Talk:Chivas Regal

NPOV dispute

My final comment would be a general one, that the addition of tasting notes to drinks entries is always likely to result in claims of bias, as tasting notes are often considered to be, by their very nature, subjective. However, I certainly have no objections to the removal of the NPOV flag. I made my statement on the other issue below, and I too will make no further contributions which might lead to a flame war. Apologetic22 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologetic22 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues with the current article, and don't intend to make any further contributions. I did want to highlight serial sockpuppetry of a user who appears to be using Wikipedia as a platform to denigrate rival whisky brands to Glenmorangie through biased editing. These usernames were blocked by Wikipedia, but perhaps it's hard to keep a good sock puppet down.

Geoff B has done a good job of re-writing this article, and it would appear to me that there is a settled point of view on the neutrality of this article. I will remove the NPOV flag, but of course, other users should feel free to reinstate this if they have any issues. Darryl.smith (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologetic22 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To follow Wikipedia guidelines re resolving NPOV disputes:

The dispute here has boiled down, in essence, to the views represented by (time-distant) remarks of 90.204.94.84 regarding original content and those of Darryl.smith regarding more recent edits.

As the latter has now removed much of the disputed material that has been added in recent times, then perhaps he or she and 90.204.94.84 can now discuss any remaining issues regarding the content of the article in its current form, with a view to resolving the dispute?

The contribution of user Geoff B would be useful too.

Apologetic22 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I intended to refer to user 64.26.155.74 in the comment above. My carelessness. Apologetic22 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I can't agree that Geoff B, no offence to him, has done a particularly good job of re-writing this article. There are many errors, which I will highlight in a separate section soon after this festive season. I have made one edit already (Ref 1). The History section is riddled with errors-e.g., Chivas brothers James and John were born in 1810/1814 respectively, 2 of 14 kids! James had no truck with whisky till 1936! Chivas Bros was formed in 1857! Do be patient for a week or so.Moitraanak (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• If there are no comments till 20 Jan 2020, I will amend the History page. Wordage will remain the same, or +05 to 10%.Moitraanak (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• I don't know who made this assertion: "This blended whisky was the world's fourth best seller in 2017, after being bumped from that position[clarification needed] by Grant's.[5]" Probably not Geoff B. Anyway, that statement is wrong. Grant's was behind Chivas in 2014, caught up in 2015 and has been a nose ahead since 2018. . 2019 figures should come out in May/June. I will make the required correction now. Moitraanak (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

References

'Glenmorangie' sock puppets at work

I am the offender identified below. I am not a sock puppet, but rather contributed solely on my own behalf, seeking to add citations and additional information to the entry. I apologise to those who were annoyed or irritated by the edits. Apologetic22 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I entered information and citations under the username AndrewMaitland. I do not seek to represent the views of other users who have contributed here. Apologetic22 (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the following users are suspected as being sockpuppets and have been blocked by Wikipedia. Glenmorangie, AndrewMaitland, Iainr, IainRuss, WilliamMatheson, and 82.12.117.210. Several of these users have been active in editing this article, and in doing so pushing a particular POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.smith (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

America 1920s

Well according to the History, Chivas was doing a roaring export trade to America in the third decade of the 20th century:

1920s: The Chivas Brothers began to export Chivas Regal whisky to the United States, where the economic boom was fuelling demand for luxury goods. Chivas Regal became renowned as the original luxury whisky.

Hmmmmm, but wasn't the United States, throughout the 1920s, in the throes of Prohibition. It wasn't until 1933 that the Volstead Act was repealed so how could the USA be importing alcohol. Is the author of this amazing fact suggesting that one of Scotland's premier whiskeys was, er, actually a major bootlegger during this period? Thus by inference Chivas must be very pleased that their 'illustrious' history can now be associated with the likes of Scarface, Dutch and Lucky?

what a load of 'bull-chivas'!!

In addition, there is no evidence given that the Rat Pack ever drank Chivas, except an unsubstantiated claim published by Chivas themselves (cited in footnote 3 here). In fact, Sinatra apparently expressed no interest in the brand until c1990 - when ( a coincidence, perhaps!) Chivas sponsored the elderly crooner's "Chivas Regal Diamond Jubilee Tour" and the other Rat Packers were dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewMaitland (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Chivas 25 and Royal Loch Nevis went into a downward spiral during prohibition in the USA, which 13-year drought (1920-33) started almost immediately after a difficult period for the Scotch Whisky Industry, WW I (28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918). Chivas sailed through 1919 quite nicely, with three of its whiskies doing well there: Royal Strathythan Blended Scotch 10 Year Old, Royal Loch Nevis Blended Scotch 20 Year Old and the Flagship Chivas Regal 25.
• Sinatra and the Rat Trap are from an era long gone and an anachronism here. Lets keep the article relevant please.Moitraanak (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Pronuniciation

what is the correct pronounciation of Chivas?

Don't take this as official, but at a sponsorship event I went to here in London, it was pronounced shi-vass.

• Scotsmen pronounce it Shiviss, but there are so many dialects that shiviss/shivous/shivas are all the same.Moitraanak (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced /SHI-vass/ as well. Fxbx (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Chivas Regal Family Section

The Chivas Regal section sounds much more like an advertising, I could not find the advertising tag, please edit the section to sound more encyclopedic.((User:Camilo Sanchez)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.243.222 (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Added advert tag per your concerns. Cosh (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've edited this page - all info is factual and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.197.42 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure your clients are thrilled with all your hard work but this is an encyclopedia entry about a beverage, not a place for absurd amounts of detail about Chivas Regal advertising campaigns, whether it is verifiable or not. Reverting to my edit. Cosh (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Chivas Regal Royal Salute?

Shouldn't this article make mention of the special 21 y.o. blend, Chivas Regal Royal Salute? Either between the 18 and 25 y.o. ones, or perhaps as a special consideration? Fxbx (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Royal Salute is a separate brand produced by Chivas Brothers, and does not fall under the Chivas Regal brand.

• True. Made by Chivas at Strathisla, it is a totally separate entity.Moitraanak (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Superfluous/inappropriate subjective language, questionable accuracy

Descriptions of the flavours in the 'Chivas Regal Family' section are subject to personal interpretation, cannot be fact-checked, and are unsuitable for inclusion in any encyclopedia, no less Wikipedia.

Also, as noted by the astute reader commenting about Prohibition, it appears the 'History' section is a bit revisionist; perhaps a warning should be added to indicate that someone has fussed with the history to make the company appear more licit, if it did indeed engage (even if indirectly) in bootlegging during Prohibition. Similarly, an early revision claims "seamhas" means "lucky, or blessed with fortune" while the current article (at time of this writing) claims instead the name is "derived from the Gaelic 'seamhas', meaning narrow place." I could believe the provenance of the name was disputable, but the two differing claims about the meaning of the same word imply that quite possibly neither is a correct translation, marring the article's (and in turn, Wikipedia's) credibility.

• Paul Pacult, in his book “DOUBLE SCOTCH How Chivas Regal and The Glenlivet Became Global Icons” says: “ ‘seamhas’ (pronounced shevus) is a Gaelic word for ‘prosperity’ or ‘good luck’—I checked that in my Gaelic dictionary!” P-68 Moitraanak (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• There is a mistake in the opening para. It says: Chivas Regal traces its roots back to 1801. Nonsense. James Chivas' first sniff of whisky came in 1836, when he took up the first commercial job of his life at one William Edwards' grocery. Edwards ran a very fancy emporium that he had bought from one John Forrest in 1828. This was on Forrest's demise, and details of how and who are not available, nor are they required. Forrest had opened his store in 1801. An unattached bachelor, James gave his honest best to Edwards, selling high quality exotic wares like coffee beans, tobacco, pastries, cigars, whisky, spices, tea, bread, beer, whisky, rum, brandy, wines, etc., mostly sourced from overseas to the genteel class. He was elevated to Partner in 1838.
  
• This may sound unbelievable, but as I show in the History bit below, Chivas Brothers came into existence only in 1857. CHIVAS REGAL made its debut in the USA in 1909, 14 years after the Chivas Family had exited the scene in totality. Truth can be stranger than fiction. I will change this 1801 date in one week from now, unless someone wishes to discuss the issue. Moitraanak (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  
• Changed. Moitraanak (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  
• Pacult writes that Forrest died in 1828 and his store was bought by Edward from Forrest's bereaved family. Moitraanak (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  

A critical commentary about the article's EXTREMELY "addy" tone would simply be too lengthy for the 'talk' page; suffice to say, the Chivas company (and/or whomever owns it) would do well to pay one of its minions to rewrite the article in an NPOV fashion so as to make the company appear less clueless and hamfisted in its approach to the Internet. There's this little thing in business called 'good will', and sometimes, it's worth more than you think.

(oh yeah, and 'SOK LENG', this is absolutely NOT the place to be doing business of ANY KIND; your misguided attempt at abusing the Internet to further your greed has been removed by me).

P.S. One more thing: seasoned WPians are probably thinking "why don't you just remove the subjective language yourself?"; it's simply my personal general policy to avoid editing of commercial entries (I'm not going to increase a company's value by improving an article about its product, free of charge), but that won't stop me from making critical commentary. By documenting the sketchiness of an article about a product, I provide a warning to others about that product's trustworthiness (including, by extension, the trustworthiness of the product provider). In other words, if it appears company X has authorized (tacitly or otherwise) questionable marketing practices (e.g. shilling via Wikipedia edits), the public should be well aware of it. Some of us actually do vote with our wallets. -- 64.26.155.74 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. For a start, I replaced "premium" by "blended". Neither a quick google search nor the wikipedia article on Whisky could tell me what a "premium" whisky is and how one can reliably tell it apart from ordinary Whisky. This makes me believe that it is just typical hyperbolic ad-talk. In the introduction, it's IMHO more important to describe it as a blended whisky in contrast to the (superior?) single malts. --Lagerbaer (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

All international sprits companies use the categories standard, premium, super-premium etc based on price points, and so IWSR market reports and company annual reports use this terminology. However, exact cut off on price point at which standard ends and premium begins is not universally agreed. Brands such as Johnnie Walker Red and Ballantine's Finest would be described within the industry as the leading standard whiskies, and brands such as Johnnie Walker Black and Chivas Regal 12 would be described as the leading premium whiskies. I agree it's perhaps best not to use industry terms in these articles, particulalry if these are perceived to be marketing claims vs market descriptors, but for accuracy, Chivas Regal can be described as competing within the 12 years plus whisky category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.94.73 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, allegations have been posted to this article relating to Seagrams in the 1920's / 1930's. I've no idea whether these are true, but they are far more relevant to the Seagrams company article on wikipedia, particularly as Seagrams didn't acquire Chivas Regal until 1949. I have relocated these comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.94.84 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of countries?

The article claims Chivas Regal is available in over 200 countries, I'd like to see some kind of reference? The UN has 193 members, and different estimates might put the total number of countries slightly above that, some say 195. So over 200 countries? Don't think so... Jezpas (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

References

• Chivas Regal is in demand in over 150 countries around the world. The ISBN is correct and I stand by it. Wikipedia wants only one of the two ref nos. Deleted as shown below.
• The 2005 version of this book has a different ISBN no. Naturally so. Moitraanak (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Chivas Regal is in demand in over 150 countries around the world. Moitraanak (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Popularity in Scotland?

I find this quote on the article's header, "It is not commonly drunk in Scotland, where blended whiskys are considered of poor quality," to be inaccurate at best, as The Famous Grouse, a blended Scotch, is the most popular whisky in Scotland. I argue for the removal of this line, and will proceed to remove unless someone can give a source citing the market share of blends vs. single malts in Scotland. Lycus (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that blended whiskeys are commonly drunk in Scotland, but that's explained by the fact that blended whiskey is typically cheaper than malt whiskey. One odd thing about the article is the complete absence of the word "grain". Blended whiskeys are a mixture of malt whiskeys, which provide the flavour, and grain whiskey that bulks it out. I've never understood why anyone is prepared to pay a premium for Chivas Regal over unadulterated single malts and blended malts. 87.194.105.247 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is a ridiculous statement. Do please remove the offending line. I use the term 'Grain' as in Grain Scotch Whisky copiously in my text, which I shall introduce tomorrow, Jan 05. Chivas Regal costs much less than contemporary Glenfiddich and Glenlivet 12 YOs . It is also cheaper in Duty Free Shops, where it is on some promo or the other, along with Johnnie Walker Black Label.Moitraanak (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Amended History and the para on Strathisla. Moitraanak (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Chivas Whiskies Subject To Radiation?

The following link to the European Patent Registry refers .........

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB2140455&F=0

A few years ago, a friend of mine contacted Chivas Brothers Pernod Ricard on this matter and got a "no comment" response. In particular, neither Chivas (or The Scotch Whisky Association) would address questions regarding any additional consumer health risks associated with whisky treated by this process

For whatever reason, Chivas do not want this matter to be up in the public arena. If it is a legal, harmless and patented process then why keep consumers in the dark? In the interests of consumer protection, all of the details behind this process should be made public. Does anyone have further information on this matter?

Elginloone (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

UV treatment of food and beverage is very safe. Check out Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation and UV water disinfection for example. As a chemist, I can personally assure you that materials treated with UV do not have residual radioactivity. The UV may produce ozone at low levels or break down some compounds into other compounds, but neither of these would be toxic enough or in high enough concentration to cause any harm. UV treatment is not a new and cryptic procedure, and I don't think there is a consumer protection issue here at all. In the US this stuff is regulated, and I imagine it is elsewhere as well. It probably prevents a lot of infectious disease. Regards, PDCook (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In short, if you drink UV-treated liquids, your hair doesn't fall out, and you're not rendered infertile. Geoff B (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you say and I do understand the difference between radioactivity and UV. My concerns are about the use of such a system without having any optical filter in place. High energy UV has more than enough potential to form free radicals which might be residual by-products in the product. What tests were carried out to ensure this was not the case? What involvement did the UK and US food and drug administrations have? Saddly, only Chivas have these answers and they have taken a no comment position. Regardless of this, I believe consumers have a right to know, particularly when non-traditional treatments are used in a highly traditional manufacturing process. Regards

95.145.114.85 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

San Francisco Spirits Competition

The article currently states that although it only received a bronze medal in the latest competition in which it was entered (2009), the Chivas Regal 18yr Gold Signature blended whiskey--perhaps Chivas' best-performing product--received double gold medals at the 2006 and 2008 San Francisco World Spirits Competitions. Chivas' 21-year whisky has generally garnered silver medals at the competition.

My first impression was that the whisky had finished second and third in some kind of a professional competition. When I visited their homepage, I realized that this competition has only about 30-60 participants in every category (clearly concentrating on spirits that are imported to the U.S.) and every beverage is guaranteed a bronze medal, about four in five getting silver or better! So even the cheapest, most appalling blended rot gut whiskey could claim to have "won" a bronze medal in "a spirits competition". A casual reader will surely be mislead by such dubious merits. Only award worth mentioning from this competition seems to be what they consider to be the top participant in each category (for example, the best single malt whisky according to them in 2011 was Caol Ila [1]). JJohannes (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chivas Regal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.talkingretail.com/a/main/063D8AEA-1B92-11D9-A258-B96F2D727A86/24D5311A-FD58-11DB-9B22-D3C69413052D/7C0BD2B6-FE2C-11DB-AD59-BF0B09059D95.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717043807/http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Speyside/Strathisla.htm to http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Speyside/Strathisla.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714114718/http://www.moodiereport.com/document.php?c_id=31&doc_id=15296 to http://www.moodiereport.com/document.php?c_id=31&doc_id=15296
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929155512/http://www.maltwhiskydistilleries.com/Distilleries/Welcome/Strathisla/tabid/65/Default.aspx to http://www.maltwhiskydistilleries.com/Distilleries/Welcome/Strathisla/tabid/65/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chivas Regal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029002801/http://www.drinksmediawire.com/afficher_cdp.asp?id=1998&lng=2 to http://www.drinksmediawire.com/afficher_cdp.asp?id=1998&lng=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chivas Regal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114110255/http://www.pernod-ricard.com/medias/resources/static/Rapport%20annuel/RA%202006/RA05-06-15%20Strategic%20Brands.pdf to http://www.pernod-ricard.com/medias/resources/static/Rapport%20annuel/RA%202006/RA05-06-15%20Strategic%20Brands.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320133019/http://www.pernod-ricard.com/medias/Finance/PDF/RapportAnnuel/RA0607-%20Magazine%20section%20uk.pdf to http://www.pernod-ricard.com/medias/Finance/PDF/RapportAnnuel/RA0607-%20Magazine%20section%20uk.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311235518/http://www.superbrands.easysite.org/files/ChivasRegal_4072.pdf to http://www.superbrands.easysite.org/files/ChivasRegal_4072.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

HISTORY-Requires Total Rework

The History section is riddled with errors! Take the first sentence: Brothers James and John Chivas, from near Ellon,[8][9] opened a grocery store in 1801 at 13 King Street, Aberdeen. BULL. James Chivas was born in 1810, John in 1814. The grocery shop in question belonged to ONE owner, John Forrest. Whoever wrote this piece didn't replicate the actuals given in HIS OWN refs( Bold 8 and 9, inactive). Moreover, Forrest could only have sold whiskies as a vendor, since the Govt legalised distillation of whisky on payment of a licence fee and a set amount per gallon of proof spirit only in 1823. He may, of course, have started distilling in 1823. This is improbable, but not impossible, because distilling till then was limited to members of The Surgeons and Barber’s Guild and/or their relatives. Five years to distill excellent whiskies? Possible, in an era that saw consumers drinking off the still.

The brothers were two of fourteen children born to Robert & Christian Chivas, living on the remote Strathythan farm in the Ellon Parish of Aberdeenshire. In 1836, aged 26 / 22 years respectively, James and John decided to leave rustic life in search of better options in Aberdeen, 20 miles away. Forrest had died In 1828 and his store, known for high-quality provisions, luxury goods and Blended Malt whiskies, was bought by one William Edwards. James joined Edwards in 1836, rising to partner him in 1838. John began working at a wholesale footwear and clothing firm, DL Shirres and Co. in '36. This firm would be awarded distribution rights of Chivas Bros from 1860-1886, from John Chivas’ entry till James Chivas’ death. Edwards died in 1841 and one Charles Stewart took over. Forrest's company, later renamed Edwards and Chivas (1828-41) and then Stewart and Chivas (1841-57), maintained its reputation for excellence and obtained a Royal Warrant to supply luxury goods to Queen Victoria in 1843. So, Para 2 is also wrong.

Para 4 needs rewording. I would suggest a quick glance at a blog, to understand what was happening then. Do look at the last photo. The ISIN No is clearly visible and is correct. Only one of the two nos has been used in this post, as reqd by Wikipedia.

What is not generally known is that the Chivas Brothers company came into being only in 1857, when John Chivas joined his elder brother James in his grocery, wine shop and luxury goods emporium in Aberdeen. His entry came about after James’ partner, Charles Stewart, left. Left, not died, as the two previous partners! [My notes of 1989 when I visited Strathisla say that Stewart left in a disagreement over blending malt and grain whiskies secretly and illegally when holding a Royal Warrant, but I have no references. They weren’t required then.] Moreover, vatting of whiskies within Bond Warehouses was legalised in 1853 (The Forbes-Mackenzie Act?) and the number of brands made available for sale increased overnight.

One brewer/distiller/canny sales agent, Andrew Usher profited immensely and Pacult, Hopkins & Miller take great pain to point this out. The customer was spoiled for choice, but only the better blends survived. James had reached the corridors of power via Usher, who knew which side of his toast was buttered. They both knew of PM Henry J Temple’s plans to pull down the last barrier re sale of Scotch Whisky, viz., legalise the hitherto banned blending of Malt and Grain whiskies, by 1860. The Spirits Act, when published in 1860, was limited to distillers only. Again, Usher profited handsomely; James Chivas was left holding the can. It took another 3 years for grocers/winery owners to get themselves included, in an Extn to the French Treaty Act 1863. This is why/how many grocers got into the business full time-John Walker, George Ballantine, Peter Thomson of Beneagles, the Chivas brothers, William Teacher and the Berry Brothers are good examples. I cannot vouch for refs re the Forbes Mackenzie Act of 1953 in all good faith as Jackson, Hopkins and Gregory Miller strongly do, because the Act, when googled, leads elsewhere. Try it.

The last actively occupied Chivas family member, Alexander, died in 1893 aged 37 and his wife died of shock three days later. Control was handed over to two temporary directors, Smith and Taylor, till Alexander’s mother and two sisters could meet with their son’s friend, aide and confidante, Alexander Smith, son of the a/m Mr Smith. They agreed that control of the company would be exercised by the surrogate ‘son’ Alexander Smith and their Master Blender, Charles Stewart Howard, but insisted that the brand would remain (and has remained) unchanged as Chivas Brothers Holdings, a Ltd. company till this day. In doing so, they neglected any rights Alexander Chivas’ younger but shiftless brother Charles Chivas- a bête noire banished to the USA-had in the matter of succession. Charles died in 1908 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Para 5 is wrong! WW I screwed Chivas Bros.

Para 6: Chivas Regal was purchased by Seagrams in 1949, which enabled a much wider distribution and marketing system. Absolutely true. But one vital cog is missing. Seagrams was owned by a rich Canadian, who was not affected by WW II. But this Canadian, Samuel Bronfman, was a Jew. When the Middle East opened up as a market post oil domination/OPEC, Seagrams’ products, including Chivas Regal, were banned in the entire Arab controlled area. Phipson’s Black Dog ruled the roost till 1980, when the giant Johnnie Walker product package rolled all competition over. Chivas limped in in 2001, under Pernod Ricard.

Paras 7 and 8 need to be reworded. Para 7 needs to be made contemporary.

Seagrams was taken over by Pernod Ricard in 2001, not 2000.

In those days, the whisky industry was a total mess. Despite the 1823 Act, hardly anybody put his malts in Bond. A survey showed average storage time worked out to three months, most probably the transit time by ship to foreign ports. Those that were stored were found to be much better after three years or more; quality rose after maturation, volume dropped due angel’s share and price increased exponentially. No such barrel was ever seen in a pub. Between 1823 and 1890, after publication of Acts by the dozen, malts were being stored in Bond, for an average of SIX months! But there were a few genuine distillers who left their barrels to mature over six, ten fifteen years! But the fraud committed then is mindboggling.

• Checked ISIN nos per book.
• F Paul Pacult features only ONCE as the author in a reference, no 18. The Preview shows only one entry. I have used only one of the two ISIN nos. I don't understand how it appears a second time as a new avatar when Published! Do check this out. [As an aside, the number 9781118045831 is correct. It is clearly visible both here and in the photograph in the blog.] Moitraanak (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Now he features often. His book is fascinating. Wikipedia is focussed on brief and precise. Loses a lot. Moitraanak (talk) Moitraanak (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Removed one ref and added another. Moitraanak (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Removed Matthew Gloag from list of Grocers. I noted a discrepancy in a study of that brand. Better safe than sorry. Moitraanak (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

References