![]() |
| Some of Park & Tilford's fine perfumes. |
![]() |
| Some of Park & Tilford's fine perfumes. |
![]() |
| The Nearest Green Distillery in Shelbyville, Tennessee. |
There are many acts still to play out in the psychodrama the Uncle Nearest case has become, but I've been thinking about the endgame.
As a business, Uncle Nearest is a basket case. The value of the company's tangible assets is a fraction of its indebtedness. Whatever an asset sale brings in will go to the bank, which leaves nothing for other debtors, company principals, or investors.
The wildcard is the company's intangible asset, the Uncle Nearest brand. Its value is between nothing and infinity. The receiver is supposed to protect and preserve the value of all assets but especially that one, which is why there is a receivership and not a bankruptcy.
Despite the receivership, the various expressions of Uncle Nearest Whiskey are still available for sale in liquor stores throughout the nation. As big as this story has been for those of us who follow these things, it is likely most Uncle Nearest customers are unaware of the turmoil, or only vaguely aware of it. Sales are off, as they are throughout the distilled spirits industry, but they have not cratered.
Therefore, there is an expectation that however this sorts out, and regardless of who winds up owning it, the production and sale of Uncle Nearest Whiskey will continue. Getting accurate sales figures is something the receiver has struggled with. Like everything else, the company's books are a mess, but a good estimate is about 150,000 cases a year. Traditionally, a brand isn't considered 'major' unless it sells at least one million cases a year, but most producers consider a brand 'viable' if it sells at least 20,000 cases, so 150,000 is substantial and, being still a young brand, it has growth potential.
For comparison purposes, Jack Daniel's sells about 9M cases annually. Smirnoff vodka sells about 24M.
But at 150,000 cases, Uncle Nearest's business is too valuable to not keep going, right?
Maybe not.
Brands do die and disappear. Some are remembered; most aren't. Sunny Brook was one of the biggest bourbon brands pre-Prohibition. It's no longer sold and only serious history geeks have ever heard of it.
Does the Uncle Nearest brand have what it takes to continue and thrive under different ownership and leadership? That may well depend on deposed CEO Fawn Weaver. Can you imagine her going to work for Diageo or Suntory as a brand ambassador? Can the brand continue if she's not involved? What if she's hostile to the new owners? That's a definite possibility since she has already made statements about the brand being "stolen" from her.
Those are questions any potential buyer of the Uncle Nearest trademark will have to answer.
Consider Diageo's Bulleit Frontier Whiskey. It survived the controversy surrounding father and daughter brand ambassadors Tom and Hollis Bulleit with barely a ripple. Maybe that's because Diageo immediately cut all ties to the family. 'Bulleit' is now just a name on the bottle. The Bulleit family no longer has a role. It's not a perfect comparison because both Bulleits were already Diageo employees. They had no ownership stake.
All this got me thinking about Uncle Nearest himself, Nathan 'Nearest' Green, the formerly enslaved man who "taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey."
A lot of the Uncle Nearest story is puffery. There's nothing wrong with that. Most brand stories are replete with puffery. Believe it or not, "puffery" is a legal term. It refers to "exaggerated or hyperbolic statements that are so clearly promotional and subjective that no ordinary person would take them as literal facts."
I like the Uncle Nearest story and hope the brand survives, but Nathan Green is significant only because Jack Daniel is significant. It is likely every American whiskey company with mid-19th century roots has an Uncle Nearest somewhere in its story. "Uncle" and "aunt" were permissible ways to respectfully refer to a Black man or woman, if you were white, at a time when referring to a Black man as "mister" could get you killed.
In part, Nearest Green is important precisely because we know about him, so he stands in for the thousands of anonymous Black workers, enslaved or emancipated, who ran stills and made whiskey for white owners.
We have few records that name the enslaved men and women who worked in distilleries. It's likely that when slavery was legal in all the English colonies, most distilleries used that labor force. The first major commercial distilled spirits industry in Colonial America was New England rum, made from molasses, a byproduct of sugar refining. It was shipped from Great Britain's Caribbean colonies to its colonies in New England. Virtually all of the labor in the Caribbean sugar colonies was enslaved. It's likely that carried over to the New England distilleries. Massachusetts didn't abolish slavery until 1783.
Enslaved men and women who had special skills were often rented out by their owners. A skilled distiller would have been much in demand and would fetch a high price. As much as we romanticize it today, distilling in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries was hard, hot, and dangerous. That's exactly the kind of work enslaved people did, the hard, hot, and dangerous kind.
This reality has long been a problem for whiskey marketers, many of whom use history (real or imagined) in their brand stories. Early Times Bourbon had a famous sign that hung in bars and liquor stores depicting a frontier distillery. They produced thousands of them, which you can find on eBay. It showed several workers doing various tasks. Every face was black. In later years, they produced the same design with white faces. In the final iteration the distillery scene was the same except with no people of any color. No workers were shown.
"But what about Uncle Nearest inventing the Lincoln County Process of charcoal filtering?" Sorry but, no. He didn't. That's part of the puffery. Charcoal filtering using maple wood charcoal was common practice in Tennessee and elsewhere before Nathan Green and Jack Daniel were even born.
"But doesn't it count for something that he was involved in starting a whiskey that became the most popular whiskey in the world?" Okay, sure, but Jack Daniel's didn't become the brand it is today because of Nathan Green, Jack Daniel, or Lem Motlow. It became hugely successful through the efforts of the company that bought it from the Motlow family in 1956, Brown-Forman.
At the time of that sale, Jack Daniel's was successful and growing, but it wasn't #1. That came much, much later.
What is unique is that the Green and Daniel/Motlow families had an ongoing relationship, into the present day, and although Green's story wasn't widely known outside of the Lynchburg community until 2016, it was always known there.
Most Uncle Nearest customers, like most whiskey consumers, don't know a lot about the brands they buy or the companies that produce them, and what they know or think they know may not be accurate. Most don't know, for example, that although there is a still at the Nearest Green Distillery in Shelbyville, no whiskey is made there. It's a real still that could make whiskey, but they never finished installing it.
Most of the whiskey sold under the Uncle Nearest label is made at Tennessee Distilling Group (TDG), a contract distiller located about 40 miles west of Shelbyville in Columbia. TDG would love to keep making it, but they probably aren't willing or able to market and distribute it themselves, even if they obtained the rights.
But maybe I'm wrong. Just last month, TDG bought an Irish whiskey distillery, Waterford, out of receivership.
So, if the Uncle Nearest brand survives and thrives, it won't be because of those legacies, it will be because a base of consumers have adopted the brand. If that adoption can be nurtured and expanded, then the brand has a future. If its stewards, whoever they turn out to be, succeed at that, then it has a chance. If they fail, it doesn't.
![]() |
| Krogman made many different products post-Prohibition. |
![]() |
| Krogman's jugs are a popular collectible in the Tell City area. |
![]() |
| The Krogman Distillery in Tell City, Indiana, post-Prohibition. |
Matt Colglazier is Chief Merchandising Officer at Big Red Liquors, a chain of retail liquor stores with 103 locations throughout Indiana.
If you know the name "Krogman's," it's probably from a side project Colglazier did in 2019, called Krogman's Old Master. Although the website is still there, the whiskey is long gone. Here's the story.
"Born in Tell City, Indiana, this pre-prohibition brand is back and better than ever! Two 90 proof expressions of bourbon and rye, along with the most unique single barrel offering in the country. Bottling nine different MGP mashbills as non-chill filtered, cask strength, single barrels, which are individually selected, and each given a unique nickname. Collect them all, and taste every recipe from one of the world’s premier whiskey distilleries. Hand-bottled in Bloomington, Indiana. No BS, just full disclosure barrel proof, single barrel all day long!"
| An original bottle of Krogman's Old Master Bourbon. |
But there is more to the Tell City and Krogman's story. Much more.
In 1856, a group of German-speaking Swiss immigrants met in Cincinnati to organize the Swiss Colonization Society. They acquired 4,000 acres on the Ohio River between Louisville and Owensboro in Perry County, Indiana. They named it Tell City, after the mythological Swiss hero, William Tell.
![]() |
| A rolling billboard for Old Forester and other Brown-Forman brands at the company headquarters and distillery on Dixie Highway in Louisville (1936). |
Today Bloomberg and Reuters, two generally reliable news sources, reported that Brown-Forman and Pernod Ricard are in talks about a merger of some sort. The reports are based on anonymous sources and neither company has confirmed anything, but the story is being widely reported with headlines like this one from the Lexington Herald-Leader. "Reports: Kentucky whiskey company Brown-Forman, Pernod Ricard in merger talks."
This pops up whenever there is upheaval in the distilled spirits industry. On paper, Brown-Forman looks like a great acquisition. It has one superior brand and a couple of pretty good ones, primarily in the American whiskey space. It's a well-run company, profitable, and not overloaded with debt.
Pernod Ricard is the world's #2 distilled spirits company after Diageo, with annual gross sales of $12.3B. It owns Absolut Vodka, Jameson Irish Whiskey, Chivas Regal Scotch, Martell Cognac, Havana Club Rum, and a bunch of others. Though well-endowed with Scotch and Irish whiskey, it is light on American whiskey, although it owns a few craft producers such as Kentucky's Jefferson's and Rabbit Hole, West Virginia's Smooth Ambler, and Fort Worth's Firestone & Robertson, which produces the TX Whiskey brand.
Usually when these Brown-Forman merger rumors appear the finger is pointed at Bacardi, sometimes Diageo.
Is Brown-Forman in play? Probably not, inasmuch as these rumors have always fizzled in the past. Although publicly traded, Brown-Forman is still controlled by the Brown family. They're generally happy with things the way they are. It would be very hard, perhaps impossible, for a determined suitor to force a sale.
I've always heard that the Brown family doesn't like the Bacardi family, which is why that tie-up always falters. I don't know how they feel about the Ricard family.
An observation: When I made the "Made and Bottled in Kentucky" documentary, I mentioned in the script that Brown-Forman was then "a three-billion dollar company." If I remember correctly, that was their gross sales for the previous year. That was 30+ years ago. Brown-Forman's gross sales for 2024 were $5.32B. Considering inflation, the company may actually be smaller today. That may tell you more about the distilled spirits business than it does about one particular company.
By contrast, Brown-Forman's principal rival in the American whiskey space, Suntory, is much bigger than Jim Beam Brands was 30 years ago, but they have grown by acquisitions more so than by growing their core business. Brown-Forman has bought some brands over the years, but I don't think they've bought a rival company since the 1950s, when they bought Jack Daniel's.
Booze is a good business but it's not AI. There's not a lot of potential for growth. The market generally dislikes diversification so that leaves acquisition as the only path to growth, and the liquor business seems to be hard on its #2. When Diageo passed Seagram's as #1 at the end of the 20th century, Seagram's went out of business.
One peculiarity of the American whiskey business is that the four largest distillers, who together make about seventy percent of America's whiskey, are all closely held. Some of Brown-Forman's stock is publicly traded. The other three, Suntory, Sazerac, and Heaven Hill, are entirely family owned. In all three cases, the principal shareholder is a man in his 80s.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Late today, after this posted, Brown-Forman confirmed that it is exploring "a merger of equals" with Pernod.
![]() |
| Fawn Weaver and company, startled by the Harold Washington animatronic at the DuSable Museum in Chicago, June 25, 2024. |