Talk:Johnnie Walker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thebar.com

In addition to the official Johnnie Walker site, Diageo also has a website that they've designed as a extra resource for their brands. It is www.thebar.com- I think this link would be useful to add to the page. Any thoughts?

[edit] PR

Was the "Blends" listing written by Walker's PR department? Sure reads like it was… — 193.5.56.40 10:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancies

I don't believe that bogus statistic about 2/11 pregnancies in Europe. Probably JohnCrawford's idea of humor, but perhaps it should go? — 68.163.10.220 23 July 2004 (UTC)

Obviously no such statistic, so removed! — 80.5.160.5 15 September 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Whiskey brand

what the heck is a whisky brand entry mixed with a biography? shouldnt there be a disambiguation page or something? —12.42.51.28 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I fixed that. -R. fiend 19:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a bottle of Johnnie Walker in my cupboard… it was bought by my father some years back. It has a blue label, but no blue label written on it… the label says "Johnnie Walker Oldest & Finest blend of whiskies". What is it ?? I did some research but found nothing. Someone please help —202.71.138.35 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that should probably be added, see http://www.whiskey-galore.co.uk/johnniewalker.htm. Also someone on eBay that has a bottle for sale says: "The Johnnie Walker OLDEST was a very limited release during the late 1980s and is not available anymore. This bottling was released prior to the JW Blue." MDuchek 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Label is aged 5 years?

I though red label was aged 8 years, not 5, as said in the article. Is it really aged 5 years? —200.180.76.155 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed that until someone comes up with a good source. Aging blends is never as straightforward as aging single malts, as they are a blend of whiskies of different ages. I believe they have to ues the youngest when giving a number, which is why blends usually don't state an age, unlike single malts. -R. fiend 16:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I also notice that the article now states that Green Label contains Talisker and Cragganmore, and that it is 15 years old. This seems contradictory, as Talisker and Cragganmore are only 10 and 12 years old, respectively. Am I missing something? -R. fiend 20:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What you are missing, is the distinction between standard distillery editions of Talisker 10yo single malt and Cragganmore 12yo single malt on the one hand, and on the other, individual casks that the distilleries sell to blenders.
Talisker 10yo and Cragganmore 12 yo are the so called "single malts", but the distilleries sell off individual casks of other ages to blenders. These casks can be older or younger, whatever the blenders need. The age statement is only to indicate the age of the youngest whisky that was used in a whisky. So either there are only 15yo (or older) casks in there, or the whisky was younger when blended, but matured - as a blend - until 15yo.
So, for Johnnie Walker Green Label, other casks are used. Thus, a blended whisky can be older or younger than the standard 10yo Talisker or the 12yo Cragganmore. I hope I've made things clearer. - Galwaygirl 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. I wasn't aware (and am a bit surprised) that the distilleries age their whiskies longer for the blends, when the more mature taste the extra years bring will be diluted with a bunch of other whiskies. But I guess that's what the blenders are willing to pay for in order to put a specific age on their bottles. Also, I was unaware that blends are aged as blends. I was under the impression they always went from blending straight to bottling. -R. fiend 19:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnnie Walker USA Availability

I have read through the history of Johnnie Walker many times from several sources. I can find when Johnnie Walker became locally available in 1820 and even when the marketing kicked in for the Striding Man and Red Label and Black Label were avaiable in 1909. My question is, when did the different labels become available in the United States? The history implies that Johnnie Walker Blue was available in Britian in the late 1800's, but I can not believe it was being exported at the time. Furthermore, I have no sense of time about Johnnie Walker Gold or Pure. —Blacstag 11:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The table I created should help there. Diago claims that Blue is a reproduction of John Walker's original blend, but that seems to be marketing spin, as outside sources all pretty much agree that Johnnie Walker Black Label is still today Alexander’s original blend, and John Walker did not blend scotch (it was not legal until after he died). Now John Walker could have vatted malt whisky, but I have not found any evidence of this. One could argue that Blue is the high-end blend Alexander would have made if the flood had not destroyed their old stock. —MJBurrage 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
To clarify. Blending is mixing malt and grain whisky. Vatting is mixing only malt whiskies.

[edit] question re Johnnie Walker's personal history

When was Johnnie Walker born?69.85.170.16 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See John Walker (grocer) MrZaiustalk 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] time table

What is the reasoning for putting the table in reverse chronological order? It seems unnecessary and bizarre. Vicarious 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No strong reason, when I created the table, it made more sense to start with the current blends next to the axis, and so the older availability ended up flowing to the right. Feel free to reverse it if you want. —MJBurrage 04:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Swing available in US

I purchased a 750ml bottle of JW Swing today for about $65. The owner said it is a recient re-release in the States.

I want to also note the abocve is probably true. I know they were set re-released it in the US recently and was supposted to be between $60-and $70 according to an article I read recently.

I think the Swing bottle is intended for the "duty-free" shopping market with an artificial limited availability cachet. It is supposed to reflect "the 'golden age' of travel in the twenties and thirties when luxury liners carried high society passengers around the world".

[edit] In popular culture section

Several of the tidbits in the section seem hardly noteworthy. I wonder: should these be edited for significance? Or are we planning to provide an exhaustive list of when JW is mentioned? --SidP 04:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think just about all of them should be removed. This "so-and-so was mentioned/seen in this movie and this TV show etc." trend is a plague on wikipedia. It's all over the place. Should be nipped in the bud. In cases where the item in question (in this case JW, but same goes for all such entries) actually plays an important role in the work of fiction (and in this case none leap to mind) they deserve mention, but who gives a shit that Angelina Jolie was drinking it in Mr. and Mrs. Smith? It's irrelevant to the movie and to the product, and looks appallingly amateurish. I'll wait for any further comments before removing them. -R. fiend 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Is this section just managed arbitrarily? What exactly is the criteria for what belongs there? Jordinho 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Significance. -R. fiend 02:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clynelish

The article states that Clynelish malt is very rare (in the section on Gold label). I have a bottle of the 14 and I know that it is pretty common. I'm just wondering if this is referring to another Clynelish single malt, or perhaps some rare casking or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.177.254 (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Johnnie Walker.logo.jpg

Image:Johnnie Walker.logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)