Your thoughts on an article titled "White Whiskey & Other Mythical Creatures"

[Denver Distiller]

Liked your piece on Koval. Astute comment about it being like eaux de vie. Blackberry eaux de vie (particularly wild varieties) smell and taste incredibly similar to Rye coming off the still.

This is a good conversation to have, you're right. I have to say, though, that if I was one of those guys with the word Whiskey on my White Dog label, I'd be pointing to Buffalo Trace's White Dog label, and saying that surely the folks at BT knows a bit about whether something is Whiskey or not.

I guess it comes down to whether you think, like I do, that the TTB's Standards of Identity are simply incomplete, and need revisions (many, actually). If you told some guy in Pennsylvania in the 1800's that the white stuff that he was drinking that never touched a barrel, but was made from Rye wasn't whiskey, you'd likely start a fight. The TTB just needs to catch up, is all.

Good stuff, Mr. Cowdery.

[Tirador]

As many have stated here and elsewhere, TTB's definitions of what is what in the U.S. often don't line up with what the trade has historically has called verious products ... and that this is largely due to the history of distilling in the U.S. ...

We all need to remember that many of the TTBs regs were originally put in place due to unscrupulous producers. In the case of whiskey many were using carmal and/or tea and other coloring agents to color unaged "common" whiskey or other spirits and pass it off as something it wasn't.

Times are different now ... and the regs need to be updated to show what the products are, and yet still keep people from mis-representing what they're selling.

[upinthehills]

We all need to remember that many of the TTBs regs were originally put in place due to unscrupulous producers. In the case of whiskey many were using carmal and/or tea and other coloring agents to color unaged "common" whiskey or other spirits and pass it off as something it wasn't.

Times are different now ... and the regs need to be updated to show what the products are, and yet still keep people from mis-representing what they're selling.

I don't think there's any reason to think producers have changed, particularly large commercial ones. There's absolutely nothing they won't do to make money...

There's really no reason to think that will ever change, Darwinism being what it is.

[Tirador]

I'm inclined to agree ... but it's not the producers that have changed as much as it is the consumers and the market in which we operate.

The distilled beverage consumer of today typically has far more knowledge of what's what (if only due to higher literacy rates and the ease of acquiring information) then consumers had when many of the TTBs definitions were created. It's a different world, with much more information available and a significantly larger number of options for any consumer then ever before.

As such, the legal definitions of what's what should eventually catch up to what's on the market ... we hope. That is why it is critically important for producers, and especially for smaller artisan producers to be politically aware and involved. If there is a legal definition that doesn't reflect reality in a product/market segment ... write TTB, write your congressman ... get the definition changed ...

Just my two cents as always.

S.

[delaware_phoenix]

We all need to remember that many of the TTBs regs were originally put in place due to unscrupulous producers. In the case of whiskey many were using carmal and/or tea and other coloring agents to color unaged "common" whiskey or other spirits and pass it off as something it wasn't.

Harmless flavoring materials are still allowed at less than 2.5% for all of the named whiskies except bourbon. (I don't have the chart from the BAM, but I think with straight whiskies they're prohibited, but don't quote me on that.)

I think the regs say exactly what they say. Whiskey is going to age if it's in a stainless steel container exposed to some oxygen; the aging will be somewhat different if stored in a new charred oak container due to the many additional compounds that now interact.

But I think it's whiskey based on what it's made from, not in how it's stored.

The distilled beverage consumer of today typically has far more knowledge of what's what

Yes, but the main criteria for their differentiation is price. Also flavor, or lack thereof. Big Liquor sells a lot more of the bottom shelf products than they do the top shelf. The modern version of light whiskey is regular blended whiskey diluted with water and GNS. A lot closer in flavor to vodka than whiskey, but it gets to be called whiskey nonetheless. And since vodka is the dominant distilled spirit favored by the consumer, that class of whiskey sells the most. Many consumers have little idea that the higher priced products are fundamentally different than what they're drinking.

The consumer also has little interest in the TTB regs.

(I'm sure Chuck will correct me about the relative sales quantities of the different whiskies. Maybe Jack does sell more than the blends.)

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

I don't think there is a distillery owner/operator I've met who does not agree the STANDARDS OF IDENTITY need revision. The changes in the marketplace, the character of the industry (production/wholesale/retail), the character of society and the recent reemergence of micro distilling nationwide have made the regulations perhaps not totally obsolete (at least at the Fed level, the States....fo-getaboutit), but certainly in need of revision and updating.

As we begin to look at how to improve the climate for micro distillers in the US we should begin also to consider how to work with DISCUS and the Fed to at least attempt over the next five to ten years to get those revisions seriously considered.

My favorite example is the naming of flavored vodkas. GNS mixed with fruit flavoring yields vodka which can be called, for instance APPLE VODKA. But vodka made from apples must be called VODKA Made from Apples and any reference in the label copy to the distiller or distillery must not say "apple vodka distiller/distillery". This is the result of course of timing, the major vodka producers started making and marketing flavored vodkas long before we or our contemporaries began making vodka from apples or grapes, so the name applies to the first one in the door. But it is misleading to the public from my little perspective, "apple flavored vodka" seems more appropriate for a flavored vodka; and "apple vodka" seems appropriate to a vodka made from apples; not unlike "potato vodka" is made from potatoes not with potato flavor.

Make no mistake this is a long term undertaking, if it can be done at all. And it should not inhibit distillers making anything they want to make, only what they call it. And we all admit openly that what you call something makes a difference when you're marketing the goods.

R

[delaware_phoenix]

While the regs are what the regs are (for the time being), the retailer and consumer are not limited by those rules. The retailer is going to put all the whiskies on one set of shelves. The bourbons together. The ryes together. The brandies all together. The apple vodka (made from GNS and flavorings) right next to the apple vodka (made from real apples!).

And that's where it really counts is in the mind of the retailer and the consumer.