• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


clearwaterbrewer last won the day on June 14

clearwaterbrewer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About clearwaterbrewer

  • Rank
    Cotherman Distilling

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

732 profile views
  1. Looking to know if someone knows of a manufacturer of custom sieve plates. Looking for 10-20 or so single pass plates like these in a document on The Vespiary. (the ones in figure 1(A), but with 203mm diameter, ~5mm holes, 15% open area ), and prefer a manufacturer that has already built and tested such things.
  2. is it steam or bain marie? does it have heating elements for the oil bath? please PM pics
  3. I use a sestos 4-20ma analog output PID with the Johnson controller, but it is only celsius, I eventually found an omron E5CN-C2TD, but have not installed it... complete writeup here: 100% happy with the control of it.
  4. OK, anyone have a clue who makes it and how I get a pallet?
  5. OK, if you make a flavored whisky/whiskey, logic would seem to say you would create a formula for Class/Type Flavored Whisky and when you did the label you would pick a formula of the Class/Type 'Flavored Whisky'' I have one COLA for this class/type in for approval, but after my headaches with flavored vodka label, I do not expect it to get approved first time.. However my little experience in the real world shows that does not seem to be true.. An existing product we all know of (COLA 10146001000306 ) uses the fanciful name of 'cinnamon whisky' and the Class/Type of 'whisky with natural cinnamon flavor' on the label, In the actual COLA it says Class/Type is "Whiskey Specialties" and in the COLAS documentation, I see "641 Whisky Specialties" 1 - There is no actual formula class/type entry for that 'Whisky Specialties', only for "Distilled Spirits Specialty", is there a link or direction from the TTB that says this correlation exists? 2 - do DSP's generally shy away from 'flavored xxxx', and just use DSS? 3 - Does this allow one to skip the BAM requirements for wood chips? It seems to... but 'whisky' is on the label of the DSS product in two places... From the BAM: 8. TREATMENT WITH WOOD · DISCLOSURE “COLORED AND FLAVORED WITH WOOD _________” (insert chips, slabs, extracts, etc., as appropriate) is required on labels to indicate treatment with wood · APPLICATION Applies only to whisky and brandy treated – other than through contact with oak containers – with wood: -In any manner or form, either directly or indirectly, e.g., chips, slabs, extracts, etc. -At any point during the production or storage process, up to and including the time of bottling
  6. if you make gin without using other finished spirits such as GNS, (aka - original distillation), you do not even need a formula... here is my 'Oak Barrel Gin', distilled from malted malted barley I have 'Barrel Rested Gin' in for approval, but expect kickback since they seem to have become more finicky in the past few months. Mine - Oak Barrel v2.jpg&filetype=l
  7. and now another label kicked back saying to remove 'with other natural flavors" from the line below 'Pepper Flavored Vodka'... no mention of why I cannot put that in there.... It has already been kicked back once because 'vodka flavored with peppers and other natural flavors' was misleading.... I wonder how Crisco gets away with a picture of fried chicken or cherry pie on the label?
  8. I started putting the below in my method of Manufacture:
  9. I may have found an issue, I went from step 2 to step 3 in and it removed my 'notes to specialist' :-( ... I tried both Chrome and IE with the same results, so I copied the text to a 'notes to specialist.txt' file and added via 'upload other attachments'... crossing fingers...
  10. ahh, this just cam back a minute ago: Reason Additional Information As an attachment, please further explain/clarify the statement and/or graphics shown on the label. What does the letter Q mean? If it has no meaning then you must state so in the notes to specialist. Please do not resubmit this application until all of the required corrections have been made. Making only one correction or none of the required corrections, then resubmitting the application may result in your application being rejected. Keep in mind that you have 30 days to make corrections. I did, in fact, already put in the 'specialist notes' that the fanciful name "Half Mine - Q" was just a fanciful name variant of the base Brand "Half Mine"
  11. spend your year reading and re-reading and comprehending the following, it will be a much better use of your time: "Production of Heavy Rums" by Rafael Arroyo Patented Oct. 16, 1945 2,386,924 United States Patent Office 2,386,924 PRODUCTION OF HEAVY RUMS Rafael Arroyo, Rio Piedras, P. R. No Drawing. Application January 13, 1943, Serial No. 427,250
  12. a handful might be an over-estimate...
  13. now my formulas are getting nit-picked... I had 3 species of vanilla 0-5%, and stated in the method of manufacture that at least one of them would be used, but gets kicked back for having zero values for ingredients. I replaced then with generic ingredient 'vanilla bean' and then it gets kicked back for something else "There is an error in the following field::" (no field listed) and they get a bit snooty: I cannot find the error, I have a half dozen other formulas that 0-1% for a dozen botanicals or more that went through fine... what is inherently wrong with having 0-0.1% as a quantity, giving you the choice of leaving a trace amount of something out of a product?
  14. I am getting every single COLA rejected multiple times for mostly 'imaginary' issues... exact same label layouts approved for two years now saying that my alcohol content statement cannot be on wraparound portion of label (it is not, it is a 4" wide label on a typical 750ml, completely viewable from the front), and rejecting every fanciful name, asking what the fanciful name means... Big G as a variant of our Gin... If I have to explain what every fanciful name means other than fanciful, I think e these folks are trying to justify their jobs or more staff by just clicking through all 10 of my COLA's and hitting reject and typing in one sentence padding their COLA count... others seeing this?
  15. I would get the one that covers your bottling range, and the one higher, so if you bottle at 80, get the 79-90 and 89-100, because unless you are holding you spirits and the room they are bottled in at 60 degrees F, you will have to read a higher proof.... and you can get them calibrated in the middle, as you will be reading to a tenth of a proof and a tenth of a degree, and they should not vary by more than that in half the range.... I am not affiliated with them, but I use I am sure others are great too. example: B61807-5900 79 to 90 Proof, Durac High Precision Alcohol Proof Hydrometer (each) [H-B Instrument # 6840] $165 for the hydrometer, $175 for the cert. I suggest 79-90, 89-100, (and 189-200 if doing vodka), and one of each calibrated and one un-calibrated... use the uncalibrated one until the final measurement. and for thermometers, use 30-124 degree 'partial immersion' get a calibrated (H-B Instrument # 3/4124 $260) and an un-calibrated (H-B Instrument # 6/1124 - $68) -mike