Talk:100 Pipers

About Category and other stuff

@BarrelProof:, thanks for your contribution to this article. You are really doing great work for WikiProject Spirits. I just have to say few things, in how many whisky articles we see premium or non-premium category is written in lead section and that too in bracket? I have created this article just 2 days ago and I have not gone through all my own given sources in detail yet but I don't think that it is a non-premium whisky. Though personal opinions are not welcomed on Wikipedia, still I want to say that, I have tried this whisky many times and it was written on cover that its a "Premium" whisky. Also Bars keep its name in "Premium Whisky" section in menu card. I'm busy currently but I will give you source that it is a "Premium" whisky. And even if its a "Non Premium" whisky, still it is not tradition of standard wikipedia whisky article to write it as you written in first line in bracket. You can mention it elsewhere without bracket. Human3015 talk • 22:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Part of my concern is that the company uses the word "standard" over and over to describe the whisky and its market. But I don't think "standard" is a well-understood term. Here's a quote from the article:

The company says it is the "world's No. 7 standard blended Scotch", the "No. 2 standard whisky in Asia", and the "leading standard Scotch" in Thailand.

Unless someone knows what "standard" means, they can't know what any of those rankings mean. 100 Pipers is not described as being the leading "whisky", or as the leading "Scotch whisky", but as the leading "standard Scotch" or "standard whisky", so some definition of "standard" is necessary in order to understand the claim. Reading the Business Line cited source, it is clear that "standard" is a lower category than Chivas Regal, which the source calls "premium" in contrast with "standard". The article calls 100 Pipers "a locally bottled standard offering" and calls Chivas Regal "a premium imported brand". I also recall a recent conversation about 100 Pipers in relation to Black Dog Scotch Whisky, in which another editor said that 100 Pipers is not in the same class as Black Dog (see User talk:Luckydhaliwal and the article history for Black Dog Scotch Whisky – e.g., this edit). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BarrelProof, kindly read Wikipedia:No original research, we can't write our original research unless any reliable source clearly mentions that 100 Pipers is a "Non Premium" whisky. I'm deleting that word from lead. Calling it "Standard" doesn't mean that it is "non-premium", or "locally bottled" doesn't makes it "non premium" because many brands of Indian companies are known as "Premium brands". And neither we can depend on opinion of any user. We need source that it is a "non premium" whisky. --Human3015 talk • 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Per the statement above, the Business Line article is cited, and it says that "standard" is a lower category than "premium", so that is not "original research". The Pernod Ricard website and the Pernod Ricard India website also do not use the word "premium" to describe 100 Pipers, and does use the word "premium" or "ultra-premium" to describe Chivas Regal. The 100 Pipers label says "Deluxe" on it, but I don't see the word "premium" there. Of course, the words are somewhat subjective, but "standard" is the terminology that the manufacturer itself is using to describe the product, and it is reserving "premium" for a different product. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

ok, fine, so article doesn't mentions it is "non premium", there are some categories of whiskies and no whisky banner will mention any whisky as "non premium" whisky, instead they write 'regular whisky', "deluxe' or "premium" etc. We can't categories all whiskies in just two categories of "premium" and "non-premium". Because Pernods "Royal Stag" and "Imperial Blue" are also "non-premium" whiskies but 100 Pipers is 3-4 times costlier than those whiskies. So there is categorisation, like regular, deluxe, premium etc. So we should write according to source without any personal perception of facts. --Human3015 talk • 00:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some sources why we should call it as "deluxe" whisky and not "non premium". There is also a government website of Rajasthan state.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

If it is not premium whisky, then it is "deluxe" whisky.--Human3015 talk • 00:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the only reason those sources use the word "deluxe" for 100 Pipers is that it's essentially part of the brand name, as it is written on the label. I don't think there's really a meaningful market-segment category called "deluxe". My primary interest, as I said, is just to identify what "standard" might mean, since the rankings are expressed within the (otherwise undefined) "standard" category. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• If you have a look at this government pricing of various spirit brands see here], then you will notice that "100 Pipers" is costliest after Chivas Regal. 100 Pipers is even costlier than Ballantines and 3 times more costlier than Blenders Pride(Premium brand). 12 year version of "100 Pipers" is costlier than Black Dog, other versions are not less than Black Dog. So don't undervalue "100 Pipers", it may not be famous where you live, but it is actually a quality liquor, and we can write it as "deluxe", not "non premium". I will add more....--Human3015 talk • 00:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

De luxe is a category of whisky, not part of name, see this Telegraph news, [4] also read [5], in this article they have mentioned about special category of deluxe whiskies and also mentioned that deluxe whiskies are more costlier. Read both sources, Deluxe whiskies are actually "Super-Premium Whiskies"(so called).--Human3015 talk • 01:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be nice to find more independent sources that describe the brand and its quality / market segment in some reasonably objective manner. I haven't been able to find much. For example, according to proof66.com (http://www.proof66.com/whiskey/seagrams-100-pipers-scotch-whisky.html), none of the three spirit ratings agencies that they ordinarily use have reviewed the brand. The article is currently relying substantially on what the manufacturer itself says, which will inevitably be somewhat non-neutral and optimistic. They express rankings in the "standard blended Scotch" category, but don't provide any clear definition of what that category is, so the rankings border on being useless. Incidentally, thank you for launching the article. I think it is a good addition to Wikipedia. I do not want to give the impression that I don't appreciate your work. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of "deluxe" in that Telegraph article and the meaning of it on the label of 100 Pipers are clearly two different things. That article is talking about true super-premium, e.g., the discussion of the £3,750 single malt and the two others priced at £10,000 each at the beginning of the article. That is not a description that fits 100 Pipers. And the other (SWA) reference has a very vague definition ("a higher proportion of carefully selected older and ,therefore, more expensive whiskies"? Higher proportion relative to what? How much higher? How much older? Older than what? How "carefully selected" are they talking about? How much more expensive?). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating my work. My main issue was about not to use word "non premium", because relatively cheap liquor like Royal Stag or "Imperial Blue" are also "non premium", even any low quality home made whisky can be categorised as "Non Premium". Any whisky other than "Premium Whiskies" can be called as "Non Premium" even if it is of lowest quality or high quality, cheap or costly. Its like calling 2nd or 5th ranked student in the class as "he is not first ranked" which don't suggest us whether he is 21st ranked or 100th ranked and it will not suggest us real quality if that student. We should specify that "this student is 2nd or 5th ranked" to distinguish him from rest of other 100 low ranked students even if he is not 1st ranked. Word "Non Premium" was misleading so I just suggested closest word related to "100 Pipers" which can suggest real quality or category of that whisky. And I found "Deluxe" as nearest associated word. I'm not insisting to use word "Deluxe", I'm just against using word "Non Premium". --Human3015 talk • 02:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

After thinking more about it, I agree with dropping "non-premium", since the term is rather subjective and the brand obviously sells at a premium price relative to the average whisky consumed in India and Thailand. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "standard whisky" just refers to whisky made from a grain mash (e.g., in contrast to whisky made from molasses, which is a common practice for Indian whisky, but which would not be legally classified as whisky in some other countries). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Seagram and Pernod Ricard

@BarrelProof:, let me clarify you on Seagram, you can also read it in Seagram article, this company no more exists, it is defunct since 2000. Pernod Ricard's brands uses names like"Seagram's Royal Stag" or "Seagram's 100 Pipers" just to give "tribute" to old name and old company. Seagram=Pernod Ricard, it is not "division" of pernod ricard. You can read it on various sources, even I can give you. --Human3015 talk • 19:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That might be true, but we are citing at least one apparently-reliable source that talks about Seagram as if it's a distinct part of Pernod Ricard – see the article with the title "Seagram identifies 5 core brands to build spirits biz". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This can be the better source. New York Times news [6] says that Seagram is owned or purchased by PR and Diageo. So if we are calling Seagram as a subdivision of PR then should we also call it as subdivision of Diageo?? PR still uses name of "Seagram" to give "tribute" or to maintain some historic sense or as a "trivia". Diageo don't use "Seagram" name. Seagram don't have any existence, and name "seagram" is only used by PR, so here "Seagram means Pernod Ricard".--Human3015 talk • 19:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know whether there is a distinct division/subsidiary of Pernod Ricard called Seagram's or not – perhaps not. Please go ahead and adjust the article as you think appropriate. But there are still other well-known products marketed as "Seagram's" that are not Pernod Ricard (or Diageo) products. An example is the Seagram's line of soda drinks, which are Coca-Cola Company products. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is because after 2000, in 2002 Coca Cola bought some stakes of Seagram from PR and Diageo. read this another New York Times news. I think everyone is giving "tribute" to Seagram. There is nothing such company named "Seagram" exists today. I will make some minor changes in article. --Human3015 talk • 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In which countries is 100 Pipers Blended Scotch whisky bottled?

The last line of the opening para says 100 Pipers is bottled in Scotland, with photographic evidence. Matters have changed considerably since the last review. This brand is ALSO bottled in India to reduce import duty from 150% to 30%.

Label showing bottled in India

File:Cropped rear label of 100 Pipers bottle

Clear image Bottled in Scotland

References