Christian Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 A new chapter began yesterday in the story of Tennessee’s whiskey making heritage when three living legends of moonshine making signed a deal to bring over 100 years of backwoods experience to Short Mountain Distillery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I hate to think this micro-distillery movement is about the perpetuation and exploitation of myths, stereotypes, and misrepresentations. This confusion of moonshining, bootlegging, and Tennessee whiskey does a disservice to everyone in this industry who is trying to produce an honest, quality product and sell it in an honest, sincere and straightforward way. Just a couple of specific points. Since moonshine is any distilled spirit produced illegally, and not a distilled spirit type, there can be no such thing as 'legal moonshine.' Bootleggers are people who sell alcohol illegally, although the alcohol they sell may be either legally or illegally produced, and most actual bootleggers today sell legal alcohol illegally. In the news story, one of the participating moonshiners talks about hauling the "sugar and corn meal" back to the still site. Most moonshine is made from cane sugar and is not, therefore, whiskey. Tennessee whiskey is, according to the Federal government, "straight bourbon whiskey produced in Tennessee." Nothing in this project involves Tennessee whiskey so the subject line is a misrepresentation on its face. I know you think you're just having some fun for the tourists, but illegal alcohol production and illegal alcohol sales are serious crimes that do a lot of harm, both to people and to the reputations of respectable alcohol makers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick jones Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I hate to think this micro-distillery movement is about the perpetuation and exploitation of myths, stereotypes, and misrepresentations. I think what you mean to say, Cowdery, is that you LOVE to think this micro-distillery movement is about the perpetuation and exploitation of myths, stereotypes, and misrepresentations. Have a drink and lighten up a little. I dare you to have something nice to say about micro distilling in your next post on this forum. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mash Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Best of Luck Short Mountain Distillery. Hope you sell lots of _____________(insert your favorite nonmenclature here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedd Haas Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Since moonshine is any distilled spirit produced illegally, and not a distilled spirit type, there can be no such thing as 'legal moonshine.' Definitions of words change over time. This is one such case. There are numerous legal products being marketed as "moonshine" already. Hence, the definition is changing. You apparently don't agree or don't like this, but time marches on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 To Jed's point: What *should* one market their spirit that is fermented sugar flavored with some grain, as a nod to the moonshine recipies of old? Rum just doesn't seem fitting (although not too far off) and the general public has no issues handing over money for "moonshine" labled spirits packaged in mason jars at the liquor store. Also, Short Montain states on their website, "Short Mountain Distillery is Tennessee’s sixth distillery making authentic small-batch, sour mash Moonshine, Bourbon and Tennessee Whiskey from corn grown and stone-milled on a 300 acre working farm in Cannon County, Tennessee." I'm figuring they know that their Sour Mash Moonshine should not be considered a tenessee whiskey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott @ Twenty2Vodka Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 and the general public has no issues handing over money for "moonshine" labled spirits packaged in mason jars at the liquor store. This is Cowdery's point. That non-issue is based entirly on a false perception/misunderstanding of what they [the consumers] are buying. The standards of identitiy put forth by the Fed are one of those things that actually protect consumers, they are expansive in their description so that they include every possible outcome. There is little-to-no wiggle room that permits one operating in this industry to say "ahh lighten up" or "who cares, it sells". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViolentBlue Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 fantastic, I'm always glad when I see another Successful start up. looks like you folks have got a good start on things, and If I'm ever down your way I'll make it a point to stop in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrnBtlFlzy Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Am sure I'll get blasted for this, but although I am happy to see new start ups and the cultivation of products from a collusion of experience and modern distillation equipment/standards/techniques, I fail to see how this is a new chapter in Tennessee whiskey-making. Traditional products (though we aren't sure how to classify them), made by people that have been doing this for years, in a location where moonshine has been historically made according to their website: where exactly does "new" come into play? Popcorn Sutton brand moonshine works from a traditional recipe here in TN, and as per Lenny's quote from the website they are the sixth TN distillery making these "authentic" products (JD, GD, Pritchard's, C&M, and Sutton I'd suppose...not sure about Old Smoky). So a new chapter? Not so much. In any case I wish them all luck, and will certainly try the product if I can get my hands on some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick jones Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 This is Cowdery's point... There is little-to-no wiggle room that permits one operating in this industry to say "ahh lighten up" or "who cares, it sells". How much wiggle room does the CFR leave for home rectification of alcohol? From http://www.highproofspirit.com/infuse - "Beginner's No-Fail Infusion Recipe - follow these 5 steps to create your first infusion with guaranteed amazing results..." From 27 CFR 19.51 - Restrictions on production, location and use of plants - "A person may not produce distilled spirits at home for personal use..." From 27 CFR 19.1 - Definitions - "Spirits or distilled spirits. The substance known as ethyl alcohol, ethanol, or spirits of wine in any form (including all dilutions and mixtures thereof, from whatever source, or by whatever process produced)..." [emphasis added] Seems pretty clear to me... just sayin'... glass houses... stones... Nick P.S. Don't worry Scott. I won't rat you out to the feds;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott @ Twenty2Vodka Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 P.S. Don't worry Scott. I won't rat you out to the feds;) Nick Jones. I have a COLA, a publiclly viewable website (that you found by clicking on the link in my signature), and product for sale in 4 state markets. But your out of context excerpt of the law apparently makes you more of an expert. How long have you been doing this again? May i suggest that you joking about a fellony to a distiller suggests not that long? Everything I have to say on the legality of infusing AND MIXOLOGY [emphasis added] can be found here. http://adiforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2108&hl=california&fromsearch=1 Butttt, the fact that I am actually operating with all federal approvals in place and all TTB agents happy is all the proof I need. Best of luck Nick Jones. -Scott PS is the wink emoticon suppose to suggest an inside joke or what? Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Either he doesn't understand what infusion is or he doesn't know how alcohol is made, it's one or the other. Or he needs to look up "produced." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick jones Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 the fact that I am actually operating with all federal approvals in place and all TTB agents happy is all the proof I need. Apparently you misunderstood me, Scott, and I apologize for not being more clear. I did not mean to imply that you yourself are producing alcohol without a licence, merely that you are encouraging others to do it. Which, I believe, makes you an accomplice;) Buying a bottle of vodka and putting it into a mason jar with a stick of vanilla at home is every bit as illegal as buying a bottle of vodka and distilling it into gin at home. The moment you make the spirit into something that it was not when you bought it, you're "producing" spirits, regardless of the process. But for the specific exceptions in the CFR for cocktails mixed immidately prior to consumption, home rectification of alcohol is illegal. Obviously, the enforcement is non-existent because nobody cares and because it's a ridiculous law. When you say that keeping the TTB agents happy is the only issue, I completely agree. If the TTB has no problems with what Short Mountain is doing, I can't fathom why you would. Not only do I not care if the TTB approves of what you are doing at your own facility, but I assume that they must, as you are a respectable distiller with all of your approvals in place. It does bother me that you don't seem to extend the same courtesy to your fellow distillers, but what the hell can I do about that other than to say "lighten up". Nick P.S. I intend the winkiemajig to mean, "don't take this too seriously, we'll be laughing about it over drinks soon enough" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott @ Twenty2Vodka Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 First, let me appologize for my tone with my previous post. Your last sentence rubbed me the wrong way, and set me off. Complying with the fed and state regulations on all levels is something we take seriously since the consequences of ignoring such can be severe. And the way you phrased your last sentence, came across like you were doing me a favor or something. The moment you make the spirit into something that it was not when you bought it, you're "producing" spirits, regardless of the process. Where are you drawing this assumption from? The law you excerpted above does not translate into your above statement. But for the specific exceptions in the CFR for cocktails mixed immidately prior to consumption, home rectification of alcohol is illegal can you quote these exceptions? Where are you getting your definitions for "producing" and "recitification"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Nick is simply wrong on the law. A DSP may be a license to distill spirits, but it's mainly a license to buy and sell spirits. It is no more illegal to make lemoncello at home for personal consumption, using legally purchased vodka, than it is to make yourself a rum and coke. Same thing, same principle, not illegal. It is not even illegal to produce alcohol at home via fermentation. It is illegal to produce a distilled spirit using a still, but a person who makes something out of legally purchased vodka is not producing a distilled spirit through distillation, which is what the law prohibits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveflintstone Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Buying a bottle of vodka and putting it into a mason jar with a stick of vanilla at home is every bit as illegal as buying a bottle of vodka and distilling it into gin at home. The moment you make the spirit into something that it was not when you bought it, you're "producing" spirits, regardless of the process. That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. Stop the contest, we have a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick jones Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Scott, I'll preface this by saying that all of us ranting about what may or may not be against TTB regulations is a purely academic excercise. When it comes right down to it, the TTB agents decide what they decide. Is Short Mountain's "moonshine" in fact Tenesee Whiskey? It doesn't matter what Cowdry, you, or I think about it, a TTB agent will make a decision, and that's that. Am I right about vanilla infused vodka being illegal? Rat out your neighbor to the TTB and let's find out... That being said, to answer your questions, the reason that I'm saying that "distilled spirits" don't necessarily need to be distilled is because of the definition referenced above. Cowdry correctly points out that there are exceptions to the home production of "distilled spirits" for the home production of beer and wine in the CFR, but this does not mean that the overall ban on the home production of "distilled spirits" is not still otherwise a blanket prohibition. Taking apple cider and freezing the water out of it until it is 40% ABV at home is illegal, despite the fact that the product is not distilled. Using filters to separate alcohol from water at home is illegal, despite the fact that the product is not distilled. In order to make these and other "production" methods illegal, the TTB made ALL production methods illegal. 27 CFR 19.51 does not say it's illegal to "distill" spirits at home (and make no mistake, it could be worded that way, but it's not), it says it's illegal to "produce" "distilled spirits" at home. As per the above referenced definition, "distilled spirits" includes everything with any amount of alcohol in it. If a TTB agent walks into my house and asks, "where was this vanilla infused vodka made?" I can't say, "at ADM" can I? The vanilla infused vodka was made (or "produced") in my house. And that is illegal. The exception for rectifying without a licence that I was alluding to is 27 CFR 31.233 - Mixing cocktails in advance of sale: - "A retail liquor dealer shall not mix cocktails, or compound any alcoholic liquors in advance of sale, except for the purpose of filling, for immediate consumption on the premises, orders received, or expected to be recieved at the bar" Yes, barrel aged cocktails are illegal. Bartenders' own special infused vodkas are illegal. Big F'n woop. Who cares. Not the bartenders, and not the TTB either. Obviously the law was written with the intent of preventing retailers from rectifying their own drinks and cutting the all-mighty middle tier out of the money, but the law is the law, and the law says that barrel aged cocktails are illegal. As far as where I'm getting my definitions of "production" and "rectifying", they strangely enough come from two different places. In the absence of a specific definition for a term written into the section of law that I'm reading, I tend to use the generally accepted (dictionary) definition. This is how I interpret the word "production" since the word is not mentioned in 27 CFR 19.1 - Definitions. However, this is not how I interpret the word "rectifying", which the CFR always uses in a manner inconsistent with its recognized definiton, and for which I have never been able to find any specific definition in the CFR. The dictionary definition of rectifying is akin to purifying, while from the context of the term's use in the CFR I can only conclude that it means something more like "compounding". I assume that the term in the CFR is vestigal at this point, hence the lack of a definition. I interpret the term "rectifying" from its context, but I guess that here I should just say "compounding" to avoid confusion. As I hope you can see Scott, like you, I take my obligations to follow the CFR and TTB regulations very seriously. But I'm no lawyer. If I think that another distiller is breaking the law, I only have two options the way I see it: Rat him out, or Don't say anything For me, grumbling about it just isn't an option. After all, what do I know? I'm no lawyer. Just because I don't agree with the way someone is doing something, doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. The only way that I could find out if it was in fact illegal would be to report them the the Feds and see what the Feds said. But ratting people out has never been a huge passtime of mine. Cowdery, Would you please point out the law that prohibits "producing a distilled spirit through distillation"? I have been unable to find it. Dave, You're a riot. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott @ Twenty2Vodka Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I am baffled by anyone (operating in the United States of America) who treats what the law doesn't state as a "restriction" instead of a "freedom". If this is where we agree to disagree, then so be it. Again, best of luck. You will need it. [empahsis added, again] -Scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick jones Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 best of luck. I hope that you don't mind if I take that one out of context and say how much I look forward to bantering about this with you in person over some of your vodka. And best of luck to you as well. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveflintstone Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Nick, I believe you are delusional. One can only produce a distilled spirit by distilling it, hence the term. You are correct about one thing, you are most definitely not a lawyer. I will also add that you don't know how to read or interpret the law. Your academic exercise is nonsensical. How can you work in this industry and not understand the very basics of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick jones Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 How can you work in this industry and not understand the very basics of it? Dave, If you refuse to read the CFR's official definition of "distilled spirits" in 27 CFR 19.1 - Definitions, there is very little that I can do about it. Surely within the vast tome of industry knowledge that you have the unenviable burden of carrying around on your broad shoulders, there is some knowledge of the production of "distilled spirits" (AKA ethyl alcohol) via the hydration of ethylene. You probobaly recall seeing ethylene gas listed as an ingredient on your monthly report of production operations. According to your interpretation of the law, would it be legal to produce ethyl alcohol at home via the chemical systhysis of ethylene provided no distillation was performed? Please be sure that your response is as charming and witty as your previous ones, they've been such a delight to read. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 "The moment you make the spirit into something that it was not when you bought it, you're 'producing' spirits, regardless of the process." According to Nick, I cannot make and serve a rum and coke to my guest at a party because I am making the spirit into something that it was not when I bought it. I agree with Dave. We have a winner. Enough said. But it is endlessly fascinating to see how different people's minds work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveflintstone Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 According to your interpretation of the law, would it be legal to produce ethyl alcohol at home via the chemical systhysis of ethylene provided no distillation was performed? Hydration of ethylene is akin to fermentation, so yeah, knock yourself out. You'd still need to distill it to get high alcohol content. Oops, there's that word "distill" again. Seems we can't escape that word when discussing producing distilled spirits. I wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohninWV Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I use to come to this forum to learn something about my craft/profession, now I just come for the entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick jones Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Hydration of ethylene is akin to fermentation, so yeah, knock yourself out. You'd still need to distill it to get high alcohol content. Oops, there's that word "distill" again. Seems we can't escape that word when discussing producing distilled spirits. I wonder why. Umm, couldn't you make a concentrated ethyl alcohol solution by freezing the water out of the result of your ethylene hydration? Do you suppose that would be legal? Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now