It's not at all new that the designated Grand Poobah of any site - even this one - develops a keen sense of what's working and what isn't. Perfect examples are the Preacher - who once absolutely, positively denied additives, even "liberated" members who even questioned his dictums - when finally faced with the undeniable truth (in this case the ALKO results), quickly change their tune and scamper to get in front of the parade once again.
Cowdery - who sees himself as Leader of the Lost Boyz over at the STR8boyz joint is not much different. As far as moi, things are different here. I really don't like this kind of pretension, which was exactly why I quite early on decided to call myself the Compleat Idiot of Rum, just another lover of spirits who sought truth and told that truth, regardless of personal cost. I'm just another poor mumbling soul in search of purity and honesty in spirits, whose opinion is no better than anyone elses.
As been so well demonstrated here by our very competent members.
To be fair - and unlike the Preacher - I have long had a great deal of respect for Chuck, particularly in his more than competent knowledge of the history of bourbon, and likewise a real knowledge of cooperage and aging. Still he has a few notable failings, most notably his misunderstanding of the law and the standards of identity. Last, he too has succumbed to widespread adulation and has painted himself into what I used to call the "Expert's Corner".
This is when you come to believe the hype and adulation and thus have great difficulty in admitting one's own errors. The Tate affair is a perfect example.
Let's examine the history:
1. For some reason Cowdery came to join if not lead what then became a cult following of Chip Tate, the designated "boy genius of whisky" who could literally do no wrong. Was he?
Nope. In truth Tate - who did have a romantic story (the building of his own stills in a welding shop, the early awards, etc.) - was really more of a grand experimenter in the shadow of Thomas Edison (who failed thousands of times before finally finding the singular vegetal element for his light bulb). What he was not was the master blender/distiller some came to believe him to be. Those very rare skills take generations and mentorship.
2. Although Tate - whose huge travelling ego and grandiosity led his niche followers to make him a kind of instant icon - just add alcohol! - whose products were practically all considered big winners by them, as somehow evidenced by the "awards". We know better. Few if any of us here buy into the faux awards "competitions". The truth?
His web reviews were really quite mixed or "checkered" as you may prefer. Most importantly this included the qualified opinions of the reviewers we respect: Murray, F. Paul, Ralfy, Serge, Dave Broom and Whisky Magazine, among others. Mixed reviews that recognized the uniqueness, but not necessarily the quality of products so unusual that they escape true analysis. Still not bad, but likewise, not great either.
3. Tate himself seemed to be a very difficult person. I reviewed several hours of his interviews regarding his distilling, aging and process and frankly was not particularly impressed. He seemed to take and own both sides of the questions asked - not very impressive.
4. Tate was grandiose and like the Preacher and Cowdery began to believe his own hype, on top of the flattery and reputation emanating from his rather small cult following. He actually saw himself as accelerating at supersonic speed to quickly become "the next Balvenie or Macallan". Seriously, he actually said so. He felt that he could do no wrong, and that his craft/batch products were all consistent and great and ready for a world mass market. I won't soon forget how he jumped all over a poster who claimed he'd gotten a "bad bottle", as he claimed that simply wasn't possible.
A micromanaging control freak who travelled extensively while his co-distiller Jared did much of the work for which Tate took credit.
Now let's talk about his massive self-destruction.
6. Tate made a big deal about his new $10M distillery. He'd taken on his first investor (Rockefellow) but the money just wasn't there, so in his usual can-do-no-wrong predisposition he publicly declared that he'd had plenty of offers, but was waiting for the perfect investor - which he found - and who would support his fantasy, namely to provide a pickup truck full of money without strings, that would allow him to continue to operate without adult supervision. That turned out to be his hand selected PE group.
It was then I predicted his likely failure and disappointment, and pointed out that he'd likely have trouble deferring to his new corporate minded partners who just might not see it quite his singular way and who would run the corporation as well, a corporation. As it turned out they didn't see it his way. Worse yet, they instituted controls such as daily reports, multiple check signatures and projections, heaven forbid!
Still Cowdery stood firmly behind his can-do-no-wrong boy genius. Then the proverbial shite hit the fan...
7. In less than two weeks, even I was surprised that my predictions actually came true, and to particularly ugly fruition. Tate was unceremoniously removed by a couple of sheriffs, under a no-nonsense TRO from the Court. We all know the details and they were severe, as was their basis: that gun owner Tate was alleged to have directly threatened to shoot two board members and implied the possible destruction of the distillery itself if he didn't remain in complete control. Man bites still. Both nutty and fascinating and sad too. A budding talent shooting himself in the foot.
These are not insignificant charges, and not the kind that are made without provable basis.
8. From this point forward Tate seemed to take every possible step to cripple his own company by failing to attend legally announced board meetings, thus forcing the company to act without him under the operating agreement which did seem to make such actions possible. Tate claimed the the company was unable to take actions without him, and seemed perfectly willing to allow the company to fail unless he got his way.
A massive case of seller's remorse and breath holding.
9. His way? To either buy out PE or to be bought out. The problem? His offer appeared to be insufficient, and he did not appear to have the investors to buy them out. The company had called what appeared to be a bluff and simply then bought him out, cancelled his $175,000 salary, fired him and caused him to agree to a 1-1/2 year no-compete.
If this isn't a loss, I don't know what is. Still, not a word from Cowdery while his young genius was going down in overproof flames. Meanwhile, Jared and Balcones continued to win awards, including yet another Craft Distiller of the Year - all without the Golden One.
10. It all ended with Balcones now free to carry forth their major, now a $15M expansion, with those special large Scottish Forsythe stills, a renewed and very experienced head distiller - Jared - who co-built/produced, understood and blended the products with and for Tate in the past, but now solely in charge. As for Tate? He claimed to be "breaking ground" for a new distillery in a tweet he sent out, but somehow that was the last we've heard of it or of him. A mystery, no? Not to me.
Tate will have to start from scratch, and won't be able to sell a drop until mid 2016, and probably not even then. Does he have new investors? No one knows, but ask yourself - after his bizarre showdown at Balcones, how interested would you be in risking your money? What are his plans? No one knows. What will he produce? Not a word. Is there a new Balvenie or Macallan in the works? Not likely. A location? Nope.
Not a word from the formerly, non-stop self-promoting Tate. Why not? Why the silence? You decide.
Yet, let's see what was said by Cowdery, who by now what should by now be reather well-chastised:
Cowdery has obviously noted that the old meme "...boy genius get screwed by nasty big corporation" was no longer operational. More than a few STR8boyz had even come to see Tate as "difficult" and uncooperative, and now seemed to understand his part in initiating the breakdown. A few even recognized that my essays proved to be the most accurate published. So natch, Cowdery - who once completely rejected the bad and nasty company - has now switched gears and now sees both parties in some kind of false equivalency. Still he has failed to note - even in passing - Tate's responsibility in crippling the company for his own purposes."My attitude is that the parties have settled their dispute, what was said was said, you can't unring a bell, but there is nothing to be gained by rehashing it or trying to dredge up new details. There is nothing to be gained by knowing more except to satisfy our voyeurism, which is a pretty small benefit for speculation and commentary that will inevitably be very hurtful to people who deserve more respect from us than that.
I think it's fair to say a Tate-less Balcones is a fundamentally different company. It should be judged on what it does going forward, just as Chip should be judged on what he does going forward. What they did together is on the record. It's what is to come that matters now.
All of the parties are to be commended for bringing it to a conclusion quickly and not compounding the damage already done. The most supportive thing we can do as fans is look to the future and hope both parties will do the same and thrive."
To the contrary, to Cowdery both the parties are good sweet guys now, with both "to be commended" for bringing things to some kind of sweet, friendly and figgy conclusion to now move separately into the future, each producing whisky, which he - The Cowdery - will judge for us. He wants us all to simply stop talking about it, rather than to perform the necessary post-mortem that such an amazing, man-bites-still saga really begs. Still Cowdery can't quite admit he may have wrong by continuing to insist that without his golden boy, "Balcones is fundamentally a different company". And the only party to be commended really should be the Judge who made clear he was going to trial.
Is Balcones really fundamentally different? Not really. Not a word about the key role played by Tate's former long time friend and co-distiller Jared, whose key role has not yet been told. Not a word about Balcones post-Tate awards and products. The truth: Balcones has really changed little - if anything is now improved - and intends to keep producing the same if not better products, and already some new ones, all under the guidance of one of its two co-distillers of the past.
And Tate? Not a word. Yet. The story continues, regardless of Cowdery's retreat to the middle position I once tried to pose, but which he'd roundly rejected so disrespectfully. Sorry Chuck, I still like you but you really might consider asking Chip for a piece of the humble pie he has yet to eat...
