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

[Jonathan Forester]

I got a newsletter with a link to this article a few weeks ago, and it has been bothering me. What do you think?

White Whiskey & Other Mythical Creatures

http://www.bevx.com/spirits/white_whiskey

[max.watman]

It's like saying that Scotch isn't whiskey because it isn't bourbon or vice versa. I think if you call it "white whiskey" you are using BOTH words, just as if you were saying "Tennessee Whiskey."

The litmus test should always be whether the purchaser, having reached out to grab the product, could have thought that they were buying something other than what they are carrying to the clerk. If you want to buy a telecaster, and when you get home you realize that you've bought an Ibanez copy of a telecaster, Fender wins the lawsuit (which I think they did, back when Ibanez was making dead knock offs).

There can be no confusion that white whiskey is white, it says it on the label, and the stuff isn't brown. Irish doesn't meet the requirements for bourbon, but that doesn't mean it isn't whiskey.

All the whiskeys have different attributes, all of them have different flavor profiles.

I would also say that it is more useful to the consumer for the product to be labeled "white whiskey" than it is for it to be labeled "moonshine" (because that's not really true, and moonshine can be anything) or "white dog" because white dog is an industry term, and one that the public doesn't necessarily have at their fingertips -- despite my efforts to tell them all about it.

White whiskey doesn't exist? Hell -- I've SEEN it.

[Denver Distiller]

My thought is that if you're going to go to the trouble to get on producers cases, you should actually do your homework so that you don't come across as a boob to those who actually know what they are talking about

"For the record, there is no such thing as White Whiskey. Whiskey by definition is aged in wood. " Bzzt, wrong. As we all know.

"Bourbon must be aged for no less than two years in charred, new oak containers. " Bzzt. Also wrong. That's Straight Bourbon, not Bourbon.

Further, we all know full well that hundreds of millions of gallons of white whiskey has been consumed in the US, long before the TTB was in existence. I'm sure quite a bit still is. Then there's the millions of gallons of bierschnapps being sold in Europe, not to mention the US. It's fantastic when it's made properly. I know, because I've made it before.

Where is the deception? They're telling you right on the label precisely what you are buying. It's right there.

If you want to talk deception, let's talk blended whiskey and blended whisky. I guarantee you that a consumer could tell you what Unaged Whiskey is eons before they could

tell you what blended whisky was, or how blended whiskey is different from blended whisky.

And as for aging, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When I was in Calif. a year ago, a well-known bartender gave me an sample of Charbay's unaged whiskey. It was absolutely glorious. I would never put that stuff in a barrel. It would completely wreck it. But that's my opinion, and nothing more.

On the other side of the coin, there's an awful lot of whiskey out there that's overaged, and doesn't taste remotely like the raw materials that were fermented in the first place. Far be it for me to to tell another distiller that they can't do that. More power to 'em, is what I say.

In my opinion, this guy is trying to be a contrarian, and nothing more. He rejects it because it's "cool", rather than enjoying unaged whiskey for what it is, and that's too bad.

[Brian]

"27 C.F.R. § 5.22 The standards of identity.

( 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."

The above is from the Code of Federal Regulations. Maybe some experts should review the law before releasing their opinions as fact. We have been challenged by many experts and we just point them back to the law as "Denver Distiller" put it.

Mixologists are very happy to have white whiskey as a new color in their pallets!!

Like any product, some versions from some purveyors exceed expectations.

Best,

Brian

[Korn Likker]

My understanding that the only true "white whisky" by law and character is Corn Whisky.....

[Tirador]

What neither the author of the article or his "expert" seem to realize is that prior to the mid-1800s most of the whiskey produced in this country and for that matter in much of the world was "white" in that it wasn't aged. It was produced and then sold, crystal clear. In the time of George Washington, for example, the Mount Vernon distillery and other distilleries of the age typically sold both un-aged whiskey and an aged whiskey that was a "premium" product. Aged whiskeys typically made up only a small fraction of the whiskey sold at that time. This is not to say that aging wasn't known, only that it wasn't used for most whiskeys at that time. Aging as a common practice came later ... though whiskies of the time did typically get some aging, as it was stored in wooden barrels that were often charred has part of the cooperage process. Some argue that aged Scotch whiskey had a higher value in the U.S. more because it had time to age and mellow aboard ship then its younger white colonial counterparts, which typically came fresh from the still.

Further, the comment that whiskey by definition is "aged" is in and of itself at least partially incorrect in that while modern definitions may reference aging, older definitions simply refer to a distillate made from fermented grain. In fact most pre-1900 books on distilling that discuss whiskey make little if any reference to aging at all.

As an example, De Brevens "The Manufacture of Liquors and Preserves" published in French in the mid-1800s and in English in 1893 and considered as one of the most important distillation texts of its time, makes only a few references to Whisky/Whiskey, the most detailed only stating that it is distilled from Rye, Oats or Corn and is produced in Scotland, Ireland and the United States. While it does discuss related fermentation and distilling techniques for producing whiskey (and gin), no aging of whiskey is mentioned at all. It also states that "a brandy made from grain (Les Eau de vie de Grains) is known as either a whiskey or gin" the latter having had juniper berries, etc. added to the process. It does discuss coloring ... but again not specific to whiskey.

By the early 1900s most distilling books do mention aging as a typical process in the manufacture of a whiskey, especially after the repeal of prohibition in 1935. Regardless, they still refer to unaged whiskey benefiting from aging to mellow the taste (as opposed to calling it something other than whiskey, that needs to be aged to become a whiskey). They almost always discuss coloring and flavoring options as well.

The risk of a white whiskey is a harsh and firey taste, which can also be managed by other methods then aging such as filtering and/or a slight dulcification as is done with some gins and vodkas, etc. In fact, it could be argued that grain-based vodkas could also be called highly rectified "white whiskey" as they are distillates of fermented grain.

Then, of course, there's the legal definitions according to U.S. Law of what's what ... as several others have stated.

Just my two cents ... perhaps I read too much?

[upinthehills]

Just my two cents ... perhaps I read too much?

Reading is a wonderful thing. Too often now reading is thought to be - "I spent 90 seconds using Google"...

Thanks for the info.

[Classick]

I feel like Matt Rowley might have something to say on this matter.

We have been making bierschnaps since 1998, as as near as i can tell, we're the first distillery in recent US history to have produced it, given that the BATF ( who was "running" things 10 years ago) had no idea what a bierschnaps was, and tried to regulate us as though we were literally making rocket fuel.

[cowdery]

The definition, "whiskey is a distilled spirit made from grain, distilled so as to retain the flavors of its ingredients, and aged in wood" is a good definition, but I don't object to fanciful use of the word 'whiskey' in a context like 'white whiskey.' Aside from all the pretense, and there is plenty of that, for most of whiskey history the word 'whiskey' described a spirit that was not aged. Then for a time it described both aged and un-aged spirit. The term for un-aged whiskey was 'common whiskey.'

Then the government (with input from the industry) decided 'whiskey' describes only aged spirit, except in the case of corn whiskey. That's the law. No denying it. The law in Europe and Canada is even tighter. You can't call it 'whiskey' unless it has spent at least three years in wood.

I don't mind 'white whiskey' because it's not misleading. Since there are 'white goods' like vodka, gin, white tequila and white rum, the meaning of 'white whiskey' is intuitive.

But the objections are legitimate too. Supporters of the Federal Standards of Identity support them because they protect the consumer from being misled. I don't believe 'white whiskey' is misleading particularly, but it is potentially confusing.

This quibble is not with the products themselves. Call your un-aged grain spirit 'unaged grain spirit' and no one will say a word. You want to call it white whiskey because white whiskey has clear marketing advantages.

I don't know Sean Ludford but I know Paul Pacult and David Wondrich pretty well. They're smart guys, good guys, and they care about drinks and drinkers. They care about authenticity. I suggest you dialogue and learn from each other the way I have learned from all of you in this forum.

[Penn]

I'm with Chuck on this: "Call your un-aged grain spirit 'unaged grain spirit' and no one will say a word. You want to call it white whiskey because white whiskey has clear marketing advantages."

We saw plenty of Unaged White Spirit at the judging. Rye, Corn, Wheat, Barley. If someone pours a clear spirit for me...first of all I thank them...and if they call it "White Whiskey," then I will assume that it is either rye or barley or a blend of the two and I will feel around for the malt flavors and other mash bill notes. The "white bourbon" we get to taste at Woodford (Max's beloved "White Dog") would qualify as a "white whiskey" because it hasn't yet touched the inside of a charred white oak barrel, and is nowhere near being Bourbon.

When we tasted the heart cut from the two-row barley malt as it came off the still at Huber's three years ago, we got a tremendous sense of the malt elements, even more intense when diluted with distilled water. THAT was "white whiskey."

It could just as easily be called "malt vodka."

[JohninWV]

I'm coming out with a white whiskey next week.

It's aged "zero" months and is a bourbon white dog.

I hope one day you folks say nice things about it like the post above.

[Denver Distiller]

I'm with Chuck on this: "Call your un-aged grain spirit 'unaged grain spirit' and no one will say a word. You want to call it white whiskey because white whiskey has clear marketing advantages."

The reason that I take issue with this article is this quote:

"However, my empathy is not boundless and the border is truth and integrity. Selling an unaged Spirit under the moniker Whiskey is misleading at best and outright blasphemous to the Whiskey purist."

Here he is implying that some of my fellow distillers are liars or have no integrity if they call their spirit White Whiskey. I have a problem with this, especially considering that he clearly doesn't understand the history of the beverage. And without even getting into the history behind this type of whiskey, from my perspective as a distiller, it's a treat to get to enjoy what the boys at the distillery get to enjoy. I don't sell my white dog currently, but I think it's damn tasty. Especially rye whiskey. We enjoy it on rocks after long days. Mr. Wondrich prefers clearly aged whiskey, and obviously I don't have a problem in the world with that stance.

Check out Buffalo Trace's White Dog label. It uses the word whiskey right on the front of the label. It's also on the back, together with a brief historical explanation as to how this is what used to be consumed back in the day....right off the still. You'll also notice in the COLA that the the TTB also believes that what is in the BT bottle is indeed a type of whiskey, rather than a Distilled Spirits Specialty.

Buffalo Trace White Dog COLA

I can understand if you don't care for the beverage in the bottle, but to imply that distillers lack integrity because they are making and selling whiskey the way it used to be sold is uncalled for.... I don't care for that.

[delaware_phoenix]

OK, I'll ask a dumb question.

Back in the KY frontier era (circa early 1800's), what did they put the whiskey in to store it until it was needed? It's not like they were going to drink it all right then. I'm presuming that maybe on a small scale, a jug. For maybe even as little as 15 gallons I wouldn't be surprised if they had barrels. Not like we have now, all charred, but the usual toasted staves to bend them into shape. The basics of shipping in those days was you probably didn't get your barrels back once you sent them down on the flatboat to New Orleans.

I understand that until recently (WW II?) barrels were 48 gallons, and half-barrels (a specific size) were 24-25 gallons.

So when did the term "white dog" originate?

[cowdery]

It's not like they were going to drink it all right then.

Actually, it's exactly like that. Yes, if whiskey was to be stored until sold, or until it reached its destination, then it probably spent that time in wood, but on the frontier most whiskey was consumed very shortly after it was made. That's why incidental aging was so rare.

[cowdery]

The reason that I take issue with this article is this quote:

"However, my empathy is not boundless and the border is truth and integrity. Selling an unaged Spirit under the moniker Whiskey is misleading at best and outright blasphemous to the Whiskey purist."

Here he is implying that some of my fellow distillers are liars or have no integrity if they call their spirit White Whiskey. I have a problem with this, especially considering that he clearly doesn't understand the history of the beverage. And without even getting into the history behind this type of whiskey, from my perspective as a distiller, it's a treat to get to enjoy what the boys at the distillery get to enjoy. I don't sell my white dog currently, but I think it's damn tasty. Especially rye whiskey. We enjoy it on rocks after long days. Mr. Wondrich prefers clearly aged whiskey, and obviously I don't have a problem in the world with that stance.

Check out Buffalo Trace's White Dog label. It uses the word whiskey right on the front of the label. It's also on the back, together with a brief historical explanation as to how this is what used to be consumed back in the day....right off the still. You'll also notice in the COLA that the the TTB also believes that what is in the BT bottle is indeed a type of whiskey, rather than a Distilled Spirits Specialty.

Buffalo Trace White Dog COLA

I can understand if you don't care for the beverage in the bottle, but to imply that distillers lack integrity because they are making and selling whiskey the way it used to be sold is uncalled for.... I don't care for that.

Don't forget, unless the spirit meets the legal definition of corn whiskey, the term "white whiskey" is (technically) a lie, because all whiskey except corn whiskey must be aged. It is not unfair, therefore, to regard use of the term "white whiskey" as an attempt to deceive. History and everything else aside, current law does not recognize "white whiskey" as a legitimate term.

[Denver Distiller]

I understand your points. It's quite likely that it never occurred to those who label their white dog as white whiskey that this was thought of by some as inaccurate, particularly when the TTB gave them their COLA.

The TTB needs to revise their SOI to include White Dog so that they don't have to classify, to finish my example, BT's White Dog as "other whiskey" as they did on BT's COLA.

I distill and bottle absinthe. The TTB doesn't have a SOI for Absithe...but that doesn't mean that what's in the bottle isn't Absinthe, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that I'm being deceptive or dishonest when I put the word Absinthe on my label, particularly because the TTB gave me a lawful COLA.

[delaware_phoenix]

Don't forget, unless the spirit meets the legal definition of corn whiskey, the term "white whiskey" is (technically) a lie, because all whiskey except corn whiskey must be aged. It is not unfair, therefore, to regard use of the term "white whiskey" as an attempt to deceive. History and everything else aside, current law does not recognize "white whiskey" as a legitimate term.

Emphasis added. Actually the regs only say is has to be placed in oak containers. No age specification is mentioned in the CFRs except regarding labeling of the spirits for age, BiB requirements. If your distilled bourbon mash sits in new charred oak containers for one day, it's bourbon. The regs don't mention one day, so the time frame for aging could be all of one minute. For the various kinds of straight whiskies, age is a requirement, but they're a different critter from common whiskey.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

I took the time to write directly to the writer of the piece in question. I did not post my letter to him (and will not), figuring there'd be enough response here and mine would be redundant, so I kept it between him and me. But here is his response:

From: Sean at BevX [mailto:sean@bevx.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 11:01 AM

To: Tuthilltown Spirits

Subject: Re: AMERICAN DISTILLING INSTITUTE

Ralph,

I haven't responded to your letter because it was an unprofessional and rambling note that one would expect from a child. You claim that my opinion piece is insulting and then proceed to pen a very nasty letter that was very personally derisive. I made sure to not take aim at one producer, to not make it personal.

I have spoken with many real whiskey producers and they have no problem with it. You make and sell "white whiskey" and you therefore need to defend that stance. I get it. We all get it.

At the end of the day, your products just aren't very good.

Do not contact me again.

Sean Ludford - Director

BevX.com (Beverage Experts)

A Beverage & Lifestyle Magazine

sean@bevx.com

http://www.BevX.com

I invite anyone so inclined to respond directly to this writer. I've included his contact information.

FOLLOWUP: After responding to Mr. Lunford that I was posting his response to me here for others to review, I got an immediate response, here it is:

From: Sean at BevX [mailto:sean@bevx.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 11:30 AM

To: Ralph Erenzo

Subject: Re: AMERICAN DISTILLING INSTITUTE

actually, you are not permitted to do that.

Sean Ludford - Director

BevX.com (Beverage Experts)

A Beverage & Lifestyle Magazine

sean@bevx.com

http://www.BevX.com

R

[sludford]

Actually I do invite any and all constructive and professional communication.

You see my reply to Ralph and you can then imagine his email to me. I am not going to post his email, as this is not proper. It was a letter addressed to me and not posted in a forum. Anything that you send me will be kept between you and myself the sender.

I am hopeful to have a good discussion with any of you one-on-one. It may even be something that leads to a follow-up story.

I took the time to write directly to the writer of the piece in question, here is his response:

From: Sean at BevX [mailto:sean@bevx.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 11:01 AM

To: Tuthilltown Spirits

Subject: Re: AMERICAN DISTILLING INSTITUTE

Ralph,

I haven't responded to your letter because it was an unprofessional and rambling note that one would expect from a child. You claim that my opinion piece is insulting and then proceed to pen a very nasty letter that was very personally derisive. I made sure to not take aim at one producer, to not make it personal.

I have spoken with many real whiskey producers and they have no problem with it. You make and sell "white whiskey" and you therefore need to defend that stance. I get it. We all get it.

At the end of the day, your products just aren't very good.

Do not contact me again.

Sean Ludford - Director

BevX.com (Beverage Experts)

A Beverage & Lifestyle Magazine

sean@bevx.com

http://www.BevX.com

I invite anyone so inclined to respond directly to this writer. Perhaps some of you would like to respond to him directly. I've included his contact information.

R

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

I won't comment on this back and forth between Mr. Ludford and me. The real question is why he has responded to my correspondence and comments and not to the string of responses to his article which have pointed out the errors and insulting character of his comments on BEVX. If he wants to be taken seriously, he should take the responses of the "real distillers" who are active on this forum to heart and admit he was dead wrong on his facts, regardless his opinions.

(And to Mr. Ludford, I invite you to post my original letter to you and let the "real distillers" judge for themselves.)

[grehorst]

Yikes. This thread is only a finger click away from being deleted. No need for the tit for tat. Sean was expressing an opinion on a blog. Agree or disagree he can do that since it's his site. I believe his blog has a comment box if anyone cares to argue, I would do it there- probably a better place because his readers will get a chance to see your differing opinions.

ADIforums is a site devoted to discussion of all things distilling. While opinions are welcome, we need to keep it civil.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

Agreed. Thanks. My apologies to all.

[Jonathan Forester]

Guy- Actually, I tried to comment on the blog a few weeks ago, but it doesn't seem to be open to comments. You have to be a registered user, but I couldn't seem to find a way to register. Maybe Mr. Ludford can help us out with this?

If anyone else has some comments to add here, please keep it fact based and as Guy requests, civil. Feel free to try to post fact based rebuttals on Mr. Ludfords site, if that is possible. I'm sure he wouldn't mind a plain discourse.

Yikes. This thread is only a finger click away from being deleted. No need for the tit for tat. Sean was expressing an opinion on a blog. Agree or disagree he can do that since it's his site. I believe his blog has a comment box if anyone cares to argue, I would do it there- probably a better place because his readers will get a chance to see your differing opinions.

ADIforums is a site devoted to discussion of all things distilling. While opinions are welcome, we need to keep it civil.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

but I couldn't seem to find a way to register. Maybe Mr. Ludford can help us out with this?

If anyone else has some comments to add here, please keep it fact based and as Guy requests, civil. Feel free to try to post fact based rebuttals on Mr. Ludfords site, if that is possible. I'm sure he wouldn't mind a plain discourse.

I also tried to register and respond, but I could find no way to do so through that site. Which is why I took the direct path to the writer.

[cowdery]

This did not have to go the way it did.

If you can get past the stylistic excesses (to my taste) in the original article, the critique was very valid. Many micro-distillers have little or no knowledge of American distilling heritage nor an in-depth understanding of the TTB's rules, neither of which is necessary to be a good distiller, i.e., that's not a rap on them. Especially, as Denver said, if the TTB has approved their COLA, that's all they need to know.

But what they did was start throwing the term "white whiskey" around without thinking it through. I first wrote about this back in March.

Many micro-distillers also seem not to have grasped the nature of the public marketplace nor the nature and purpose of consumer advocacy journalism. This is a real issue. It is something people should talk about. Ideally, it should have been talked about before these products were brought to market.

As for Delaware's point, the Standards have a number of peculiar word choices. We all know "storage in oak containers" has nothing to do with storage. It's a synonym for aging. To attempt to draw a distinction between "storage" and "aging" is pointless.