This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
It is difficult to argue that bourbon is not notable. When liquors are concerned, it is probably difficult to make a clear line - some are as mass produced as Wild Turkey, some are more rare like Talisker, or Knob Creek in the US. Still, by comparison to wine market, where also niche quality products are covered (e.g. Château Angélus) it is obvious that 1792 is notable. It is, after all, the official toast bourbon of the Kentucky Bourbon Festival, and a brand praised in many reviews. If the amount of information is the major concern, we should also admit that many bourbons started from an even modest stub stage, e.g. Eagle Rare, or Woodford Reserve. Pundit|utter 22:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This particular brand was involved in a trademark dispute that was covered in local and national media. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just get this out of the way, shall we? "This bourbon is positioned as a super-premium one,[2] and the pricing policy makes it a competitor to Knob Creek or Woodford Reserve. This reflects the general trend in bourbon production, resulting from competition with single malt whisky,[3] which makes small batch bourbons a big business.[4]" I mean—this article is a joke, and keeps people from taking Wikipedia seriously as an online encyclopedia.
When each and every statement is sourced to independent, third-party sources, no, it isn't. oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least it is sourced, but really I think very few people would use "super-premium" to describe 1792 (~$40 for a 750 ml bottle) or Knob Creek ($24) or Woodford Reserve ($30). That's a bit more than Jim Beam black label ($20), but still very mainstream. There are a lot of bourbons priced at two or three times that much or more. Consider Blanton's, Pappy Van Winkle, Willett Family Reserve, George T. Stagg, Hancock's Reserve, etc. – not to mention the top-tier expressions (e.g., single-barrel and 18+ year-old variants) of various brands. I changed "super-premium" to premium. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking around a bit more, I find that some sources (e.g., Shanken) define "super-premium" bourbon as the neighborhood of $25 or more (for a 750 ml bottle). By that definition, this fits. The higher bracket (roughly north of $50) has been called "ultra-premium" or "luxury". So if someone wants to change it back from premium to "super-premium", I won't object. But I guess I won't do it myself since I personally wouldn't use that term for a $40 product. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}