Skip to main content

Big Whiskey News: Brown-Forman Early Times is Sold to Sazerac

Early Times whiskey is celebrating its 160th year — not a bad run for any brand — but it was announced this week that Brown-Forman is selling the brand to Sazerac. Brown-Forman, which has owned Early Times since 1923, is unloading the whiskey brand along with Canadian brands Canadian Mist and Collingwood — so it’s possible that this deal is more about those than it is about Early Times. More people drink Early Times than you might think, as the brand claims that it is “the seventh-largest unflavored whiskey in the United States available in markets around the world.”

“Early Times and Canadian Mist have been valued brands in our portfolio for many years, and they each have played significant roles in our company’s history,” said Lawson Whiting, president and CEO of Brown-Forman, in a prepared statement. “We are thankful to all the people who have distilled, bottled, shipped, marketed, and distributed these brands with care over the years.” Sazerac CEO and president also expressed his delight in acquiring what he called “iconic brands.”

Brown-Forman Early Times
Early Times

So what is Early Times anyway? First of all, it’s not actually a bourbon. Instead, it’s labeled as Kentucky whisky (without the “e”). This is because it is aged in a combination of new and used oak barrels, which means it cannot be legally classified as bourbon. The brand has a long history, and was a top-selling whiskey back in the first half of the 20th century (when it was actually bourbon). Nowadays it’s considered more of a bottom-shelf bottle, with its low price point partly due to the fact that aging some of the liquid that goes into the blend in used barrels helps to cut costs. There was a limited release bottled-in-bond bourbon expression that was marketed a few years ago that whiskey fans seemed to enjoy. Overall, for a low-key, low-cost whiskey, Early Times is not so bad and still sells pretty well.

Again, if you look at the history behind Sazerac’s acquisitions over the past few years, this looks like a deal that is more about the Canadian brands. The company refurbished the Old Montreal Distillery and acquired Seagram’s Canadian whiskies from Diageo in 2018, a pretty significant move into Canadian whisky territory that is now an even greater one. It’ll be interesting to see if Sazerac tinkers with the Early Times formula, leaves it as is, or banishes it to the annals of whiskey history.

Editors' Recommendations

Jonah Flicker
Jonah Flicker is a freelance writer who covers booze, travel, food, and lifestyle. His work has appeared in a variety of…
In Defense of What People Call Bad Whiskey
man drinking whiskey

A few weeks before St. Patrick's Day, in what feels like a completely different world now for reasons that don't need explaining, I was working on a story about Irish whiskey and decided to give Proper No. Twelve another try. I first sampled this blend, founded by UFC champ Conor McGregor, a few years back and, bluntly, thought it tasted like dirt. In my opinion, this was not a good whiskey -- even in the category of inexpensive Irish blends, which are not exactly known as being fine sipping whiskeys. I couldn't figure out why the whiskey was so bad, especially considering it is sourced from the dependable Northern Ireland stalwart Bushmills. Still, I found Proper No. Twelve to be thin and just unpleasant tasting. However, when I tried it again last March, I didn't find it to be nearly as objectionable. This left me wondering what could be different, and provided me with the opportunity to really think more about the concept of "bad" whiskey.

It's doubtful that the liquid in the Proper No. Twelve blend has actually changed very much, if at all, since it first came out in 2018, although it's certainly possible. Presumably the malt component at least is consistent, which is what is made at Bushmills (the grain whiskey is distilled somewhere else). But I think psychology is what is really at play here, as is the case with many whiskeys that are deemed unsavory by spirits fans. In this case, I think that Conor McGregor is an a-hole. He beats up old men in bars, he has been accused of sexual assault, and in general he just doesn't seem like a very nice person. It's very likely that this affected the way I perceived the whiskey, but why did I like it more upon tasting it again recently? I guess my antipathy towards McGregor is back of mind these days, and I was able to give it a more objective go. Look, we are all plagued by subjectivity, no matter how fair we try to be. In this case, my anti-McGregor bias may have gotten the best of me. When I revisited the whiskey, I was able to approach it more objectively and conclude that it is a serviceable, unremarkable blend. In other words, it's not great, but it's not terrible either (I still think McGregor is a dick, though).

Read more
A Brief History of The Whiskey Sour
A whiskey sour atop a table.

The Whiskey Sour officially dates back to the 1860s, but sailors in the British Navy had been drinking something very similar long before that. On long sea journeys, water was not always dependable, so to combat that, spirits were often used. Scurvy, too, was another danger on these journeys, so lemons and limes were consumed to help prevent the disease (incidentally, this is also one of the reasons why British folk are called ‘Limeys’). Finally, sugar and water were added for taste. At this point, the drink is probably starting to sound familiar. (Grog, the rum-based favorite of pirates across the seven seas, is made from the same components, substituting whiskey for the sugar cane-based spirit.)

When it comes to the official record, there are three main points of reference for the Whiskey Sour. The first written record comes in the seminal 1862 book The Bartender’s Guide: How To Mix Drinks by Jerry Thomas. The original recipe reads:

Read more
Whiskey vs Whisky: Is There Really a Difference?
whiskey vs whisky

When we were allowed to go to bars (remember the long, long ago?), we used to wish we had a nickel for every time the issue of the proper spelling of whisk(e)y would come up. By now, we'd probably be able to afford a bottle, even if it's just a cheap one. With not a whole lot else to do right now, though, it's time to set the record straight. You won't need to argue with your buddies anymore, because here is the lowdown on the whisky vs. whiskey debate.

To put it bluntly, there's absolutely no difference between the two aside from spelling. Whiskey and whisky are the same basic liquid -- they both refer to the delicious alcohol made from fermented grain mash, and aged in oak barrels for varying amounts of time. The final product will be different (bourbon vs. Scotch whisky, et cetera), but whiskey and whisky are both, in short, whisk(e)y.

Read more