Is There A Case Against Angel’s Envy?
By Richard Thomas
(Credit: Angel’s Envy)
In July The Whiskey Reviewer started its periodic series studying deceptive whiskey claims by looking at Templeton Rye, a company held in suspicion by many whiskey pundits for its marketing practices. The case against Templeton Rye proved a strong one, but not every claim of deception and dodgy marketing has such sound foundations, a fact the case against Angel’s Envy demonstrates. As this article from Whisky Advocate on the groundbreaking last year for Angel’s Envy’s planned distillery reminds us, the company has had its detractors from the very beginning, and some of those detractors have played fast and loose with the facts.
Potemkinism: From the beginning, Angel’s Envy has been frank about what they do, so much so that the entire brand is built around the concept of being the crafty people who finish sourced bourbon and make it into something better. They have never claimed to be a distillery, merely that they want to build one, and most consumers understand that.
Yet this doesn’t stop a minority of croakers from saying otherwise. One consistent charge in this department is that Lincoln Henderson’s use of the title “master distiller” constituted an attempt to mislead. The Whiskey Reviewer has already soundly debunked charges of this type, and in this instance in particular we find them without any merit whatsoever. (Grade: 0 – F)
Backstory: As Angel’s Envy does not make any historical claims about their company, and to our knowledge no one has charged that they do, this category is void.
(Credit: Angel’s Envy)
Marketing Flim-Flam: The single most pernicious claim lodged against Angel’s Envy is that they bought the ruined Vermont-American building, a pricey piece of real estate right across the road from Louisville’s Sluggers Field, as a mere publicity stunt, and that they have no intention of actually building a distillery there.
The only claim of proof for this charge is that construction on the Vermont-American site has not yet begun. Yet delays for major urban renovation projects are completely normal, and it is ridiculous to suggest that a medium-sized whiskey company would sink their funds into buying an expensive-but-abandoned building for what would be a one-shot gimmick instead of spending the money on conventional advertising. (Grade: 0 – F)
Changed Ways: Considering both planks of the case against Angel’s Envy discussed above were flunked, there is no need for them to change their ways. They are doing just fine as is.
Overall Case Grade Against Angel’s Envy: F
Summary: The charges that Angel’s Envy is a deceptive whiskey company fall into the realm of conspiracy theory, and are so lousy that only the most irresponsible bloviators dare to make them.
Fair enough, but I don’t recall ever seeing anyone accusing Angel’s Envy or the Hendersons of deception. As you note, they have been open about what they are doing from the start and are a pretty good model of doing sourcing honestly (though I’d like to know where they get their bourbon). So who are these croakers and bloviators?
Good article. Very reasonable rebuttal.
I can’t speak for what Mr. Thomas saw, but I recall Cowdery once dismissed Michter’s and Envy as building distilleries as stunts. His rum pal Capt. Jimbo tore up Envy for being deceivers too.
Ah, but deception and transparency are two separate issues. Sometimes they are related, I’ll grant that, but just as often they are not.
Insofar as directly calling people out, not today. I have a three week old baby in the house, and I just don’t have the energy right now to deal with the teapot tempest that might arise from openly pissing in someone’s cornflakes. What I will say is that they shouldn’t be hard to find, and I don’t think of them as trivial. I had the unpleasant experience of having them repeated to my face by those who read them. Twice.
Smells like Bourbon “Truth” to me.