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…
Wild Turkey Releases Two New Limited Edition Whiskeys

Wild Turkey is one of those Kentucky whiskey brands that doesn't really need to expand its core lineup. After all, what it's known for is quality and affordability, two things that sometimes can be hard to find together. In other words, master distillers Eddie and Jimmy Russell can confidently rest on their laurels. But over the past few years expansion is exactly what the distillery has been doing, with the ultra premium Master's Keep series and additions to the Russell's Reserve brand. Now you can look for two more whiskeys with flags flying under the Wild Turkey banner, one from the aforementioned Master's Keep series, the other a new barrel-proof rye whiskey that is part of the Rare Breed lineup.

Master’s Keep Bottled in Bond is the fifth release under this banner of pricey, limited-release whiskeys. It's a 17-year-old bourbon, and the second Wild Turkey release to carry the BIB designation (the first was the 15-year-old American Spirit released over a decade ago, according to the brand). “With our own Master’s Keep Bottled In Bond, we took the historic process and protocol of aging for four years to the next level and allowed the liquid to rest for 17 years,” said Eddie Russell in a prepared statement. “We aged and perfected this rare, 17-year-old bourbon in Wild Turkey’s Camp Nelson rickhouses. This expression is a nod to the past, both our own heritage and the heritage of American whiskey-making as a craft.” Per the BIB rules, the whiskey is bottled at 100 proof, at least four years old, and is the product of one distilling season from one distillery. It's rich and delicious, with a creamy mouthfeel and strong notes of tannin, cherry, chocolate, and prune on the palate. This bourbon was bottled just in time -- it might have gone south after another year or two in the barrel. But as it is, it's a winner. It's not cheap at $175 for a bottle, but for those willing to spend some cash on a high-quality, older-than-usual bourbon, it's certainly worth it.

Read more
A Comparison of 3 New Batches of Barrel Strength Whiskey
Whiskey in a glass

Whiskey fans love to dissect their favorite releases, deciphering what flavors and aromas they can pick up on the nose and palate as they somberly consider just what makes the whiskey so good (or bad). And one especially fun way to do this is when whiskey is released in batches, from year to year or sometimes several times throughout the year. This way, you can really compare and contrast the difference between the casks selected to see how the differences in proof, age, and other factors affect your perception. And this is particularly when it comes to barrel proof whiskey, which truly captures the character of the liquid. Here are three recent barrel-proof whiskeys, each compared to its previous incarnation to see which comes out on top.
Templeton Rye

The difference between the 2019 and 2020 editions of Templeton's Barrel Proof Rye makes itself known with the first sip. The 2019 version of this 95% rye-sourced from MGP is slightly higher in proof -- 115.8 compared to 2020's 113.1. But the real difference is revealed on the palate. 2019 starts with a cherry blast, followed by big spice notes, with some cocoa to chase it down. 2020, on the other hand, is all about caramel and vanilla, with the baking spice flavors and even some menthol taking a supporting role. Overall, I found the 2020 to be the superior batch, with a slightly sweeter and softer palate and a silkier, more satisfying mouthfeel.
Elijah Craig Barrel Proof

Read more
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