Talk:Chivas Regal

message: My final comment would be a general one, that the addition of tasting notes to drinks entries is always likely to result in claims of bias, as tasting notes are often considered to be, by their very nature, subjective.  However, I certainly have no objections to the removal of the NPOV flag.  I made my statement on the other issue below, and I too will make no further contributions which might lead to a flame war.  Apologetic22 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: I am the offender identified below. I am not a sock puppet, but rather contributed solely on my own behalf, seeking to add citations and additional information to the entry. I apologise to those who were annoyed or irritated by the edits. Apologetic22 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Glenmorangie' sock puppets at work

message: Well according to the History, Chivas was doing a roaring export trade to America in the third decade of the 20th century:
1920s: The Chivas Brothers began to export Chivas Regal whisky to the United States, where the economic boom was fuelling demand for luxury goods. Chivas Regal became renowned as the original luxury whisky.
Hmmmmm, but wasn't the United States, throughout the 1920s, in the throes of Prohibition. 
It wasn't until 1933 that the Volstead Act was repealed so how could the USA be importing alcohol.
Is the author of this amazing fact suggesting that one of Scotland's premier whiskeys was, er, actually a major bootlegger during this period?
Thus by inference Chivas must be very pleased that their 'illustrious' history can now be associated with the likes of Scarface, Dutch and Lucky?
what a load of 'bull-chivas'!!
In addition, there is no evidence given that the Rat Pack ever drank Chivas, except an unsubstantiated claim published by Chivas themselves (cited in footnote 3 here).  In fact, Sinatra apparently expressed no interest in the brand until c1990 - when ( a coincidence, perhaps!) Chivas sponsored the elderly crooner's "Chivas Regal Diamond Jubilee Tour" and the other Rat Packers were dead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewMaitland (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: America 1920s

message: what is the correct pronounciation of Chivas?
Don't take this as official, but at a sponsorship event I went to here in London, it was pronounced shi-vass. 
* Scotsmen pronounce it Shiviss, but there are so many dialects that shiviss/shivous/shivas are all the same.Moitraanak (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Added advert tag per your concerns. Cosh (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure your clients are thrilled with all your hard work but this is an encyclopedia entry about a beverage, not a place for absurd amounts of detail about Chivas Regal advertising campaigns, whether it is verifiable or not. Reverting to my edit. Cosh (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronuniciation

message: The Chivas Regal section sounds much more like an advertising, I could not find the advertising tag, please edit the section to sound more encyclopedic.((User:Camilo Sanchez))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.243.222 (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added advert tag per your concerns. Cosh (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure your clients are thrilled with all your hard work but this is an encyclopedia entry about a beverage, not a place for absurd amounts of detail about Chivas Regal advertising campaigns, whether it is verifiable or not. Reverting to my edit. Cosh (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chivas Regal Family Section

message: Shouldn't this article make mention of the special 21 y.o. blend, Chivas Regal Royal Salute?  Either between the 18 and 25 y.o. ones, or perhaps as a special consideration?
Fxbx (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chivas Regal Royal Salute?

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Descriptions of the flavours in the 'Chivas Regal Family' section are subject to personal interpretation, cannot be fact-checked, and are unsuitable for inclusion in any encyclopedia, no less Wikipedia.
Also, as noted by the astute reader commenting about Prohibition, it appears the 'History' section is a bit revisionist; perhaps a warning should be added to indicate that someone has fussed with the history to make the company appear more licit, if it did indeed engage (even if indirectly) in bootlegging during Prohibition. Similarly, an early revision claims "seamhas" means "lucky, or blessed with fortune" while the current article (at time of this writing) claims instead the name is "derived from the Gaelic 'seamhas', meaning narrow place." I could believe the provenance of the name was disputable, but the two differing claims about the meaning of the same word imply that quite possibly neither is a correct translation, marring the article's (and in turn, Wikipedia's) credibility.
*Paul Pacult, in his book “DOUBLE SCOTCH How Chivas Regal and The Glenlivet Became Global Icons” says: “ ‘seamhas’ (pronounced shevus) is a Gaelic word for ‘prosperity’ or ‘good luck’—I checked that in my Gaelic dictionary!” P-68 Moitraanak (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. For a start, I replaced "premium" by "blended". Neither a quick google search nor the wikipedia article on Whisky could tell me what a "premium" whisky is and how one can reliably tell it apart from ordinary Whisky. This makes me believe that it is just typical hyperbolic ad-talk. In the introduction, it's IMHO more important to describe it as a blended whisky in contrast to the (superior?) single malts. --Lagerbaer (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous/inappropriate subjective language, questionable accuracy 

message: The article claims Chivas Regal is available in over 200 countries, I'd like to see some kind of reference? The UN has 193 members, and different estimates might put the total number of countries slightly above thathttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_countries_are_there_in_the_world, some say 195. So over 200 countries? Don't think so...
Jezpas (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of countries? 

message: I find this quote on the article's header, "It is not commonly drunk in Scotland, where blended whiskys are considered of poor quality," to be inaccurate at best, as The Famous Grouse, a blended Scotch, is the most popular whisky in Scotland. I argue for the removal of this line, and will proceed to remove unless someone can give a source citing the market share of blends vs. single malts in Scotland. Lycus (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity in Scotland?

message: The following link to the European Patent Registry refers .........
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB2140455&F=0
A few years ago, a friend of mine contacted Chivas Brothers Pernod Ricard on this matter and got a "no comment" response. In particular, neither Chivas (or The Scotch Whisky Association) would address questions regarding any additional consumer health risks associated with whisky treated by this process
For whatever reason, Chivas do not want this matter to be up in the public arena. If it is a legal, harmless and patented process then why keep consumers in the dark? In the interests of consumer protection, all of the details behind this process should be made public. Does anyone have further information on this matter?
Elginloone (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: UV treatment of food and beverage is very safe. Check out Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation and UV water disinfection for example. As a chemist, I can personally assure you that materials treated with UV do not have residual radioactivity. The UV may produce ozone at low levels or break down some compounds into other compounds, but neither of these would be toxic enough or in high enough concentration to cause any harm. UV treatment is not a new and cryptic procedure, and I don't think there is a consumer protection issue here at all. In the US this stuff is regulated, and I imagine it is elsewhere as well. It probably prevents a lot of infectious disease. Regards, PDCook (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, if you drink UV-treated liquids, your hair doesn't fall out, and you're not rendered infertile.  Geoff B (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chivas Whiskies Subject To Radiation? 

message: The article currently states that although it only received a bronze medal in the latest competition in which it was entered (2009), the Chivas Regal 18yr Gold Signature blended whiskey--perhaps Chivas' best-performing product--received double gold medals at the 2006 and 2008 San Francisco World Spirits Competitions. Chivas' 21-year whisky has generally garnered silver medals at the competition.
My first impression was that the whisky had finished second and third in some kind of a professional competition. When I visited their homepage, I realized that this competition has only about 30-60 participants in every category (clearly concentrating on spirits that are imported to the U.S.) and every beverage is guaranteed a bronze medal, about four in five getting silver or better! So even the cheapest, most appalling blended rot gut whiskey could claim to have "won" a bronze medal in "a spirits competition". A casual reader will surely be mislead by such dubious merits. Only award worth mentioning from this competition seems to be what they consider to be the top participant in each category (for example, the best single malt whisky according to them in 2011 was Caol Ila ). JJohannes (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Francisco Spirits Competition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chivas Regal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.talkingretail.com/a/main/063D8AEA-1B92-11D9-A258-B96F2D727A86/24D5311A-FD58-11DB-9B22-D3C69413052D/7C0BD2B6-FE2C-11DB-AD59-BF0B09059D95.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717043807/http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Speyside/Strathisla.htm to http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Speyside/Strathisla.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714114718/http://www.moodiereport.com/document.php?c_id=31&doc_id=15296 to http://www.moodiereport.com/document.php?c_id=31&doc_id=15296
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929155512/http://www.maltwhiskydistilleries.com/Distilleries/Welcome/Strathisla/tabid/65/Default.aspx to http://www.maltwhiskydistilleries.com/Distilleries/Welcome/Strathisla/tabid/65/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chivas Regal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029002801/http://www.drinksmediawire.com/afficher_cdp.asp?id=1998&lng=2 to http://www.drinksmediawire.com/afficher_cdp.asp?id=1998&lng=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chivas Regal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114110255/http://www.pernod-ricard.com/medias/resources/static/Rapport%20annuel/RA%202006/RA05-06-15%20Strategic%20Brands.pdf to http://www.pernod-ricard.com/medias/resources/static/Rapport%20annuel/RA%202006/RA05-06-15%20Strategic%20Brands.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320133019/http://www.pernod-ricard.com/medias/Finance/PDF/RapportAnnuel/RA0607-%20Magazine%20section%20uk.pdf to http://www.pernod-ricard.com/medias/Finance/PDF/RapportAnnuel/RA0607-%20Magazine%20section%20uk.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311235518/http://www.superbrands.easysite.org/files/ChivasRegal_4072.pdf to http://www.superbrands.easysite.org/files/ChivasRegal_4072.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The History section is riddled with errors! Take the first sentence: Brothers James and John Chivas, from near Ellon,[8][9] opened a grocery store in 1801 at 13 King Street, Aberdeen. BULL. James Chivas was born in 1810, John in 1814. https://www.essentialjournal.co.uk/the-story-of-chivas-regal/https://scotchwhisky.com/whiskypedia/6807/royal-strathythanThe grocery shop in question belonged to ONE owner, John Forrest. https://scotchwhisky.com/whiskypedia/2340/chivas-regal/ Whoever wrote this piece didn't replicate the actuals given in HIS OWN refs( Bold 8 and 9, inactive). Moreover, Forrest could only have sold whiskies as a vendor, since the Govt legalised distillation of whisky on payment of a licence fee and a set amount per gallon of proof spirit only in 1823. http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky/history.html He may, of course, have started distilling in 1823. This is improbable, but not impossible, because distilling till then was limited to members of The Surgeons and Barber’s Guild and/or their relatives. Five years to distill excellent whiskies? Possible, in an era that saw consumers drinking off the still.   </br>
The brothers were two of fourteen children born to Robert & Christian Chivas, living on the remote Strathythan farm in the Ellon Parish of Aberdeenshire. In 1836, aged 26 / 22 years respectively, James and John decided to leave rustic life in search of better options in Aberdeen, 20 miles away. https://www.essentialjournal.co.uk/the-story-of-chivas-regal/ Forrest had died In 1828 and his store, known for high-quality provisions, luxury goods and Blended Malt whiskies, was bought by one William Edwards. James joined Edwards in 1836, rising to partner him in 1838. http://scotchwhisky.com/whiskypedia/2340/chivas-regal/ John began working at a wholesale  footwear and clothing firm, DL Shirres and Co. in '36. This firm  would be awarded distribution rights of Chivas Bros from 1860-1886, from John Chivas’ entry till James Chivas’ death.    Edwards died in 1841 and one Charles Stewart took over. https://scotchwhisky.com/whiskypedia/2340/chivas-regal  Forrest's company, later renamed Edwards and Chivas (1828-41) and then Stewart and Chivas (1841-57), maintained its reputation for excellence and obtained a Royal Warrant to supply luxury goods to Queen Victoria in 1843. http://scotchwhisky.com/whiskypedia/2340/chivas-regal/ So, Para 2 is also wrong.</br> 
Para 4 needs rewording. I would suggest a quick glance at a blog, https://noelonwhisky.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-chivas-regal-12-year-old-blended_13.html to understand what was happening then. Do look at the last photo. The ISIN No is clearly visible and is correct. Only one of the two nos has been used in this post, as reqd by Wikipedia.  
What is not generally known is that the Chivas Brothers company came into being only in 1857, when John Chivas joined his elder brother James in his grocery, wine shop and luxury goods emporium in Aberdeen. His entry came about after James’ partner, Charles Stewart, left. Left, not died, as the two previous partners!  https://www.essentialjournal.co.uk/the-story-of-chivas-regal/  [My notes of 1989 when I visited Strathisla say that Stewart left in a disagreement over blending malt and grain whiskies secretly and illegally when holding a Royal Warrant, but I have no references. They weren’t required then.] Moreover, vatting of whiskies within Bond Warehouses was legalised in 1853 (The Forbes-Mackenzie Act?)     and the number of brands made available for sale increased overnight. 
One brewer/distiller/canny sales agent, Andrew Usher profited immensely and Pacult, Hopkins & Miller take great pain to point this out. The customer was spoiled for choice, but only the better blends survived. James had reached the corridors of power via Usher, who knew which side of his toast was buttered. They both knew of PM Henry J Temple’s plans to pull down the last barrier re sale of Scotch Whisky, viz., legalise the hitherto banned blending of Malt and Grain whiskies, by 1860. The Spirits Act, when published in 1860, was limited to distillers only. Again, Usher profited handsomely; James Chivas was left holding the can. https://noelonwhisky.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-chivas-regal-12-year-old-blended_13.htmlIt took another 3 years for grocers/winery owners to get themselves included, in an Extn to the French Treaty Act 1863. This is why/how many grocers got into the business full time-John Walker, George Ballantine, Peter Thomson of Beneagles, the Chivas brothers, William Teacher and the Berry Brothers are good examples.     I cannot vouch for refs re the Forbes Mackenzie Act of 1953 in all good faith as Jackson, Hopkins and Gregory Miller strongly do, because the Act, when googled, leads elsewhere. Try it.
The last actively occupied Chivas family member, Alexander, died in 1893 aged 37 and his wife died of shock three days later. Control was handed over to two temporary directors, Smith and Taylor, till Alexander’s mother and two sisters could meet with their son’s friend, aide and confidante, Alexander Smith, son of the a/m Mr Smith. They agreed that control of the company would be exercised by the surrogate ‘son’ Alexander Smith and their Master Blender, Charles Stewart Howard, but insisted that the brand would remain (and has remained) unchanged as Chivas Brothers Holdings, a Ltd. company till this day. In doing so, they neglected any rights Alexander Chivas’ younger but shiftless brother Charles Chivas- a bête noire banished to the USA-had in the matter of succession. Charles died in 1908 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  </br>
Para 5 is wrong! WW I screwed Chivas Bros.
Para 6: Chivas Regal was purchased by Seagrams in 1949, which enabled a much wider distribution and marketing system. Absolutely true. But one vital cog is missing. Seagrams was owned by a rich Canadian, who was not affected by WW II. But this Canadian, Samuel Bronfman, was a Jew. When the Middle East opened up as a market post oil domination/OPEC, Seagrams’ products, including Chivas Regal, were banned in the entire Arab controlled area. Phipson’s Black Dog ruled the roost till 1980, when the giant Johnnie Walker product package rolled all competition over. Chivas limped in in 2001, under Pernod Ricard. https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2018/01/parallel-trading-is-biggest-headache-for-middle-east/ </br></br>
Paras 7 and 8 need to be reworded. Para 7 needs to be made contemporary.
Seagrams was taken over by Pernod Ricard in 2001, not 2000.
In those days, the whisky industry was a total mess. Despite the 1823 Act, hardly anybody put his malts in Bond. A survey showed average storage time worked out to three months, most probably the transit time by ship to foreign ports. Those that were stored were found to be much better after three years or more; quality rose after maturation, volume dropped due angel’s share and price increased exponentially. No such barrel was ever seen in a pub. Between 1823 and 1890, after publication of Acts by the dozen, malts were being stored in Bond, for an average of SIX months! But there were a few genuine distillers who left their barrels to mature over six, ten fifteen years! But the fraud committed then is mindboggling.
* Checked ISIN nos per book. 
* F Paul Pacult features only ONCE as the author in a reference, no 18. The Preview shows only one entry. I have used only one of the two ISIN nos. I don't understand how it appears a second time as a new avatar when Published! Do check this out. [As an aside, the number 9781118045831 is correct. It is clearly visible both here and in the photograph in the blog.] Moitraanak (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  HISTORY-Requires Total Rework