Processes that mimic aging/distilling

[Hughes]

In North Charleston, South Carolina, a company that is listed in the ADI directory called Terressentia is making some headlines locally for its finishing processes that mimic aging and distilling. They are not actually running anything through a still, but their processes take out some of the chemicals that are normally taken out during the distillation process and they can produce a whiskey that "tastes 7-9 years old" in under a day. I'm curious what the members on this board think about it?

With the process and additives, I can't imagine they have an easy time with the TTB labeling requirements. All in all, I am always one for innovations, and this looks/sounds very interesting. Is it just business as usual, and there is no actual change, just press coverage? If it does change anything, will it hurt the big guys? Will it hurt them more than craft distillers? Is there something this article left out?

http://www.charlesto...ent?oid=3056352

Curious for your responses. I plan on wandering over to the restaurants mentioned to taste test for myself.

[Gwydion Stone]

They may have developed an innovative and efficient filtration/oxygenation process, but the rest is pure marketing.

Their secret is a patented process called Terrepure, a combination of filtration and oxidation that uses ultrasonic energy to purify distillate. The process starts with 180 to 190 proof liquor purchased from distilleries that specialize in each liquor. At Terressentia's warehouse, 250 gallon jugs of 190 proof, 100 percent blue agave tequila sit next to equally giant tubs of imported Russian vodka.

In other words, they buy the liquor in bulk then treat it and bottle it. They're bottlers, not distillers, and there's nothing new (or wrong) about that. Nor is there anything new (or right) about adding glycerine, caramel color, or traces of sugar and salt.

There's nothing new about forced oxygenation, either, whether it's accomplished through agitation by compression, spraying or ultrasonic vibrations.

This is an "apparatus for the aging of absinthe" via oxygenation.

Here's another, used by Cusenier & Co., whose "Absinthe Oxygenée" was among the major brands of the era.

[porter]

A MUST READ article for sure.

Absolutely Beautiful...From the sound of it this might be the best thing to happen to the industry yet. The little guys have had to compete with the big boys hundreds of times their size, under the exact same rules for a hundred years.

Now the ground rules are changing. These folks aren't going to be in the small market. At their rate of 60 cases an hour, their target is on the large production houses. I don't see it as a problem for the artisans though. But if I had some real money invested in Beam, Daniels, Jose, etc. I would be nervous. Can you imagine the franchise oppurtunity for this? In an open state like Missouri we could have a product on the shelf, out the front door, on the internet, and in distribution in weeks not years. And without the EPA crap the 'green' people are pushing all over.

Interesting question, how many folks in the artisan market are making 'well' spirits? That's a $15/bottle market and I don't think anyone here is at that low price point.

Quality? I can't say, haven't seen here in Missouri yet, but will be searching out when I get back east.

And it would be improper for anyone else to make a quality judgement unless they've tried them, not in comparison to artisan stuff, but compared to the market they are competeing in.

[Palmetto Coast]

In North Charleston, South Carolina, a company that is listed in the ADI directory called Terressentia is making some headlines locally for its finishing processes that mimic aging and distilling. They are not actually running anything through a still, but their processes take out some of the chemicals that are normally taken out during the distillation process and they can produce a whiskey that "tastes 7-9 years old" in under a day. I'm curious what the members on this board think about it?

With the process and additives, I can't imagine they have an easy time with the TTB labeling requirements. All in all, I am always one for innovations, and this looks/sounds very interesting. Is it just business as usual, and there is no actual change, just press coverage? If it does change anything, will it hurt the big guys? Will it hurt them more than craft distillers? Is there something this article left out?

http://www.charlesto...ent?oid=3056352

Curious for your responses. I plan on wandering over to the restaurants mentioned to taste test for myself.

Hi Hughes

I had contemplated going that way a while back, and had visited the facility and done a tasting. Contact them, they may let you taste for free as well. That being said, I will give you my thoughts.

First, yes, they take bulk spirits and run them through their machine and it does clean them up. I tasted their vodka before and after, and next to another premium brand. Theirs was definitely cleaner than the unprocessed spirit, but in my opinion, not as clean as the premium name brand.

Rum was actually pretty good, but unfortunately I can’t remember too many of the rest. I believe most of the spirits that won medals were flavored vodkas. They use designer flavorings to get different tastes, as well as designer colors. You want oak, they can add "oak flavor". You can't put an age statement on the label. You want to make a Cosmo flavored vodka, they can do it, color and all. I believe they even submit the final formulation for you.

To get a flavor profile, you are then making flavored rum, flavored whiskey, flavored whatever, not rum, bourbon, etc. That said, they can do spirits (such as bourbon) without flavoring. I just don’t know how it would hold up to one that was aged.

The market is definitely there, as you can see from their expansion. But I wouldn’t worry about them biting too deeply into either the big or the little guys. Some folks are going to want artificially flavored fruit punch, and some will want 100% juice.

Hope this helps.

Todd

[WI Distiller]

I have no doubt that a sophisticated filtration and oxygenation set up could make vodka and flavored spirits that are just as good or better than the premium brands, but notice how none of the testimonials in the article refer to whiskey or other aged products. The article celebrates how the process eliminates the need for expensive barrel aging, then talks about how their vodka is better than Grey Goose, a product that, as we all know, requires no aging. Can oxygenating and adding bourbon essence to bulk neutral spirit make a quality whiskey? No way. It would make a weird, oak flavored vodka.

Cowdery, will you chime in on this?

[Panama Jack]

You can make a color copy of a piece of art and sell it an people will buy it. If anyone wants to pay the same price "a fool will always be soon parted from thier money." There always will be a market for the tech quik made process and one for the crafted product. The only problem exists when someone tries to pass one off from the other, which does not seem to be the issue here.

[Denver Distiller]

Did I just stumble across an article from the Onion?

So the secret to making Vodka in six hours is: start with a bunch of vodka that someone else distilled for you? Ok, so I guess we don't need the extra six hours.

I'm not sure that some of you paid much attention to the article or the description of what they're doing.

They're bottling bulk spirits, folks.

[Napa Valley Distillery]

"Better than Grey Goose"? Hmmmm.... I'd bet easily accomplishable by everyone here, so no real news there. As for the "fake" aging, I have'nt tasted their product so I cant really say for sure that its better than something that was actually aged, but I will say that there is definately something magical and special knowing your drinking something that took 10+ years to complete. It adds to the overall experience of drinking, which is why many people drink IMO.

[coop]

Did I just stumble across an article from the Onion?

So the secret to making Vodka in six hours is: start with a bunch of vodka that someone else distilled for you? Ok, so I guess we don't need the extra six hours.

I'm not sure that some of you paid much attention to the article or the description of what they're doing.

They're bottling bulk spirits, folks.

Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, folks it is a duck. Mixing some one else's work is all it is. Coop

[tellner]

This really isn't anything new.

Sitting here on my bookshelf is a copy of Hirsch's 1937 Whiskey, Brandy & Cordials. Chapter XVII Artificial Maturing of Spirits includes among other things "sound waves" and oxygenation.

[Hewlette]

I'm the CEO of Terressentia Corporation, the company described in the article, and have read the posts here with interest. While the story is generally accurate, it has spawned some misconceptions that I would like to correct.

First, we are very careful about following TTB labeling regulations. Second, we do not artificially flavor whiskey, nor do we make it out of GNS. Third, the idea of using some form of energy driven oxygenation and filtration to improve the taste of spirits is not new but we perfected and patented a process that does just that. In short, we react away a substantial amount of the minor alcohol congeners and the free radicals that are a by-product of distillation while at the same time creating some glycerides from the acids that are present. The result is that, in the case of neutral spirits, we improve the taste better than multiple distillation or filtration can, and, in the case of young whiskies, we can replicate in a few weeks the effects of barrel aging over many years. It is true that we cannot replace the mystique of "old" but if you want the taste for a fraction of the cost of "old", we can do it.

Most of us resist change, particularly technological change, but we should think about embracing efficiency and economics when they make sense.

Earl Hewlette

earl@terressentia.com

843 225 3101

[Denver Distiller]

Most of us resist change, particularly technological change, but we should think about embracing efficiency and economics when they make sense.

Respectfully, no one here is telling you that how to run your own company, and no one is resisting change. I wish you all the success in the world.

However, I fail to see how it is that you think that you have "embraced efficiency and economics", when all you're doing is buying bulk spirits.

In other words, it is specifically inefficient, in terms of energy and capital, to buy bulk spirits that already have all the costs associated with distilling and aging (in the case of the whiskey you're buying), and that have already been marked up in price---- and then ship them to yet another facility, add even more costs in energy, labor, and other overhead, and then stick them in the bottle. Sounds not only a little inefficient--- that sounds very inefficient.

And your quote ""Why do you distill vodka five times and throw away 40 percent of what you started with, or put bourbon in a cellar for five years and let most of it evaporate? We said, 'Let's do it efficiently.'" is particularly, forgive my frankness, silly.

Why is this silly? Because you're buying the spirits that you're calling inefficient. What's worse, is that after you're buying that"inefficient", you're adding even more inefficiency in the form of whatever invention you've rigged up that consumes energy. But the thing is, the reporter, bless his heart, didn't understand enough about spirits to understand this total lack of logic.

And BTW, there isn't a vodka column in the world that "throws away 40%" of the original alcohol in the ferment. Losses greater than 1% are considered unacceptable for most plants running continuous stills, and most plants have a much lower tolerance.

More to the point, I'm curious as to how much you think it costs Diageo, to use one example, to age a liter of whiskey for 4 years? You have to beat that cost before this even becomes a discussion. Right now, you're buying bulk whiskey at a mark up, plus shipping, plus all your overhead. Where do you suppose this whiskey is coming from in the 1st place?

Good luck with your business.

[tellner]

Third, the idea of using some form of energy driven oxygenation and filtration to improve the taste of spirits is not new but we perfected and patented a process that does just that. In short, we react away a substantial amount of the minor alcohol congeners and the free radicals that are a by-product of distillation while at the same time creating some glycerides from the acids that are present. The result is that, in the case of neutral spirits, we improve the taste better than multiple distillation or filtration can, and, in the case of young whiskies, we can replicate in a few weeks the effects of barrel aging over many years. It is true that we cannot replace the mystique of "old" but if you want the taste for a fraction of the cost of "old", we can do it.

Most of us resist change, particularly technological change, but we should think about embracing efficiency and economics when they make sense.

I really couldn't care less about mystique. I'm more interested in quality and the science. A few years back I experimented informally with charcoal, mild heat, circulating pumps and air. Even those rough kitchen table trials gave good results.

How have your products fared in truly blind taste tests?

How do the chemical profiles compare to what you're trying to replicate?

For spirits like rum and whiskey, how much of the process goes on before the product is barreled, and how much when it's on the oak?

Do you have a patent number so that I can look at it and get my geek on?

[daveflintstone]

Wow, what's with the hostility? This company isn't treading on your holier-than-thou craft/artisan/micro spirits production. Are you pissed because they got great press? Do you really expect any news article to be completely accurate regarding technical details?

Obviously they have a market that is not the high priced craft market. They are businessmen, not artisans.

First thing I thought when I read this article was "that's sounds cool". A man much smarter than me has perfected a technique to improve spirits without lengthy aging; terrific. The folks who are buying it are apparently happy with the products. I hope the people who (finally) buy my products will be just as pleased.

Denver Distiller, I can't believe you're lecturing someone on their successful business. And, respectfully, it reads like you are telling him how to run his company. They are buying efficiently produced bulk ingredients to efficiently create their products, without the customarily inefficient finishing required. What's wrong with that? Sounds logical to me. Why does he have to beat Diageo? Do you? I'm not aware that Diageo is selling house brands to small restaurants.

I know about most of what I do; I know little of what others do. It is laughable when someone insists on analyzing and critiquing another's operation based on the very information they've already deemed inaccurate.

I'm starting to grow weary of some craft distillers' budding superiority complexes regarding their production. When you start blowing your own glass bottles and making the paper for your labels, then we'll talk.

[tellner]

Wow, what's with the hostility? This company isn't treading on your holier-than-thou craft/artisan/micro spirits production. Are you pissed because they got great press? Do you really expect any news article to be completely accurate regarding technical details?

...

First thing I thought when I read this article was "that's sounds cool". A man much smarter than me has perfected a technique to improve spirits without lengthy aging; terrific. The folks who are buying it are apparently happy with the products. I hope the people who (finally) buy my products will be just as pleased.

Amen to both of those points. Every innovation has met with resistance. Some things were tried and died out because they just weren't improvements or were introduced at the wrong time in history. But some things really are improvements. This sounds very promising. The basic idea has a long and distinguished track record. If this works as well as it appears at first blush it could be one of those things that revolutionizes the industry like activated charcoal or column distillation. Maybe, maybe not. But it's certainly worth investigating.

[Denver Distiller]

First thing I thought when I read this article was "that's sounds cool". A man much smarter than me has perfected a technique to improve spirits without lengthy aging; terrific. The folks who are buying it are apparently happy with the products. I hope the people who (finally) buy my products will be just as pleased.

Mr. Flintstone, I was responding to his condescending comment "Most of us resist change, particularly technological change, but we should think about embracing efficiency and economics when they make sense." I think that it's ok to respond to a post like that.

I'm sorry my response rubbed you the wrong way. If the gentleman doesn't try to sell these spirits to other DSP's, there was no point to my post. If he does, well, I don't think that I'm out of line for telling other DSP's what the score is. I'm only trying to help.

There's no holier than thou attitude from me. Look around ADI. You'd be hard pressed to find a more helpful poster. I'm here to help those who are new to the craft.... that's the only reason I'm here.

And that's the only reason for my comments on this thread. This story read like a sales pitch, so please accept my apologies if my post came across as hostile, but I was trying to point out what was happening to other DSP's.

[Hewlette]

I really couldn't care less about mystique. I'm more interested in quality and the science. A few years back I experimented informally with charcoal, mild heat, circulating pumps and air. Even those rough kitchen table trials gave good results.

How have your products fared in truly blind taste tests?

How do the chemical profiles compare to what you're trying to replicate?

For spirits like rum and whiskey, how much of the process goes on before the product is barreled, and how much when it's on the oak?

Do you have a patent number so that I can look at it and get my geek on?

Our products (vodka, gin, bourbon, tequila, spiced rum, and blended whisky from Scotland) have now won 30 medals in 5 international blind taste competitions. The Moore School of Business of the Univ of SC recently conducted a consumer blind taste panel with almost 100 participants. Our vodka outscored Belvedere and Grey Goose. Our bourbon outscored Knob Creek and Woodford Reserve. Our Tequila outscored Cabo Wabo and tied Padron. Our Spiced Rum out scored Sailor Jerry and was second to Captain Morgan, primarily because they outscored us on aroma.

We have data comparing the phenolics gallic acid, vanillic acid and vanillin of a leading 12 year old single malt Scotch with those of a 3 year old Scotch subjected to our process for a few days and they are almost identical -- on paper and in taste.

n the case of rum,the process is used instead of barreling. In the case of bourbon, because of TTB standards of identity, the process is used after barreling. But imagine how many oak trees could be saved if the regs permitted oak chips instead of requiring new oak barrels!

U.S. Patent No. 7,063,867 issued 2006. Canada issued a patent for the process AND the product in 2010. Pending in EU and other countries.

[Panama Jack]

Our products (vodka, gin, bourbon, tequila, spiced rum, and blended whisky from Scotland) have now won 30 medals in 5 international blind taste competitions. The Moore School of Business of the Univ of SC recently conducted a consumer blind taste panel with almost 100 participants. Our vodka outscored Belvedere and Grey Goose. Our bourbon outscored Knob Creek and Woodford Reserve. Our Tequila outscored Cabo Wabo and tied Padron. Our Spiced Rum out scored Sailor Jerry and was second to Captain Morgan, primarily because they outscored us on aroma.

We have data comparing the phenolics gallic acid, vanillic acid and vanillin of a leading 12 year old single malt Scotch with those of a 3 year old Scotch subjected to our process for a few days and they are almost identical -- on paper and in taste.

n the case of rum,the process is used instead of barreling. In the case of bourbon, because of TTB standards of identity, the process is used after barreling. But imagine how many oak trees could be saved if the regs permitted oak chips instead of requiring new oak barrels!

U.S. Patent No. 7,063,867 issued 2006. Canada issued a patent for the process AND the product in 2010. Pending in EU and other countries.

Congrats, but I do not think most distillers are very impressed with Belvedere or Grey Goose, two products that are more the result of marketing then quality. It would be interesting to know the tasters for the Bourbon competition, many people would not like the strong character of those brand names. Do you have a tasting room on site?

[cowdery]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana

And after you buy my new accelerated aging system, I have a bridge I want to talk to you about.

Here comes another one just like the other one. I could go on.

You can dress this stuff up with all the science mumbo-jumbo you want, but we've seen and heard this all before and nothing ever comes of it. Look into it if you want, get all worked up about it if you want, I've got better things to do with my time.

These schemes always seem to find an audience, much like the latest "get rich quick" or "lose weight fast" products. I wrote here about why they are so seductive.

[Guest Liberty Bar - Seattle]

In other words, it is specifically inefficient, in terms of energy and capital, to buy bulk spirits that already have all the costs associated with distilling and aging (in the case of the whiskey you're buying), and that have already been marked up in price---- and then ship them to yet another facility, add even more costs in energy, labor, and other overhead, and then stick them in the bottle. Sounds not only a little inefficient--- that sounds very inefficient.

Respectfully...for anyone who wants to do larger runs of...well, anything...the outlay of capital is enormous,as you well know. So, it's FAR more cost-efficient to be able to purchase someone else's bulk spirit - even with markup - than it is to make it oneself. It'll cost one no less than half a million dollars to start a small distillery if one wants to go from scratch and reach even a small amount of spirit for post-processing (aging, infusing, etc...), and to do it for real? Lemme know how does that for less than a million.

So, it's incredibly cost efficient to be able to on Day 1 have 500 gallons of spirit which one can then affect, because that'll only cost the gallon price of the spirit, not the cost of seeing and operating a whole distillery. Spending tens of thousands of dollars sounds far more efficient to me...

More to the point, I'm curious as to how much you think it costs Diageo, to use one example, to age a liter of whiskey for 4 years? You have to beat that cost before this even becomes a discussion. Right now, you're buying bulk whiskey at a mark up, plus shipping, plus all your overhead. Where do you suppose this whiskey is coming from in the 1st place?

No, because I can purchase a barrel of outstanding spirit for $7K, and that barrel would cost me $5million if I was to do it from scratch... How is that more efficient? It's efficient for Diago because they have how many distilleries running now for how long?

Am I missing something? How can someone question the validity that in this case, it's more cost-efficient to purchase finished product compared to planning, building and operating a distillery?

Personally, I am a huge fan of any kind of innovation. One may not like the first effects that one sees, but there is often a very valuable effect that is then produced using that method. Thank the ol' lordy for innovation.

[Denver Distiller]

Am I missing something? How can someone question the validity that in this case, it's more cost-efficient to purchase finished product compared to planning, building and operating a distillery?

Yes, and I say this respectfully, you are completely missing what I am saying. You aren't alone.

I was going to just let sleeping dogs lie since I was apparently rubbing some the wrong way, when my simple intent is to help those new to the industry to avoid what is clearly a sale pitch. I got a few emails asking me to clarify, so here you go:

1. The reason I brought up Diageo is that is the likely culprit for this companies' bulk purchases. So, to be perfectly clear (excuse the bold) the company in this article bought finished bulk spirits. They're starting with a product that they can put in the bottle. Before they do whatever it is they do, it's a finished product.

2. This leads me to my second point. Maybe it would help if I used another example that most are familiar with.... High West. Neat company, and yes, I am 100% behind their use of bulk spirits, despite what some seem to think. I think it's a good way to get going. Anyway.....

High West buys bulk spirits, just like the company we're discussing. John Hansell gave most of their products north of 90 points. Good stuff, right? Yep. Now if Mr. Perkins told you that the reason that he got those 90+ points was that yes, he bought bulk spirits from a subsidiary of Diageo (I believe, it really doesn't matter who LDI is owned by) was that he had a magic rock that he put on top of the bulk tank, and that he had patented the use of the rock, would you want to buy that rock? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, that High West whiskey is enjoyed because it started as good bulk spirits? Further, do you think that that magic rock has led to more efficiency? If so: how?

Forgive my over the top sarcasm, but I'm trying to get my point through.

So, do you understand what I'm getting at now? Some here are assuming that this contraption works, when the reality is, the company is buying bulk spirits, and you haven't a clue as to what the quality of the input is into the machine. Some here are taking all of what he has said, or what has been written at face value. Do you think that it's a coincidence that those of you who totally new to this business are saying "wow, that's amazing", and those of us who have been around block for well over a decade have heard this story---this exact story--- dozens of times before?

How is adding yet another step to something that's already finished efficient? He bought marked up spirit and added an extra step. I'm at a loss as to how this is supposed to be more efficient. He went from 1 step to 2 steps, to simplify the math. You question above assumes that a distillery was never built. Where do you think the bulk spirits were produced? The company isn't getting rid of the distillation process--- they're adding another step to the process.

3. This company is planning on selling either the contraption or the finished spirits themselves. This is important, and this is the only reason I commented. This isn't some distiller/blender/whatever who's quietly doing their own thing. If this was the case, I would've rolled my eyes, and left well enough alone. Forgive the bold, but I want to make sure you understand why I am commenting, and why Mr. Firestone didn't understand why I was criticizing this company: This is a sales pitch. He's trying to sell you something.

Understand now? I'm trying to help my fellow ADI forum members, especially those who are new to the business, understand what the score is. Because frankly, some of them missed it. If all this firm is doing is innovating and making their own product, that's great. I totally support them. I hope they make a better mousetrap, and I hope they sell thousands of cases.

That's all, and I'm sorry if I ruffled feathers.

[Denver Distiller]

Um...that's how you took it. I didn't take it like that at all. We, in fact, "should think about embracing efficiency and economics when they make sense. Again, "when they make sense"

Exactly. My response was to explain why this particular sale pitch didn't make sense.

[Hewlette]

3. This company is planning on selling either the contraption or the finished spirits themselves. This is important, and this is the only reason I commented. This isn't some distiller/blender/whatever who's quietly doing their own thing. If this was the case, I would've rolled my eyes, and left well enough alone. Forgive the bold, but I want to make sure you understand why I am commenting, and why Mr. Firestone didn't understand why I was criticizing this company: This is a sales pitch. He's trying to sell you something.

Understand now? I'm trying to help my fellow ADI forum members, especially those who are new to the business, understand what the score is. Because frankly, some of them missed it. If all this firm is doing is innovating and making their own product, that's great. I totally support them. I hope they make a better mousetrap, and I hope they sell thousands of cases.

That's all, and I'm sorry if I ruffled feathers.

Gentlemen,

Allow me one last clarification. My first post was solely in response to comments made in this forum when someone here posted an article written about my company. The article was not a sales pitch but a story of local interest written by a local newspaper journalist. The story was not entirely accurate. For example we never said multiple distillation of neutral spirits results in 40% evaporation loss. It was, however, generally accurate. My post was not to sell anything just to clarify.

In that regard, we fortunately do not have to distill. We purchase bulk distillate of all types. The distillate we buy is not generally finished product. Take bourbon for example. One or two year old bourbon is finished as to distillation but hardly "drinkable". That is why you age it much longer. Our efficiency comes from the fact that our process enables us to transform that young bourbon into a liquid having the taste characteristics of a bourbon that has been aged 7 or more years. You may doubt that we can do this. But if we can, you should not doubt that this is more efficient than long barrel aging.

I appreciate and thank all of you for your points of view.

Earl Hewlette

[JohninWV]

One or two year old bourbon is finished as to distillation but hardly "drinkable".

I think there's plenty of bourbon that's one and two years old that's more than drinkable. Many here have proved it over and over again. But that's another discussion.

[Denver Distiller]

In that regard, we fortunately do not have to distill. We purchase bulk distillate of all types. The distillate we buy is not generally finished product. Take bourbon for example. One or two year old bourbon is finished as to distillation but hardly "drinkable". That is why you age it much longer.

Respectfully, there's a whole cadre of distillers on this very site that are making bourbon aged two years and under that are quite drinkable.

Our efficiency comes from the fact that our process enables us to transform that young bourbon into a liquid having the taste characteristics of a bourbon that has been aged 7 or more years. You may doubt that we can do this. But if we can, you should not doubt that this is more efficient than long barrel aging.

I appreciate and thank all of you for your points of view. Earl Hewlette

I appreciate you coming here, too. However, I disagree that--- even if we assume your device works---- that it's more efficient that long barrel aging.

Heres' why:

1. You have to be able to do it for less money than the bulk distillers can. In other words, you have to be able to make that 4 year old taste like a 8 year old whiskey for less than it takes Diageo to age that same whiskey an extra 4 years. That's a tall order to fill, and we have no idea how much your process costs.

Or, to take another tack, you have to do it more cheaply that Diageo can, say, add 10% of an 8 year old whiskey to 90% of 4 year old whiskey....enough to fool the average palate into thinking it's "smoother/better/whatever" than 100% four year old. The fortunes of Johnnie Walker were built around this very idea, using different tools.

a. the reason I have said several times now that you have to beat Diageo is that that if you can't, then your potential customers will simply pick up the phone, and order "older" bulk whiskey from Diageo at a lower total cost per liter. that's the low bar you have to beat. As for the rest:

2. You are assuming that whiskey that is labeled as 4 year old is worth the same as whiskey that is labeled 8 years old. The market has shown that you'll get more (sometimes a lot more) money for the little 8 on the bottle than you will for the little 4, regardless of brand or pricepoint. As you know, you can't label it as an 8 year old bottle regardless of what you do to a 4 year old whiskey.

3. You are assuming that the consuming public can tell the difference....assuming your machine works.... between a 2 year old and an 8 y.o. Bad assumption, IMHO. If they can tell the difference that easily, I'd suggest that you're simply starting with the wrong bulk spirits. There's more than one source out there.

4. You are assuming that even if the consumer can indeed tell the difference, that this makes a difference to the bottom line. Example? Our Cranberry Liqueur win a Double Gold Medal and Best Fruit Liqueur at the SF Spirits Competition, one of the competitions that was cited in the story about your company and the awards that you've won. Guess what the poorest selling liqueur is in our portfolio? In other words, that medal/level of quality/whatever and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee. (or is it a dollar?)

I recognize that you did not come here to specifically pitch your product. When I said that it was a sales pitch, I meant that it is not your intent to simply sell your own spirits. You intend to sell this machine/process. If I am mistaken in this assumption, please correct me.

And as for your comment "In that regard, we fortunately do not have to distill." --- I am very sorry to hear that. You're missing out, and I'd say that that's very un-fortunate.