Not bothering with the article cuz i'm tired. Misuse of funds?

> The practice consequently deprived well-heeled whiskey aficionados among the public of the tiny-batch boutique bourbons.

Obviously it’s bad that government officials took kickbacks, but this line was just hilarious to me. Won’t somebody think of the poor whiskey aficionados!!

Some of these bottles MSRP for $100-$200.

They sell for $1-2k on trading/auction sites.

Using your government office to benefit yourself should absolutely be stamped out

My understanding is they would buy up the good stuff before the public had a chance to. Kinda like that Adidas executive whose son was buying up new sneakers at launch and then reselling them cuz he got first crack at it

Prioritized scalping, got it

I don't even think they were scalping it. Reads like they were jumping the line for some Pappy Van Winkle

Oh damn. Wild-

They weren’t reselling. They were fired for using their position for their own benefit. Still wrong, but just wanted to clarify.

[removed]

Who the fuck would even want Adidas sneakers?

Boosts are mad comfy

[removed]

It was about their love of money, not bourbon.

Good times while they lasted.

Can the governor now look into reason all the Blanton’s, weller and e.h. Taylor disappear before hitting the shelves?

For those not familiar with Oregon liquor laws.

The State owns the distilled spirits in each store. The OLCC appoints liquor store operators who are responsible for the stores' daily operations. The liquor store operator and personnel are part of a small business operation and are not state employees.

Prices are regulated so a bottle that sells for $1000+ on open market can sell in the hundreds in Oregon. If you can find one.

There are places where they never had prohibition, and people can just distill their own.

[deleted]

[removed]

Wow liquor sales are Oregon’s third largest revenue source. That’s why this is such a hot topic. It might also help explain why Buffalo Trace products are so much harder to find on the east coast.

[removed]

Would have taken you less effort to read for 10 seconds than to type a comment.

[removed]

I know the answer to this. Store owners will call their “best” accounts and will offer them the product before it comes in. So even though the state website will say it’s available, it will be spoken for and not available to the public.

Yes but a 1989 bottle of Grandpa's bathtub gin, while rare likely won't fetch much at auction.

[removed]

Specifically, the manager at Progress Liquor at 8616 SW Hall Blvd, Beaverton, OR 97008 told me this is what he does. So fuck that guy. I was able to score a bottle of Blanton’s in Astoria but the owner would only sell me one, not the two I asked for.

Texas, not Oregon, but we can’t keep Wellers on the shelf here either. My local liquor store owner told me when I asked, that they keep it in the back now, and you have to ask for it. You still have to know that’s an option, but at least it IS an option.

Oregon doesn’t trust people to pump their own gas.

It is a disaster of a state.

[removed]

The article suggests they're just drinking it.

Liquor Sales reps gonna liquor sales rep and take a little off the top.

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

This sounds like everyone I know who chases hard-to-get whiskey, but on a higher level.

Same in NC. We have the ABC board, and ABC stores. No one is allowed to sell liquor other than ABC stores.

Isn’t that how all allocated products work? That’s not nefarious.

[removed]

🤷‍♂️

Getting Dom for the price of 3 Buck Chuck is still wrong

[removed]

I asked if I could get on the list and he said no, so there’s that.

TBH as a native Oregonian I have always thought the OLCC and the way we do things with liquor was ass backwards in many ways.

[removed]

[removed]

Providing jobs for people is a disaster to this imbecile -- what a dumb take

[removed]

Not as bad though. Improper and unethical but maybe not illegal

Yeah it sucks, but generally people aren’t going to sell you rare and desirable stuff unless there’s something in it for them. Giving you the opportunity to buy it is seen as doing you a favor, so it’s generally limited to industry friends and really good customers.

It means everyday schmoes get shut out, but that’s just the way it works with allocated products.

[removed]

Fuck, this is a terrible headline. Why is the focus on painting corrupt officials as passionate liquor afficianados rather than, you know, that they're corrupt?

[removed]

well no. Ideally all the produce goes to the shelf, and it's first come first serve.

Holding aside for their best customer is code for charging more then they are allowed.

You'd think they'd at least mention a couple of the brands but nothing.

In this case, they are selling to people who ill pay more then the store is illegally allowed to charge and the owner is taking the extra money under the table.

I have less of an issue with good customers, huge issue with “friends” getting preferential opportunity to purchase rare goods. I know there’s gray market kickbacks going on. That should be criminal.

The reason is assholes are buying it up like toilet paper in the pandemic. They sell it on Facebook fairly openly.

the article makes it sound like they were just buying it for themselves, not to sell it

It's actually fantastic. I love it.

But I came form a long proud line of alcoholics(personally I hardly drink) and a state where liquor is sold everywhere.

All alcohol should be treated that way. Bear, wine and so forth.

Knowing alcoholics aren't prowling the streets drunk driving a 2am to get a bottle is nice.

​

There are many advantage to this system. I guarantee you, when it's gone a lot of Oregonians will want it back. Of course, once gone it will never come back.

Because an ethical headline and journalism doesn't presuppose guilt.

The report facts hence the reason "criminal probe" is in the headline.

And it's 100% corruption in NC.

I love it. I remember when retailers did the same thing with Cabbage Patch dolls.

This is exactly what economists would expect to happen when a price ceiling is set below equilibrium price. The government said ‘you can’t sell above X’ and so supply dropped significantly and third-parties sought to arbitrage at the equilibrium price. It results in a loss of total surplus, and a wealth transfer from sellers to third parties (and a wealth transfer from sellers to some small subset of consumers unaffected by the arbitrage). Or in simple terms: the public didn’t get to buy as much of this stuff as it otherwise would have, and third parties were able to skim part of the profits of what they did buy.

Pappy Van Winkle. Next to impossible to find at retail price.

[removed]

The article suggests they said they're drinking it. An important bit of nuance when someone has just broken trust.

It still veers far from "facts" by stretching to paint the accused in a sympathetic light. If you want to talk about what is ethical journalism and not making a presupposition of guilt then the headline shouldn't be making excuses for people accused of corrupt behaviour before all the facts are on the table.

It's still a terrible headline running reputation defense for the accused that does not match what is contained in the article. If they were being "ethical journalists" and sticking to the facts the headline would read along the lines of "lawmakers accused of using influence to obtain rare products before the public can access." That's a fact-based recap of what is happening, unlike what was written which reads as "maybe this was wrong but can you blame them when they are really big fans?"

This might shed some light.

Getting back to the story though, these were state officials that have some control of the distribution stream - and used that to profit personally. Have not read this link, but I recall several were fired recently.

Moreover, bottles this rare are typically offered by lottery where you have to win the right to buy it.

I mean, there are right and wrong ways to make sure everyone can get a chance at trying a product.

The actual Buffalo Trace distillery puts you in bourbon jail for 60 days when you purchase, so you can get one bottle of any product, the have to wait 60 days to get another. To me, this feels like a very reasonable way (though I've seen some crazy shit people have done to dodge this limit).

At this point, the bourbon retail race is dominated by flippers paying managers under the table and then immediately relisting in Facebook or Discord or any other app. So the "big accounts" are just the resellers.

Sure, flipping alcohol is super illegal, but the liquor industry is very large and is making a killing on the hype, so there is a tremendous incentive to not prosecute.

Those disappear in pretty well every control state. Heck, here in Ohio, I can’t even find plain Buffalo Trace.

The only places where they make it to shelves are were they are charging hundreds of dollars over MSRP.

> but the owner would only sell me one, not the two I asked for.

Good. There should be limits.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Excuse me, this is Reddit. Who reads the articles?

Or used it to gift to family members. Willing to put a paycheck on them reselling it for extra income.

> the public didn’t get to buy as much of this stuff as it otherwise would have,

That may have been the original intent.

[removed]

[deleted]

I have no idea how those things got so big. They're creepy af.

Exactly. Their love of flipping a $250 bottle for $2,000 is what got them in trouble.

Too bad this I just a drop in the bucket. This is happening in every town across the county with the people on your local bourbon “enthusiast”Facebook groups buying up all your favorite bourbons and selling them back to you at a 100% mark up. Retailers that hold onto these bottles and sell at huge markups as well as flippers claiming to be bourbon enthusiast, are the ones ruining the bourbon market.

I remember it was Tickle-Me-Elmo and that was crazy. You had to know people to get one.

[deleted]

He's not a sales rep. State owns the liquor. The state employee purchased the liquor at MSRP which is the only price you can sell liquor for in Oregon AFAIK.

retail price is the only price it can be sold in Oregon liquor stores.

The price ceilings they have are way above the price of 'bottom shelf' liquor. So as a policy objective, much of what it does is likely just redirect consumers to less expensive spirits.

If the goal was to limit overall alcohol consumption, they'd more likely do it with a price floor than a price ceiling (i.e., you must price above $X)

Limit the amount any single account can buy to 1 per unit of time, and I’m good with that.

Yeah, tell that to the thc

[removed]

People literally got trampled to death in the frenzy to buy tickle me elmos. Zeitgeist makes people stupid sometimes.

What would happen if you went to where it was produced, bought the bottles, and then drove to Oregon with it? Is that against the law? (I'm assuming you don't sell it and just want it for personal use.)

Self-dealing politicians? Say it ain’t so!

[removed]

So? They are benefiting either way, what’s your point

Sure, sure they were. I mean why sell it for thousands of dollars when you can just drink i, right?

Have you HAD Grandpa's 1989 bathtub gin?

[removed]

As a former bourbon drinker, I automatically assumed they meant Pappy Van Winkle, which sells for thousands a bottle, is produced in limited quantities, and is basically only available if you are friends with a liquor store owner who sells a lot.

Ooh, geez. I forgot all about that. Ridiculous times.

They're probably drinking it. Financial corruption is not really part of political culture around here.

Never seen a bottle of it in my life. Always sold before it even gets to the store

Weird… the government of Oregon has a monopoly on the import, distribution, and sales of liquor. And that was exploited but corrupt government employees. Wonder how that happened.

I skimmed the article but missed the name of the bourbon… guessing Pappy Van Winkle?

My job has like 15 bottles in the cellar. It's a whiskey bar and the people who come in usually know their shit. They never ever order it.

[removed]

[removed]

I’ve heard of $100+ shots of Pappy but never seen it either. I was a fan of Four Roses not a big enough fan I wanted to drop $3,000 on a bottle.

[deleted]

Can’t wait for them to audit the Oregon lottery and Travel Oregon in our state.

Nepotism is major fault of corruption for OLCC. Lots of old Portland families have their rich kids working there. It’s a way to have influence and power.

Yeah. I meant I wasn’t much of a fan of Buffalo Trace. I worded that badly. I was a Four Roses fan so never really had a desire to try Pappy’s.

Yep, that's what it was, and a few other rare bourbons, I think also made by Buffalo Trace. The officials who have given quotes claim that they were drinking it themselves, not reselling--but that's obviously the smart thing to say, since it's a lesser crime.

[removed]

How many stories start “I was just having a few shots”

It's big, but nowhere near third largest (page A7).

Ah thanks. Personal income tax by a large margin and everyone wonders why Texas and Florida keep growing

[removed]

[removed]

Counterpoint: I want to be able to buy booze that has a reasonable markup compared to its production/shipping costs. Not all products need to counter their scarcity by finding equilibrium, their scarcity can simply result in hype. Economics doesn't have morals, and makes poor policy as a result.

The article says that that’s what the people being investigated claim. Taking it for themselves is a less serious charge than reselling it for a profit.

It's all about the Pappy Van Winkle. Honestly, there should only be one capital crime - violation of the public trust. If you steal from the people, or use your position for personal gain, you should be hanged in the public square.

Pardon me for disagreeing, but that's a pretty naive take. Like saying you've never encountered a cougar in the woods, so there must not be any.

There's a pretty big ethical problem that comes with diverting valuable and highly limited liquor to yourself when you're the regulatory board for liquor.

OLCC don’t fuck around, that’s for sure

I've lived in this state for 43 years and worked for political campaigns.

I mean it absolutely is corrupt here, but it's more like giving your friends big nonprofit contracts. Not bag-of-cash stuff.

Different places have different political cultures.

[removed]

[removed]

When I was working at a horse track here in Kentucky they would pay $57 a bottle for 23 year Pappy.

[deleted]

High prices can hurt brand value.

Also, wealth transfer can be fair, via a lottery system for example.

Lastly, not all supply bottlenecks can be solved by higher prices.

What would you consider really good stuff

The distillery has buying limits and not all products are available in the gift shop. You have to check their website to see what is available that day.

Sp I've learned. We have a thing where the bartender at the various restaurant get to choose a bottle to take for Christmas or New Years and I was so tempted to take one of those which are gathering dust in our wine cellar. I chose Azul mezcal because that's my drink and you see, I am an alcoholic. Pappy reminds me of my old sugar daddy who was an architect from Kentucky. Country as shit but Einstein level genius. He'd fly home anytime they were released and bring back a few bottles.

Is buffalo’s trace Good?

[removed]

[deleted]

The Oregon Lottery has an annual financial report that includes a report from an independent auditor I believe, and winners are public information as well I think. Not sure on Travel Oregon.

Personal income tax tends to be the largest revenue provider in any state with it, and generally the other fees and taxes may be comparatively lower

It’s also why you tend to see things like much higher property taxes in states without income tax.

Also - as an overall trend Oregon is growing. It just gained a congressional seat.

[removed]

If they dug a bit deeper. There’s some shenanigans.

Buffalo Trace is great. They have a large portfolio of solid bourbons and ryes.

They made some of them Rare and that triggered all of the collectors.

Not the person you’re responding to but:

Friend of a friend had a liquor store hookup and got some Pappy. Broke it out for a small circle of friends the last Christmas before he moved to Zurich. While I was touched by the gesture the bourbon was… fine. I liked it but didn’t think it was worth anywhere near the hype or price.

I no longer drink much brown liquor and on the rare occasion I do, it is rum or single malt. But I would pick Blantons or Basil Hayden over Pappy, and pound for pound I’d rank Angels Envy above them all and certainly the best bang for the buck.

I'm not seeing anything to indicate they resold the bottles. The accusation is that they acquired limited volume bottles using their connections/position, which they would've otherwise not been able to acquire.

It'd be like officials requiring Ticketmaster to give them first access to all concert tickets. Even if they paid full price & didn't scalp them, they're still abusing their position to obtain something with a limited supply which they may not have been able to acquire had they waited for the general sale, & which denies the public access to those goods & services.

[removed]

What makes pappy van winkle so sought after.

James Carville talks about it as something saved for closest friends. Having never had it, I can only imagine. Sad thing is it’s so expensive you can’t even be sure you’re getting the real thing even if you do manage to get your hands on some. Maybe move to Virginia and win the annual PVW lottery?

I never tried it when I did drink and now I don’t so I probably won’t ever. I liked Basil Hayden’s and the price was right though.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The liquor stores here in Michigan always get my friend with last bottle of peach crown left can't find it anywhere 55$ and he buys it!!! 😑

I am drinking less and less these days. Honestly if someone put a couple fingers of Pappy in front of me right now I’m not sure if I’d drink it. You’re not really missing out.

[removed]