"From field to bottle Kirkland Signature American Vodka uses only the finest 100% American heartland grains and pure spring water to create this special vodka."
Not the cheapest it's been but still a good price on this quality vodka. IMO it is better than other so called "top shelf" vodkas such as belvedere and grey goose.
I was told this is made in the same factory as grey goose or is that just for america?
That's the rumour. They'd never be able to confirm if it were true. After a quick Google it's on occasion rated better than grey goose in blind tests. Also learned this is $19.99 in the US. It would be dangerous having it that cheap around me 😂
I really want to see someone sell a Vodka made with tap water or dirty spring water
Plenty of alcoholic drinks made in countries with very poor water quality.
Highly recommend this. Great drop and always my go to when Im at costco.
How does this compare to Absolut? Price wise they are almost identical (based on volume) - https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/693954 ?
Way better than Absolut in my opinion. It's smoother and if you are mixing it in cocktails or with anything you normally would, I find it works really well. This is more comparable with Grey Goose and Belvedere but for a fraction of the cost of those.
Lol, as if Costco homebrand vodka sold by the 1.75L bulk family size bottle is going to be high end vodka.
I'd buy it if it were cheap, there's plenty of cheap vodkas that are quite good, but that's a stupid amount of money to spend on, and a stupid amount of, mediocre vodka to be stuck with.
Its won (or the Costco Vodka labelled as French has) a bunch of taste offs from bar tenders etc… I recommend a read up on it at least.
Its Vodka, not Scotch or Bourbon which is aged in barrels that cost huge money and then stored for years etc. Vodka is more like Moonshine and they way they make it strips out most of the bases flavours. You can add them back in or others too, but thats like saying you can taste the cola. Of course you can. Top shelf Vodka is a marketing ploy. Theres good vodka and crap vodka, thats about it.
Theres some older articles too… but this is current.
"but thats like saying you can taste the cola"
Huh?
"Vodka is more like Moonshine and they way they make it strips out most of the bases flavours."
As someone with a chemistry degree or two, I'm familiar with the technicalities. However, I'd suggest that vodka having very minimal flavour outside of water and ethanol means that small impurities are far easier to detect when neat than in something that's been leaching charcoal and wood sugars etc from oak for several years. That's why some vodkas have offensive aftertastes, smell like acetone, have excessive burn, etc etc etc. Impurities /can/ be introduced after distillation, afterall.
The differences between brands do narrow as you get past the bulk industrial distillers and toward the companies that have a clue, but that's not to say they then disappear entirely. I disagree on your binary analysis.
"Top shelf Vodka is a marketing ploy."
Of course it is. That doesn't change the fact that high end vodka, as in, from a taster's perspective are good, rather than marketing defined, is distinctly different from cheap or even mediocre vodka. Personally I like Beluga, but there are a small handful of others in the sub $40/700ml region that are very, very drinkable too.
Sure, for the vast majority of people maybe Costco's gigantic bulk bottle of 40% ethanol at a $54.3/L price (non-sale) being somewhat higher than many mainstream brands (and hidden gems) is good enough - but I would posit that for those people, even cheaper, more conveniently proportioned brands exist and would do likewise.
PS: I read your link, but all it talked about was some opinions of the author, some speculation that because there are some similarities in production (e.g. water source and 6x distillation) it might be the very same product as grey goose, and an uncited mention of a blind taste test. Shrug.
Wow, defensive… and not very sciency in your analysis. Like your initial statement.
The Vodkas themselves, Costco have a few Vodkas and other spirits especially in the US (but no distilleries). And for a long time, two of their Vodkas have been widely speculated to be made by the same factories as 2 'top shelf' Vodkas, one Kirklands French Vodka @Grey Goose, and One American Vodka, @Titos. Thats the point of those references in said article. He didnt start the conversation, and it goes back probably 10 years. But its irrelevant if its Grey Goose, or a White Duck and it was never the point. Did they not teach you comprehension? Was it not necessary for your 'courses'? The reason for the speculation and discussion in the article, and the reason you MIGHT want to read wider before making your ASSUMPTION its not worth the money because it comes in volume, is how widely believed that it was Grey Goose. And as a scientist you should be pleased, not shrugging to see his attempt to not only be honest, but use evidence to show its not at least, from Grey Goose or Titos. By the way, the Costco French Vodka at some point was made in the same village as Grey Goose, using the same source of water… at least I recall that tidbit. I linked the more current article because the writer at least demonstrates sound reasoning as to why its not Grey Goose, data obtained as a result of liquor laws in the US. Capisce? But he fact he had to, is the reason for linking it.
But the point, look up as it appears to fly over your head… people in the know, that is drinkers and servers, tasters and other people who enjoy a vodka, thought it might be by taste. Ergo, its like "top shelf" Vodkas to consume, and not as you ASSUMED. Google would have found you plenty of articles on the subject. Hardly seems likely it would taste like bad vodka. << Point. Whats clear is Costco dont make it, but someone does, and they do it well.
And I stand by the comment, plenty good scientists and chemists with proven bona fides have said the same about the quality of any vodka. Pretty much all you can do is keep it clean, as I said, and you pretty much repeated. The barrel flavours in relationship to the other spirits was the point as to why they have different character from themselves batch to batch, and between makers. And why there is a 'top shelf', and can command a higher price with their small batches for example. Whether it be the costly old barrel that once aged Sherry or Madeira etc, or the new White Oak barrels for Bourbon. They are more wine like (not wine) in their complexity than the Moonshine that birthed them, and Vodka. Moonshine becomes Bourbon, or Irish or American Whiskey with the added step of a tasty barrel and aging. Vodka is quick and remains more 'shiney', until we add back flavours, ergo the reference to cola, which many drink it with as a mixer anyway but it was said as an allegory to PUTTING back flavour and how un 'top shelf' that is.
Its either good or bad…clean or not, but not top shelf.
@Tuba: LOL … "Sciency" ? … I don't even know whether to take you seriously.
The article you linked doesn't have any 'evidence' per se. In fact, it literally has one external citation in total! At first she mentions other's pure speculation that it's the same thing as luxury brands - Okay? She claims Kirkland's beat grey goose in taste tests, but fails to substantiate that or even discuss it. She claims it's made at Gayant Distillery, with a pretty typical 5x distillation count (as opposed to GG's single) - Okay? It goes on and on to compare it to GG, concluding that it's not GG. Okay? If the point isn't that it might be grey goose, then why would you literally link an article where that's literally the point of the article, and there's nothing more than a throwaway statement about the taste tests or whatever? The article is titled "Who makes Kirklands Vodka" and she goes on about grey goose for half the article. If you wanted to talk about the quality being high, then obviously it would've made more sense to actually link an article with that as the topic - or at least direct to one of these taste testing competitions. The fact that some unknown people may have confused it for GG without even a proper citation of that fact is pretty flimsy evidence for anything. Meanwhile, the single external article linked as a reference has this absolute gem:
"one expert told Business Insider that it ultimately doesn't matter because there isn't much difference between expensive and cheap vodkas anyway. "Vodka is purely marketing — there is nothing special about it," Fred Minnick, a bestselling author and spirits-tasting expert, told Business Insider. "It is meant to be thrown in with something else and take on the character of whatever it is mixed with.""
LOL. I mean, wow. We're taking our advice from experts who are basically treating vodka like a college student? 'Yeah nah, just throw any old crap into some mixer and have at lol'. What absolut nonsense (pun intended), especially considering that vodka is traditionally drunk neat. It must be these tasting savants that are judging whether it's the same as Grey Goose, is it? Hah. That's precisely why I mentioned that if all you want is a mixer vodka that isn't complete ass, you would very likely find equally fine, cheaper options at Dan's all year round, without the obnoxious 1.75L size. As an aside, again, I am being specific when I say high end instead of top shelf. The latter is actually a specific marketing move in bars (the 'best' liquor goes on the top shelf), the former is an evaluation that can be independent of cost and marketing.
At this point I find it hilarious that you've accused me of being defensive, when clearly I've touched a nerve and you're not handling it so well. What's this allcaps, sarcastic comment and rude rhetorical question nonsense? Hardly very 'sciency', is it?
I'm not sure why you've written an entire paragraph about the differences between aged spirts and unaged spirit like Vodka given that we've already covered that - But you've entirely missed MY point, haven't you? … Which is to say that without all of those additional strong flavours from aging in barrels, the remaining ingredients (primarily water and ethanol) are very poor at covering up any nasty flavours that may be present for any reason (I've often heard this described as 'transparency' - not as in the colour). That's why small differences in vodka, and whether e.g. someone adds additives such as glycerin, or it has impurities, or what quality of water they use - makes a far larger impact (when drunk neat, of course) than with any aged spirit. How can you simultaneously 'cite' taste-offs as evidence, but then state that there is no difference between 'good' vodkas? In conclusion, yes - there definitely is noticeable differences between even high end vodkas.
Assuming you're not a college student tier 'expert' who thinks the only purpose of vodka is to throw it into mixers ;)
@Grazz989: No… she makes zero claims really, except that its NOT Grey Goose, and that there is a long history of the view it was Grey Goose. The claims of taste offs etc, predate her article by a decade. Youre just unaware, ignorant, uneducated, been under a rock.. about the world wide phenomena, a widely held belief that Kirklands French Vodka was made by Grey Goose. Past, 10 years, history did. The author is responding to that HYPE in 2022 and saying, definitively, it is not Grey Goose. The author claims very little. But the phenomena, proves your original post WRONG. Grow up. Either people cant tell, or its good to drink. And a lot of people have tested it, worldwide. It would have been misleading of me to post links to the articles claiming it was Grey Goose, when its clearly not. Again, the fact people, and so many of them, around the planet, thought it was is the purpose of the post.
Do you know what Google is?
Buddy, you CLAIMED BASED ON ASSUMPTION, LEAPT TO THE CONCLUSION. Not very sciency. Capisce yet? That this must be 'mediocre' Vodka…
I missed nadda. But youre desperate to be right… or maybe cling to the pretense something you consume is top shelf?
vodka, distilled liquor, clear and colourless and without definite aroma or taste, ranging in alcoholic content from about 40 to 55 percent. Because it is highly neutral, flavouring substances having been mainly eliminated during processing, it can be made from a mash of the cheapest and most readily available raw materials suitable for fermentation. Cereal grains were traditionally employed in Russia and Poland; later potatoes were used increasingly there and in other vodka-producing countries.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/vodka
The bold… it distills down to its either good or bad vodka… not top shelf. Top shelf comes from the blend… the barrel… the aging… skill of the blender… the rarity. None of it is in Vodka that is repeatedly filtered and distilled with good ingredients… or bad in the case of bad vodka. Its so easy, you could probably do it.
I never claimed science bona fides, you did. The raw nerve is yours. You assumed, and have had your ass handed to you by a novice. Caps is because from post 1 youve demonstrated an inability to see a point that isnt your own. You pulled the "Im an expert card" when you were challenged for making assumptions that have already been disproved globally. Costco obviously goes to a lot of effort to ensure its Vodkas at least, are good vodka, regardless of the jug it comes in.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cant stop them pissing in it while they drink.
@Tuba: Hah - It truly is amusing to see you throw more and more capital letters in, and then pretend you're not a little mad ;)
Also amusing to hear you bang on even further about the grey goose thing - Despite it being completely irrelevant according to your own admission (and uncited STILL, btw). Even if the phenomena is real, it proves absolutely nothing whatsoever? Other than, of course, that people who drink their vodka with mixers might mistake a vodka obviously intended to copy GG … As GG? Lol, you sure showed me with that trivia!
I've got to put you out of your misery on one point - The word is 'scientific' (or, better, the term 'scientifically rigorous'). Y'know, as is common knowledge.
I also find it amusing that you are exercising some fine doublethink here - On one hand, you are desperate to laud Kirkland's vodka as being as good as, if not better than, GG. On the other, you stress that there are no differences whatsoever between vodkas, other than the binary of 'good' or 'bad' (a laughable notion in and of itself, of course).
Of course, britannica is an authority on the subtitles of vodka is it? Okay … well even if we were to presume that, you've shot yourself in the foot because the definition you've provided and even bolded, literally provides my point: The aroma and taste isn't 'definite'. It's subtly different from example to example. You can't point at a vodka and say something like "this tastes like wood sugars with hints of caramel" like you can with bourbon, and be confident you're close to the mark. Further - It means that the inevitable impurities and any additions to the vodka, as well as the quality of the water, makes a far larger impact and is more easily differentiated, precisely because there is no strong 'definite aroma or taste'. Pointing at a definition of vodka as such and proclaiming that there can't be any meaningful differences between vodkas, is as ridiculous as pointing at the definition of 'cola' and pretending that there cannot be any differences in those, either - because the definition just says they all taste like Cola nut, and that's it! (Please don't tell me you're the kind of person who can't tell the difference between colas …)
Can you genuinely not comprehend the concept that - even if the bolded words were some absolute pinnacle to aim for - that there may be varying degrees of success? That, even if your only goal was to obtain literally molecularly perfect 60% water, 40% ethanol, then the result of thousands of distilleries trying to achieve that goal would result in a thousand qualitatively and quantitatively different results, and not simply 'success' and 'failure'?
Sir, I understand you're confused and your ass is sore but please try and keep the vulgarities to a minimum.
@Grazz989: Google it… at least try to act like youre educated and reading and research is second nature to you.
Varying degrees of success? Yep, good and bad… as said from the start. And missed by you every time, in desperation to protect your ignorant assumption. It remains true, it cant be top shelf. There is no grounds to think it needs to be pricey to be good, or cant come in volume. At least try to remember your own claims. I never said all vodkas are the same. Just they can only be good or bad. If its clean, its clean. If its not, its not. If you like the impurity, intentional or otherwise, thats a choice. No one said all vodka is the same, its you that appears to be confused.
Kirklands, shared geography with GG and likely used the same water and skill of locals, if not the same factory. Its much more than cant tell. You would know this if you had a shred of research skill, at least that geography is part of the claim and the history of the 'trivia'. I never went there myself to see. Not that "cant tell" proves your point better than it proves mine. Youre also assuming they all drink it mixed. So much unsciency.
Im not desperate to laud Kirklands at all. Ill buy Absolut and Finlandia if I drink it. Costco is too far away from me.
Sciency?… lol that you cant see it for what it is.
@Tuba: What is there that's relevant here to google? Literally? Anecdotes aren't proper evidence (with respect to Wolfinger), afterall. It's not like the concepts here are hard to understand. That's even, of course, discounting the fact that only a rank amateur indeed would pretend that 'googling' counts as true research.
Again, you've restated the exact sentiment I've just torn down. You can personally, subjectively rank them into 'good' and 'bad' in the same way that a child decides whether to spit out or gulp down without understanding just what's in the questionable purees that its parents spoon into its mouth, but needless to say that ignoring or being ignorant of the subtleties doesn't mean they don't exist.
If you were to take two different vodkas that are 'good', in your mind, one with added glycerine (just one example additive) and one without, you would say that they are identical? Despite one being sweetened and thicker (the strength of that effect obviously being directly proportional to the amount added, rather than some magical 'all or nothing' effect)? Are you telling me that sugar makes no difference to tea? Coke vs. Diet coke? Why not vodka?
The sheer and simple fact that people even disagree on which vodkas are good, and which ones are bad immediately throws your simplistic, binary view into shambles.
Edit: It would be great if you didn't post, and then immediately edit your response completely.
"There is no grounds to think it needs to be pricey to be good, or cant come in volume."
I didn't say those were requisites.
"Just they can only be good or bad. If its clean, its clean. If its not, its not. "
Define clean? Nothing is 100% molecularly pure. Therefore there are differing degrees of clean. Therefore there are differing degrees of clean vodka. Therefore there are differing degrees of vodka, not just 'not clean' and 'clean'. Simple rhetoric.
"No one said all vodka is the same"
You've repeatedly said that all vodka is the same: Either good, or not good. Then you added a second dimension, contradicting yourself, which is clean vs. not clean. Both assertions, of course, are ridiculous oversimplifications.
"Kirklands, shared geography with GG and likely used the same water and skill of locals,"
According to GG and your own article, they not only used different waters, but were geographically far enough apart that the only simularities in their workforces was likely to be "They are mostly French."
"Youre also assuming they all drink it mixed. "
Sir, I direct you … again … to the literal quote provided: "It is meant to be thrown in with something else and take on the character of whatever it is mixed with." - His words. The rest was a joke, pointing out that likely other so-called 'experts' are of the same calibre, and only think of vodka as a spirit to mix.
@Grazz989: Of course Google is research. All youre trying to see is SHE as you called her, didnt make any assertion about it being Grey Goose. Before we start, you made more assumptions that have tilted your understanding. I was merely suggesting you apprise yourself of the particular subject.
You tore nothing down… youre just so full of yourself you think youre infallible.
You need to reread.. this time with new glasses.
No one said all vodka is the same… your sugar, cola, glyserine, nonsense is nonsense and a result of your inability to refrain from ASSUMPTIONS.
You said… it must be mediocre because Costco and volume. When clearly, it makes it as good as products much more expensive than it, and one has been singled out for comparison by MANY MANY 3rd parties. And it was fucther studies and tasted, and well imagine the fun in that, so its going to be repeated by all kinds of people that not only attend universities and colleges, but also work there. I merely answered you, with evidence of taste, which by its nature is an opinion and cant be verified other than by anecdote… and it has been by literally probably millions of people. This is not that hard.
To your edit re: mixed… what she repeated, or claimed, has no bearing on how people tasting it to ponder the question is it GG, is not connected. You are sitll assuming all those who believed it was GG, by taste, drink it mixed. You cant assume that, regardless of her statement. It was a worldwide phenomena. Not Alabama. Again, her article is merely the most honest version of the phenomena, that is, its straight out says its not Grey Goose, it calls out the lie that is is GG. Take the blinders off.
And you do know we can scroll up?
Lol, as if Costco homebrand vodka sold by the 1.75L bulk family size bottle is going to be high end vodka
Its implied sunshine.
According to GG and your own article, they not only used different waters, but were geographically far enough apart that the only simularities in their workforces was likely to be "They are mostly French."
Yeah, read again. I said, that was the original claim of the phenomenon. Part of why people thought it might be… the entire thing is not true, Ive highlighted that, why would i now be claiming it was made 'semi detached'? You cant keep your protagonists straight.
@Tuba: Lol what are these 'assumptions' you keep rambling on about? When I ask questions, that's not an assumption.
When I walk you through a thought experiment, that's not an assumption.
Sir - this is a literal quote here from you, "Theres good vodka and crap vodka, thats about it."
That clearly indicates that you treat all 'good vodkas' as being the same, and all 'bad vodkas' as being the same. Otherwise, if there isn't any meaningful differences or granularity in quality, why group them that way?
You're contradicting yourself all over the place. How can one single out a vodka for comparison on the basis of superior quality, if all vodkas are either good or crap and that's it?
Just because you can't answer the question or don't even understand it doesn't make it nonsense. It's very straightforward logical argument:
If you take the world's best vodka, and you slowly introduce something you find distasteful e.g. glycerine into it, does it taste merely good and then immediately flip to crap? Or does it progressively taste worse?
Surely you understand the answer is the latter. And therefore your assertion is ridiculous.
@Grazz989: You assumed, that article, when clearly it was qualified in text that is wasnt the originator, was the be all and end all. You keep worrying about her assertions, when on multiple occassions I have attempted to draw your attention to its purpose here… evidence of the phenomena. I didnt link to the originals as they contain misinformation about the GG connection. As you proved just now, you cant differentiate that. I never said it WAS made so close to GG they could spit at each other. The original discussion did, or versions of it as i said, it was a worldwide phenomena, with substantial attention.
You assumed everyone that was part of this phenomenon, is an idiot, a pleb and only drinks it mixed. Potentially millions of them.
You assume that means I think all vodka is the same. I never said that. I even mentioned you can add back properties or flavour (that would be like your glycerine, or my reference to cola, or whatever else you might want to suggest), intentional or accidental or carelessly added or left in. Again, it doesnt make it top shelf. And it doesnt mean Kirklands bulk vodka cant be good.
I also mentioned Kirklands make multiple vodkas, one like Titos, one like GG for example as is in that article. I hear in the US, theres more. They both are different character. No one said its the same… you assume it, then ran with it. Essentially, you made that up and ascribed it to me.
I stand by the comment, theres good vodka and bad. There is ZERO reason for any good straight vodka to cost double what another good one costs. If you filter it with diamonds and bottle in in gold, sure it might cost a bit more. You may prefer one over the other, no one said they are the same… for a start more or less water can be added… a blade of grass, a hint of some juice or enough lolly water to please a 14 year old, top shelf vodka is marketing. There is bugger all justification other than marketing and money money money, for it to cost double another good vodka. This was, why the mention of of those products that do have extra steps, added costs, and added complexity. A means by which one could argue, top shelf.
They never said it was superior. No one said GG was bad. The point is its as good, and cheaper. It tastes just like it. Not better than it.
Go back to your original post… Costco, bulk, as if.
@Grazz989: Here, have some other links…. including a youtube of various people, ordinary people taking shots of GG and Kirklands. No mixers… then read the article… its not saying Costco is GG, it questions the notion of degrees of 'premium'.
Take note of GGs rep trying hard to justify the level of premium claimed for their product. Hes stretching… its not crap… but its just one of the many good vodkas. If the cost of their inputs is dearer, or the price of the real estate the well is on, adds to their bottom line… in any other business that would be a competitive disadvantage. Its spin, making that typically economic liability, an asset. Selling ice to Eskimos… almost. He goes on to say, more cost, better experience, hopefully. LOL… if I buy wheat from farmer Brown, at 10% over his price to every other vodka maker, mine wont be better due to the wheat. Im at a competitive disadvantage and should probably stop. I wouldnt be selling bread for long anyway if I was a baker in that situation. But this top shelf nonsense has sucker all over it…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oei8K2TYg9s&t=85s
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/28/fac…
The main reason this has a cult following in the US is that it's supposed to be top shelf quality but obscenely cheap, I think they do plastic jugs of it.
Here of course they gouge the hell out of us so it's just merely our average price for vodka, so it's kinda pointless.
Is there much difference between Grey Goose, Belvedere, Haku, Smirnoff and this one besides the price?
Which is the best bang for buck?
Smirnoff is absolutely terrible, just tastes like paint stripper 🤷🏼♂️
Russian Standard is the best I've tried, but good luck finding it at the moment….
I can't taste the difference when I mix the Smirnoff with mixers or use it for cocktails
can you?
Sorry I was referring to the taste neat.
If you're mixing it then I agree, I don't think you'll be able to tell much difference.
To clarify, Russian Standard is nice enough to drink neat on ice. Smirnoff is not.
@Nom: Thanks, i might try Russian Standard as they are similar priced to Smirnoff
Have you tried Mishka Vodka??
Works out to $34 if 700ml
Ordered. Looking forward to seeing how this stacks up. Thanks OP!