Jump to content

White Dog, White Whiskey, New-Make, Moonshine...What's in a name?


Guest Rarnold3

Recommended Posts

Guest Rarnold3

Any input from what people think un-aged whiskey should be labeled as on the bottle? Buffalo Trace calls it White Dog. Heaven Hill calls it New-Make. Plenty of people use the term moonshine. Some distilleries employ a quick barrel age to call it White Whiskey. And if terminology isn't hard enough already for the general public...

What does this forum think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a reviewer of such things I've been struggling with that one myself - trying to classify all those different products - by different names into a coherent category where my readers can find them.

I've been kind of old school and originally lumped them under "American Whiskey" meaning not Bourbon or Rye - (which have their own categories with admittedly a few spirit in those categories that might be a stretch )

American Whiskey being a geographic catchall for all whiskey that did not qualify for inclusion in Bourbon or Rye because of aging, blending or ingredient ( at least in my opinion).

Of course I could have been a smart ass and put it under "Vodka" but thought that wasn't very useful.

I'm thinking of starting a new category "White Whiskey (Unaged)" as a new category in my reviews, and if a spirit has a little age it will still go there with an explanation/description/modifier that states the aging.

I think an analogy is the whole Silver/White/Plata problem with Mexican spirits such as Sotol,Tequila, and Mezcal , some are not aged (and make a big thing about never touching wood), some are and people use different names . Although I admit it seems the public can usually figure them out because they have been around much longer and old was the exception no the rule - which is the opposite of whiskey ( in the last 100 years or so anyway).

Short form: I'm going with White Whiskey because it's reasonably comprehensive and easier to understand. The other terms have a little too much connotation or expectation about proof, quality, possibly too technical .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We call our product white whiskey and have a bold statement on the front left side that says "Aged zero months". It's becoming a big seller for us.

It's just white dog diluted to 100 proof. There are some folks out there calling product between 160 proof and 190 proof white whiskey. I think High West does this and maybe Death's Door (I'm not sure about those guys). I think the distillation proof makes these much different. It's more like a blend of our vodka and our white whiskey. They are both interesting products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We call our product white whiskey and have a bold statement on the front left side that says "Aged zero months". It's becoming a big seller for us.

Under the regs doesn't it have to have 'some' amount of aging to hold the whiskey classification? I think there's one on the market who ages "...72 hours or less..." on the label. So how are you getting the COLA to pass with 0-aging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

§ 5.22 The standards of identity.

B) Class 2; whisky. “Whisky” is an alcoholic distillate from a fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190° proof in such manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers (except that corn whisky need not be so stored), and bottled at not less than 80° proof, and also includes mixtures of such distillates for which no specific standards of identity are prescribed.

Bottom line, if it's white and you want to call it "whisk(e)y," it's either "aged for a period of time in oak containers," no minimum req. there, or it's at least 80% corn mash... or at least that's how it's SUPPOSED to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our whiskey is classified as "other whiskey" similar to Buffalo Trace.

Here's their label approval:

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=08261001000250

The standards of identity and the BAM don't exactly say the same thing.

I would like to add a few things:

1. My white dog/white whiskey has "the taste, aroma, and characteristics of whiskey generally attributed to whiskey" as mentioned in the BAM, section 4-2. I also don't think there's anyone that's being fooled that it's an aged product. After all, I make it very clear that its not. I understand section 5.22 says differently.

2. Most importantly, if you are gonna argue that our product doesn't fit the definition of whiskey with a TTB agent (for your own label approval) please don't use me as an example. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bonanza

Im in discussion since 6 month with the local INH (Ecuador), something like the TTB in the States.

They dont want me to call my spirit Corn Whisky (Whisky de Maiz), neither they allow me to call it Corn Liquor (Licor de Maiz).

Last news is that they accept Grain Spirit (aguardiente de cereals).

I will accept that for now but want to rectify it with some political power to Corn Whisky.

I would be very thankful if someone can email me a label approval as Corn whisky like John posted.

If I have some US or other countries approvals in my hand I could force the INH to add the category.

Thanks for any help.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m in discussion since 6 month with the local INH (Ecuador), something like the TTB in the States.

They don’t want me to call my spirit “Corn Whisky” (Whisky de Maiz), neither they allow me to call it “Corn Liquor” (Licor de Maiz).

Last news is that they accept “Grain Spirit” (aguardiente de cereals).

I will accept that for now but want to rectify it with some political power to Corn Whisky.

I would be very thankful if someone can email me a label approval as “Corn whisky” like John posted.

If I have some US or other countries approvals in my hand I could force the INH to add the category.

Thanks for any help.

Joe

You can go to our site www.coloradogolddistillers.com and take a look at our "Corn Whiskey" label which has been approved by the TTB for the last 3 years. Coop TTB ID 09322001000145

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bonanza

Thanks for that coop

The photo is a little small but I copied it to my archives.

It would be great if I can get that category added.

I'm foreigner in this country (German) and at any corner you have to give a "present" to get what you need, it's a real mess.

Hope this isn't too far off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The traditional term in the United States for unaged whiskey was 'common whiskey,' but that was long before the Standards of Identity.

Of all the terms mentioned in the original post, 'whiskey' is the only one that is regulated. It's probably the most desirable word to use, with or without a modifier, for any flavorful grain spirit. Since whiskey must have contact with oak by law, we have to teach people that wood-aged whiskey can be clear. That doesn't seem like a huge obstacle. So 'white whiskey' is a good term. The average person's intuitive sense of what it means is largely correct, which is a great recommendation for it, and rare.

'Moonshine' is tough to resist because it resonates with the consumer, but using it on a legal product corrupts the true meaning of the word, leading to confusion. Many people mistakenly believe that moonshine is a type of distilled spirit when, in fact, it is any distilled spirit produced illegally. Using the term 'moonshine' on an unaged whiskey product is doubly wrong since virtually all true moonshine is sugarjack.

I don't like 'American whiskey' as a catch-all category, although 'other American whiskey' is fine. The natural meaning of 'American whiskey' is a whiskey made in America, an umbrella term that includes bourbon, rye, corn, blended, Tennessee, i.e., everything not everything except the major categories. It has never been all about bourbon and even Tennessee whiskey has to be respected as a de facto type even if it's not de jure.

'White Dog' is nice because it is colloquial and sounds vaguely 'bad' (like 'moonshine') but it's also traditional and authentic. I've been hanging around American distilleries for the past 30 years and folks in the industry probably use the term 'white dog' the most. It seems to roll off the tongues of distillers in Kentucky and Tennessee most naturally, that's for sure. 'New make' is similar but doesn't have any tang. It's bloodless, but equally authentic. 'New make' is for use in company that might not get 'white dog,' especially non-native English speakers. Both terms also get around the need to have oak involved.

You can't realistically make any of them proprietary so there's some value in trying to think of a term that communicates what it is as effectively as 'white whiskey' but that you can own.

Back at the beginning of my career I used to hear 'high wines' a lot but almost never now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting question, since it always seemed to me that it would have been a huge omission for the writers of the standards of identity not to include a "catch all" category for those beverages that were so outrageous and odd that the writers of the standards of identity would never have thought of them when writing the standards.

I'm no English major, and I apparently misspell whiskey often, but the way I read § 5.22 CFR, whiskey might have a touch of catch-all to it. Wouldn't the following be a perfectly complete general description of whiskey?

"‘Whisky’ is an alcoholic

distillate from a fermented

mash of grain produced at less than

190° proof in such manner that the distillate

possesses the taste, aroma, and

characteristics generally attributed to

whisky, stored in oak containers (except

that corn whisky need not be so

stored), and bottled at not less than 80°

proof..."

I see no need to further expand upon this "general" definition of whiskey, especially since the Standards go on to define the various different types of that class (or classes of that type... I'm still new to this...) yet the Standards do add something to this general definition of whiskey:

"and also includes mixtures of

such distillates for which no specific

standards of identity are prescribed."

I find this very interesting. If "such manner that..." refers to the following manner, wouldn't "such distillates..." refer to the following distillates? If "such distillates" is meant to refer to the previous clause, then why is it plural? The previous clause has only one subject: "whisky".

The way that I read it, all mixtures of distillates which have no specific standard of identity would fall into the category of whiskey. Is whiskey (or whisky) intended to be the catch-all category?

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I find it difficult to read the law any other way, though I'm sure that one could read it any way that one wants, as is the fashion these days.

Nick

P.S. I think that this really highlights the need for the Standards to be seriously revisited. In my opinion, they've been left alone for so long that they're beginning to verge on nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whiskey is a distilled spirit made from grain. Now perhaps there should be a distinction as between eau-de-vie (clear) and brandy (brown, aged in wood). Time between distillation and bottling should have no import with respect to class, only the means of maturation, since it's only in that way that the spirit is transformed.

There may well have been valid reasons in 1938 for declaring something labeled as whiskey must have been stored in oak. Historically, if the distillate came from grain is was whiskey, if from fruit it was brandy.

TTB is approving COLAs and formulas for products labeled as whiskey that have never been stored in oak. Perhaps Chuck can confirm with his industry sources whether BT and HH are transferring their white dog/new make whiskey from the usual stainless steel tanks into some kind of oak container before bottling. But my guess is they're not doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheryl,

Like you, I'm fairly certain that BT isn't aging in oak. I could be wrong.

I think the catch all as nick referred to is a good point. It's also clear that the BAM just says the "taste, aroma, and characteristics of whiskey generally attributed to whiskey" with no mention of oak until it gets down to the type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll notice that Maker's Mark soon to be released White Dog was approved as a Distilled Spirits Specialty, a term us Absinthe distillers are far too familiar with.....

So they obviously thought that Formula approval was the way to go, and either they or the TTB think it isn't whiskey.

BT submitted a formula, too, but the TTB or BT called it an "other whiskey". As per usual, the waters are very muddied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll notice that Maker's Mark soon to be released White Dog was approved as a Distilled Spirits Specialty, a term us Absinthe distillers are far too familiar with.....

So they obviously thought that Formula approval was the way to go, and either they or the TTB think it isn't whiskey.

BT submitted a formula, too, but the TTB or BT called it an "other whiskey". As per usual, the waters are very muddied.

[/quote

When I read requirements I called mine Colorado's Own Corn Whiskey. I put mine on oak but for a short period of time only. I will try to attach a photo of mine. Coop

post-38-130218805144_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rarnold3

Thanks for all the replies so far.

I grew up in Kentucky, and white dog was the term I heard most often. New make less so. Moonshine meant something produced outside the law, and I believe the term should be reserved for such a spirit. We risk compromising the historical and cultural image of moonshine if we use it otherwise.

As more and more white dogs are released with different terms being used, my concern is the public will get lost in the names. Establishing this category is an up-hill battle. I recently asked a bartender if they had any un-aged whiskey...he replied by saying, "ya, we call it vodka."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd,

The difference between the two label approvals clearly shows, as you stated "that the waters are very muddied".

The COLA I posted has no formula, the one you posted does have a formula. It's basically the same product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there an age statement required on "corn whiskey" or "other whiskey" aged less than 4 years?

Information on the TTB website is confusing on this topic.

Section 5.22 indicates that "corn whisky need not be so stored" in oak containers, which may leave some to conclude that neither age nor an age statement is required.

Section 13 of the BAM indicates "A statement of age is required for: All types of whisky aged less than 4 years."

Section 5.40 does not provide much clarity, indicating that that no age statement is required, but only if the whiskey is "straight whisky bottled in conformity with the bottled in bond labeling requirements," which is a pretty tight definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spoken at length with both our specialist for formulation, as well as the supervisor of formulation in the past on this matter. From my conversations with them, the bottom line is if you don't submit a formula, and you submit "whisk(e)y" on your label, you are swearing that you're making a whiskey, whether it be an unaged corn or aged whiskey of a different mashbill. Now if everyone who's making a "white dog" that is unaged and not 80% corn in the mash were to submit a formula to the TTB, than I would wager to say that most, if not all, would be approved as "spirits distilled from grain." So, basically, according to formulation, if you make a less than 80% corn mash white dog and bypass formulation and still put "whisk(e)y" on the label, you're wrong. I can also speak from experience that the labeling and formulation folks are of two different camps. This is a formulation matter, labeling folks approve labels, it us up to YOU, the producer, or formulation to determine if what you're making is legal to the label. Now if someone has spoken directly with someone in formulation and they've said that an unaged, less than 190 proof off the still, ALL GRAIN distilled spirit of less than 80% corn can be labeled as "whisk(e)y," I'd love to know about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I understand exactly what you are saying.

And Chuck is right that BT calls it White Dog, not White Whiskey.

However, in both of the COLAs linked on this thread, they are not classified as "Spirits Distilled from Grain", they are classified as "other whiskey". BT's label also tell you that it's less than 80% corn. It's clear that someone at the TTB thinks this is a whiskey. I can't imagine the formulation people approve a formula only to have BT get it approved under a different classification.

EDIT: I'm not trying to argue, but rather try to make some sense out of all of this. Just to be clear......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...