Let me first say I haven’t had Stagg Jr. Bourbon yet, as I have to buy a bottle when it comes to my area. The reviews and communications I’ve seen/heard from well known Whiskey writers/reviewers haven’t been good. Buffalo Trace retweets a guy’s very positive “best he’s ever tasted” review of Stagg Jr. to tens of thousands. The “reviewer” uses a “title” monicker that implies he’s an expert. Here is how he describes himself:

“…….is a writer and critic specializing in books, publishing, spirits, and cocktails.”

He’s not. I’ve got no problem with the guy until his review gets re-tweeted with link by the brand. Now he’s responsible as he’s being used as an “expert” to get others to buy.

Here are pieces of his review:

"A younger version of the highly sought-after George T. Stagg Bourbon, this new bottling is, like it’s Dad, barrel-proof, uncut and unfiltered; clearly a whiskey designed to appeal to the bourbon connoisseur."

Bourbon connoisseur? Like him? Here’s another part of his review:

"I have not had the pleasure of tasting the original George T. Stagg, nor many of the other highly acclaimed bourbons like Pappy Van Winkle. But I am quite confident when I say that this is the best bourbon I’ve ever tasted."

Oh, my aching ass on that one!!!

Hasn’t had the real Stagg that he compares Jr. with, but he’s an expert, saying its the best he’s ever had. Never had Pappy, but reviewing over 10 years, although his blog isn’t two years old. I don’t want to throw him under a bus, exposing his name, but he doesn’t know better, and it’s a bit sad.

He then says:

"If you are interested in sending samples, products, or other materials for possible review and/or mention on this website, please email me: Professor xxxxxxxx."

I got into it with another guy re-tweeting great Stagg Jr. reviews this week as he talked glowingly over Jr. As it turns out, he stated that he can’t afford to buy the stuff but then says he limits his reviews to good stuff mostly because he doesn’t want to pay for bad stuff. Huh?

Wait, he knows its good before he buys it so he won’t have to write a bad review? I guess the implication is he doesn’t want to write a bad review, fearing he wont get free stuff. He also falls into the trap of only using one-third of his 1-100 scale with 95% of his reviews between 84-94. That’s actually 10 percent of his scale, so use 1-10. They just don’t want to hurt feelings. Is this a gentlemanly game? Debauchery is running rampant. ABV quietly cut, non-distillery places saying they distill in quantity. Master distillers that don’t. Hiding and lying about what’s in the bottle. Questionable origins and batches - on and on and on. No, its not a gentleman’s game, its a dirty street fight. More bullshit than the Double R Steer Ranch a few hours after feeding time. This isn’t gentlemanly, it’s blatant and calculated games used to separate the trusting and unassuming people from their cash. If Micky D’s mixes ground beef with horse meat, they go to jail. If Ben and Jerry’s starts adding water with a milk substitute people freak. They’d get scrutiny and be exposed.
But here are people being re-tweeted by the brands that don’t have a basis to even rate a brand variation from Stagg to Stagg Jr.

At least one of these are true: Brands are being deceptive and manipulative. Brands are being ignorant and not doing research on the “experts” rating their booze or getting samples.

So this was another guy who doesn’t want to kiss frogs (drink bad booze) because he doesn’t want to be a “critic,” but a fan disguised as a critic. I will never be a sample whore.

Here’s the first guy, Professsor xxxxxxx ‘s sample policy, of which Buffalo retweeted his review:

"SAMPLE POLICY
It is the policy of this website to solicit and accept samples, freebies, swag, and other assorted promotional materials from liquor companies, marketeers, promoters, publicity flacks, bars, and anyone else who wants to give it.

To be on the safe side, you can assume that anything I write about was given to me for free (even though it quite possibly wasn’t). However, as has been my strict policy for over a decade, the receipt of complimentary items or services in no way affects the judgement, opinions, or reviews that appear on this website. I am committed to complete independence.”

This does NOT mean that if you get samples you’re not an adult and credible. Plenty of people do and are. Many I highly respect and look up to, trust and make buying decisions based on accept samples. They will show the bottle and say they gagged and had to call Poison Control.
I spent three hours reading and checking on Professor xxxxxxxx before I jumped on his ass. If he was credible, I wouldn’t target him. I looked at this guy’s very limited coverage of Whiskey; bad reviews don’t exist, and it’s obvious why.

So far I have requested one pre-release, as I wanted to do a vertical tasting of annual releases and send some in my next blind twitter tasting.

Here is my sample policy:

The Bourbon Truth excepts no unsolicited samples. If I try your product and it sucks I will take a photo of it in my next Dog Whiskey tasting. If you do a bait and switch from a pre-release (talking to you Trey from Jefferson), then send out crap to the publi,c I will be nasty, relentless and call you a fraud.