinner]

I sort of agree. If the firm wants to acknowledge that Bushmills is a UK-based firm, so be it.

But then they should call their whiskey from 'Northern Ireland's oldest' distillery instead of Ireland's or the World's (at least that would have the added benefit of being accurate).

I love Bushmills, but the 1608 thing is beginning to look risible. Maybe they're working on the theory of the big lie, but whiskey aficionados know the truth and it detracts from the integrity of the brand.

I wish they'd knock that stuff on the head, especially if their focus is on 'authenticity and heritage'.

It's not like the product needs to be bullshitted about. It's excellent.

Having said that, I'd forgive all the PR guff in the world if they'd only expand the range a little and release a few more single casks at reasonable prices this time.

[varizoltan]

yeah,

but remember, IDL put that 1608 on them

and now everyone giving out to Bushmils for it

[JohnM]

I see there's a number on the 21. The one in the picture is 0001...

[jcskinner]

yeah,

but remember, IDL put that 1608 on them

and now everyone giving out to Bushmils for it

Yeah, but they're still running with it. Of course, it's not the fault of the staff at Bushmills. It's a Diageo decision to keep this 1608 jive running.
Was it definitely IDL who introduced the 1608 thing, though? I've bottles with 1784 on them which don't appear to be too old. I've never bothered to establish exactly when the 1608 thing started appearing on the bottles. I expect it's all in Leo's all-knowing database!
Of course, I'd say if it was up to the average employee at Bushmills, there wouldn't be a date on the bottle at all and it would just be called Ulster whiskey!

[JohnM]

It was in the 60s or early 70s they changed the date on the bottle. The exact year is in some book I have, but I can't find where it's mentioned. Might be in Classic Irish Whiskey.

[jcskinner]

That means IDL can't be blamed. They didn't take Bushmills over till the late Seventies, I think?

[JohnM]

I think it was 1972 when Irish Distillers took over. I'll have to check that.

I'll try to find the date the bottle changed too. It's somewhere here.

[DavidH]

Just checked the Mulryan book... IDL took 80% of Bushmills in 1972 and the last 20% in 1978.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

You can only blame the current owners ... they had a perfect oppertunity to change it after the 1608 celebrations which I was okay with and was a good excuse to release a special bottling. However the rebranding was the perfect oppertunity to lay claim to their 1784 heritage but they decided to totally ignore it and go with this spourious 1608 date .... there was never an issue about 1608 as part of thier heritage but using it "like" a foundation date it totally dishonest by ignoring their actual foundation date (which in itself is grey) but this sort of marketing does nothing to endear malt enthusiasts and I doubt the regular Joe Soap pays it much heed either.

Obviously 1784 being 4 years younger than Jameson is the crux and they maybe insecure about that

More worringly for them is if anybody set up a distillery in Monsterevan I believe they too could use the 1608 date also as a licence to distill was also granted to that area as were others to other parts of the country ... it's not a unique licence. (I must read up on this again but I'm nearly positive I've read this somewhere)

Well Mr Cranky is not even more cranky


P.S. does anybody else find the bottle shape quite feminine ???

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Found it ...

The Bushmills Grant is short and brief

Grant of Licence
to
Sir Thomas Phillips Kt
to make Aquavitae etc in
the County of Colorane
and the Route, Co Antrim
20 April 1608

The Route is now the area of Bushmills


However there are several more that actually precede the 20th of April 1608 evenhough all seem to be 1608


Walter Taillor of Dungarey in Co Galway granted on March 23 1608 (If I am right this is 5 miles away from me in what is now called Kinvara so I could set up a Distillery there and precede the Bushmills BS )

George Sexton fro the Province of Leinster granted on March 23 1608 also (So the entirity of Leinster can claim this historic licence)

Charles Warehouse for Munster granted 10 Janurary 1608

The Bushmills claim refers to the fact that there appears to be a fairly clear historical record of continued distilling in the area and that the Sir Thomas Phillips seemed to be the most successful of the licences by virture of lack of continuation of the other distilling areas and that the Licnece has stated a fairly specific area.

[DavidH]

P.S. does anybody else find the bottle shape quite feminine ???

You might have hit on the reason there. They are trying to expand the appeal among women, perhaps. For me, I'm sorry to see the end of the old bottle. That was about the whiskey. This one is pure marketing psychology.

[DavidH]

Unrelated to the bottle shape, I've just noticed the mention of Bushmills' first female master blender, Helen Mulholland. I haven't heard that name before. Perhaps she will visit the society some day.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

P.S. does anybody else find the bottle shape quite feminine ???

You might have hit on the reason there. They are trying to expand the appeal among women, perhaps. For me, I'm sorry to see the end of the old bottle. That was about the whiskey. This one is pure marketing psychology.

Maybe... in all fairness it is not a bad design, still retaining the general square shape. It's a modern twist of older embossed bottles which I think adds a bit more of a mark of quality in peoples minds on what is alreagy an excellent range.

Helen Mulholland has been with Bushmills for a long time and was in science dept but when she took over as Master Blender I cannot say.

IDL have a tasting panel and it is entirely made up of women. I think it has now been generally accepted that women have better noses than men in general.

[TheWhiskeyBro]

On the change from 1784 to 1608...

The latest confirmation of 1784 on a label I can find is 1973,

The earliest I can find the 1608 date is in 1975,

What is interesting is that from as early as 1970, the started to make a play on the 300 years aspect.

Quote from advert text in 1970 "For 300 years, a whiskey from Bushmills has been with us" [technically correct i presume] while the bottle pictured in the same advert says "For 150 Years" [also factually correct]

So you can begin to see how the legend took hold of the marketing people, however as I say I didn't appear on the bottle until after 1973 at the earliest as far as I can ascertain.

Just for you JC

[IainB]

Well as I've said before I don't like the bottle at all - far too fussy. The old one was simple, classy and understated. You shouldn't need fancy ass bottles - the whiskey should speak for itself. IMHO.

[JohnM]

On the change from 1784 to 1608...

The latest confirmation of 1784 on a label I can find is 1973,

The earliest I can find the 1608 date is in 1975,

What is interesting is that from as early as 1970, the started to make a play on the 300 years aspect.

Quote from advert text in 1970 "For 300 years, a whiskey from Bushmills has been with us" [technically correct i presume] while the bottle pictured in the same advert says "For 150 Years" [also factually correct]

So you can begin to see how the legend took hold of the marketing people, however as I say I didn't appear on the bottle until after 1973 at the earliest as far as I can ascertain.

Just for you JC

I have a bottle with the 150 years on the front and a label on the back about the 1608 thing. It has a copy of the original grant made in 1608 to distill whiskey. On the same lable, it says "A timehonoured whiskey produced under the same cherished formula for over 150 years, tastefully mellowed for 9 long years to gladden the heart of man."

Nine "long" years, mind. Maybe they're leap years.