The Dark Side of Reproduction “look-alike” Whiskey Labels

Don't like ads?

No ads

The following story is a complimentary piece to this review of the new Old Commonwealth 10 Year Cask Strength Kentucky Straight Bourbon. Read about it by clicking on the link.

I compare the modern-day bourbon boom to the California Gold Rush of 1849. I blame the advent of the internet and social media as the primary reasons why so many people found out and began to explore all things whiskey. Similar to the Gold Rush, investors and people who wanted to make a new life for themselves saw this as an opportunity to make money on the flood of new drinkers searching for the next bottle. As a result, there are now more commercial producers for American spirits right now than ever before.

Most of these new producers have named their companies after something near and dear to them like a family member, a geographical location or even the “ass pocket” of a pair of pants. But there are a growing number of producers who are reviving defunct brand names from the 1900’s in an effort to continue their legacy. If you’re a cynic, you’d probably say they’re cashing in on someone else’s fame.

Reproduction Labels – Cool Throwback or Scummy Scam?

The one thing that some of these “brand revivalists” have in common is that they try to recreate a version of what the original bottle or label looked like. Even with the purest intentions at heart, there is always the possibility for bad actors to use someone’s lack of knowledge to try and take advantage of them. After all, profiting off of unwitting buyers is older than whiskey itself.

The following is a firsthand account of an event that took place recently that showcases the combination of a low-key relaunch of a storied brand, the deceptive intentions of an unscrupulous flipper and – possibly – an insider deal was intended to take advantage of those unwitting buyers. What’s more is that it might leave a stain on the integrity of the new producer.

Old Commonwealth v2.0

The first thing I want to show you is the label used on the original Old Commonwealth bottle next to the 2024 release.

Go ahead and admit it; it’s a really great reproduction attempt that stays true to the real thing. I loved everything about it when I first saw it. To those that know only a little bit about the original bottle, this new label probably fooled them into thinking they were looking at the real deal. Unfortunately, some of the more unsavory secondary flippers were quick to try and profit off of the confusion.

The bottle’s pre-sale date was scheduled for October 17, 2024. However, that did not mean that eligible buyers were going to receive their bottle on that date, just that people could enter for a chance to buy the first ones online. I did not take part in this presale nor did I know it was going on. I’m fairly sure that more than 250 people signed up – meaning that not everyone could get a bottle. I’m also sure the people who didn’t make the cut were told this was only the first release and more would be released in the near future.

From pre-sale to the secondary market

Here’s where the story takes a dastardly turn. Be aware that what I’m about to say next involves a little bit of hearsay and a little bit of speculation but I think you’ll find the most important parts match up.

On October 24, the first bottle of Old Commonwealth hit one of the more popular secondary market groups (sorry, I can’t say the name or I’d be banned). The seller’s original listing was for $2500 “each.” Using the word “each” was his first mistake and one that he quickly edited four minutes later. That was a clue that he had multiple bottles for sale even though his photograph only showed one. As I already pointed out, limited releases like this should have resulted in one bottle being awarded per person.

As the comments poured in, many people learned for the first time this bottle existed. Experienced enthusiasts began to pick apart the fact that this was not an original bottle of Old Commonwealth produced by Julian Van Winkle III. Other enthusiasts determined the bourbon inside was sourced from Barton. Some even lambasted the seller on his outrageous price. The comments section devolved into a shit show.

For his part, the seller played a game of deflection with any pointed negative comments. This is a common tactic where exposed sellers hold out for as long as it takes until the heat goes away or a sucker pays the original price. Many times the seller will gather their friends to help defend them. The most important rule when you’ve been caught being a shitty seller is to never let them see you sweat.

“Sold on XPost for ask”

If you’ve been on the secondary market for any amount of time, you’ve probably caught on to the joke of “Sold on XPost (for ask).” What that usually means – in a nutshell – is a panicked response to nobody buying your bottle because you’ve priced it too high. The thought process for these anxiety-riddled sellers boils down to “if nobody is buying at this price, the bottle I have must be worthless and I’ll never get my money out of it.”

Rather than just wait it out, they will post the words “Sold on XPost for ask.” This means that they listed it on another secondary market page and claim that it was sold there. This is meant to fool anyone tracking that particular “for sale” listing that the bottle was priced right because it did sell for the price it was listed at. I’d just like to state for the record sometimes the seller does find a buyer on a different secondary page. But most of the time seller does this to save face and to use their post as a historical record that people are buying the bottle in question at the price it was listed for.

The purpose of this whole ruse is for the seller to re-post their bottle again in the future with the same price and hope that people come across the old listing that shows it was “sold” for that amount (and is therefore a fair price). I’ve seen sellers even reference their own past posts telling potential buyers “one sold just like it the other day for the same price.”

Interestingly enough, I did find the post for the Old Commonwealth bottle where the seller did “sell” the bottle on another secondary page to a buyer with dubious history of shady dealings. The deal “fell through” a day later to the surprise of nobody. Rumor has it that the seller and the buyer each knew each other and the whole offer to buy was a sham.

After that – from October 25th to 28th – a few other buyers popped up trying to sell their Old Commonwealth bottles for anywhere from $1550 to $1800. Thankfully, potential buyers were quick to catch on and I’m unaware of any sellers moving one, especially at the price they were asking for.

Old Commonwealth 10 Year Bourbon – An Inside Job?

The most dastardly part of this whole debacle involves a piece of information I learned about later. It turns out the first seller (that was trying to sell multiple bottles for $2500) was very good friends with one of the minority owners of Old Commonwealth. This would answer the question of how he had multiple bottles for sale before anyone else. If you choose to believe this story, it’s a bad look for a producer on their first release.

The other pressing question is “who was ultimately benefitting from selling these bottles at a higher price?” You might think it would be the seller because the money would go into his/her pocket, but would the distillery have anything to gain as well? I actually think this could be true. Many new producers have gone on to strike it rich (at least for a period of time) by rolling out with an amazing first release, having the secondary market resell it for crazy prices and then cashing in on the fanfare that follows for their other products. Just look at Smoke Wagon, Blaum Bros and Boone County.

Small-scale producers are in a better position to have this work for them because the less people that own a bottle, the less people can argue that a release is “just average” or “not worth the money.” They can keep their mystique which helps foster FOMO (the fear of missing out). I believe that this is what happened here. Unfortunately for Old Commonwealth and the unnamed flipper, almost nobody fell for it. Well, there was that one guy that ultimately paid $1,075 on a popcorn auction. RIP, buddy.

Conclusion

I don’t think that the story I just told you would have ever happened if the bottle was packaged in an original-looking container with a different name. The pull that Hoffman/Old Commonwealth/Van Winkle bottles have are insane and shows the lengths that people go even to catch a whiff of nostalgia. Unfortunately, all you can do to help prevent situations like this from occurring in the future is to continue to educate yourself on the bottles of yesteryear and always be weary when something looks suspicious. This isn’t the last time we’re going to see a lookalike label from a storied brand, but hopefully this demonstrates why you should never buy a new bottle when it is first listed.