DEFINING "CRAFT" DISTILLERY

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

The following is meant as a jumping off point, though it does seem to cover the meat of the subject. Time to define the terms: "craft" and "artisan" distillers. Here's my first attempt. Comments welcome.

****

PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "CRAFT" OR "ARTISAN" DISTILLER

"Craft distillers produce alcoholic beverage spirits by distillation, or by infusion through distillation or redistillation. Maximum production for a "craft" or "artisan" distiller should not exceed 50,000 proof gallons per year. The "craft" or "artisan" distiller utilizes a pot still, with or without rectifcation columns, for distillation of beverage spirits. A distiller starting with neutral spirits produced by others, who redistills without substantially altering the neutral character of the spirit may not be said to be a "craft" or "artisan" distiller.

***

This definition deliberately excludes producers of infused products making use of alcohol which the producer has not made from the fermentation and/or distillation process. It is inclusive of the distiller who starts with grain neutral spirits and then redistills as a function of infusion or some other process which substantially alters the neutral character of the original spirit. It excludes the distiller who starts with gns and merely runs it through a still again to create another neutral spirit; or starting with grain neutral spirits only adds flavoring and/or color unless those changes are introduced as the result of distillation, not merely as additives. It excludes blenders or bottlers who buy spirits from another distiller to blend and bottle it under another brand. The "distiller" must distill.

Ralph Erenzo

Tuthilltown Spirits

Gardiner, NY

[Hans]

Does this refer to the use of the terms craft and artisan as they relate to a business or a product or both?

While I agree with this in principal it creates a few questions for me.

As a company...

If a company produces a whiskey which clearly meets the definition, but also sells a vodka which they produced (if you want to call it that) by simply bottling ngs, are they a craft distiller or not?

As a product...

How about a company that contracts to another company to produce a product for them? Example- some of the vodkas produced at the big potato distillery in idaho refer to their products as craft distilled...

Our winery has had several companies contact us who are not alcohol producers but upon finding out our distilling intentions approach us about producing "craft distilled" products for them (we do not private label any of our wines and likely won't do this with our spirits either). But, if we produce these, can they call these products craft distilled? Or, should craft distilled products only be those produced and marketed by a craft distillery ie; the craftsmen who produce them?

Thoughts?

HansD

[Jonathan Forester]

Hi Folks- I just want to throw something else into the discussion. What do you think about Ansley Coale at Hangar One and their trade mark of the term "Craft Distillers"?

Here's a copy of a letter from Ansley Coale to Bill Owens.

Dear Bill,

This is about our trademark, Craft Distillers. Early in 2002, looking for a name for the marketing company I was starting up to market Germain-Robin, St George Spirits, and Hangar One, I came up with "Craft Distillers". At that point, to my knowledge, no one was using the term (people, including us, were then calling themselves "artisan distillers"). We applied to trademark the name Craft Distillers for 2 reasons, the first one being the normal commercial purpose of having a trade name that no one could copy. Still, I can imagine a bunch of hands-on distillers reading this and thinking: "who do those jerks think they are?" But we had a second and very important purpose: to prevent an unscrupulous marketer from using the phrase to misleadingly name a product made with non-craft methods.

Unfortunately, in order to maintain a valid protection of the trademark, we are required to protect the trademark Craft Distillers from all commercial use by others, no matter how mellow/low-key/small-production someone might be who wanted to use it. We have in fact twice prevented other producers from making commercial use of this trademark. At the moment the trademark has been in continual use in use for 5 1/2 years - among other places, on the bottles of the brands we market - and it has been registered since early 2004.

I'm writing this as an attempt to prevent an unfortunate situation in which someone might - in good faith - use the phrase Craft Distillers, or some other phrase or variant close enough to the trademarked phrase to allow a consumer/tradesperson to confuse it, for commercial purposes. As I said, for the reasons I mentioned in the first two paragraphs, we would of necessity proceed to prevent that use, a situation we would much rather avoid.

Bill, I would be grateful if you would print this. Hope all is well.

Warm regards,

Ansley Coale

Craft Distillers

[Charles@AEppelTreow]

I've seen a variation on this discussion kicked around the small [hard] cidermakers circles for years. Usually along with argumaents as to what 'real' cider is.

I haven't yet seen such a discussion turn out something productive.

'Craft' is market-speak. It's a pitch to the consumer - not to other producers, small or large. When it's not market speak, it's an attempt to segment a market, usually along lines clear to some, unclear to others and different from common consumer perceptions.

I'm not even sure how you could enforce the terms' 'proper' use (assuming comrade Coale's position is bunk - and I'm a chemist, not a lawyer) - except by gentlemen's agreement - and i've heard it rumored that some business-folk aren't gentlemanly.

But such discussions are usually lively and entertaining!

[that guy]

With or without rectification columns......... Seems like a bit of a strech dude. You do realize that at one point you use "infuse" in your definion but then in your explaination state that you are deliberatly trying to exclude "infused"products. I also think that if you feel the need for such definition you should not be grouping artisian & craft as one. Instead of defining this by marketing terms first, why not start with various volume tiers like the brewing industry....THEN we can come up with the gimic pitch we will all use and abuse while trying to sell our products? I also do not feel you should be defining either by the types of equipment used....rather ingredients.

[Robert Hess]

There are currently bills going through the House and Senate of Washington State which are trying to create a "Craft Distillers License". The license will decrease the annual fee, as well as allow a "craft distiller" to provide limited tastings and sales of their product (which currently "distillers" aren't allowed to do, although breweries and wineries can).

Both bills essentially define a "craft distiller" as:

"...the distillery must produce no more than 20,000 gallons of spirits per year using a pot still, and at least half of the raw materials used in the production must be grown in Washington."

(the "pot still" clause is apparently going to be changed to "using low production methods"... or something like that)

If you're interested in more details about these bills you can find them here:

Senate Bill 6496:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6496

House Bill 2959:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2959

[Gwydion Stone]

I think a lot of the language that surrounds "craft distilling" or "artisan distilling" is more properly termed "micro-distilling."

In my opinion, craft is not about whether one uses a pot still or column still—they're just tools—or whether one purchases pre-made GNS—it's just a blank canvas—or even if the volume is over a certain amount. And it damned sure isn't about where you source your materials. It's about what you do with all of the above.

It's about utilizing craftsmanship, calling upon one's talents and skills in an intimate, personal connection with the materials and process. Certainly, most of the products that we would generally think of as craft-distilled would be made in a pot still, but if one wants to produce a true "craft vodka" from scratch, one needs a column still. Is it less craft because of that?

If I produce 200,000 proof gallons of spirit in a year, but I've done it in a battery of fifteen, 300-liter, copper alembics handmade by artisans in Portugal, and I've blended the the ingredients and tasted every batch personally, as it distilled, and made decisions about my cuts, am I not a craft distiller?

If I buy GNS, but I then hand-grind and blend the foreign-sourced botanicals and distill it into a fine gin, tasting every few minutes, am I not a craft distiller?

[Robert Hess]

I think it could be argued that as volume increases the ability to do "craft" distilling eventually starts to decrease... but I get your point.

I agree that the term "micro distillery" perhaps not only embodies the concept better, but is also already familiar to the consumer through the common use of "micro-brewery". Folks still refer to their beers as "craft" beers, but if you tell somebody you are a "microbrewery" that pretty much immediately know what you are talking about, and when you ask a bartender for what microbrews they have, you'll get a definate answer, while if you asked them for what "craftbeers" they had, you might confuse them.

So would the terms microdistillery and microspirits be better terms to use here?

[dgpoff]

I think it could be argued that as volume increases the ability to do "craft" distilling eventually starts to decrease... but I get your point.

I agree that the term "micro distillery" perhaps not only embodies the concept better, but is also already familiar to the consumer through the common use of "micro-brewery". Folks still refer to their beers as "craft" beers, but if you tell somebody you are a "microbrewery" that pretty much immediately know what you are talking about, and when you ask a bartender for what microbrews they have, you'll get a definate answer, while if you asked them for what "craftbeers" they had, you might confuse them.

So would the terms microdistillery and microspirits be better terms to use here?

All interesting points. Is there not a difference between someone who makes their spirits from local raw ingredients, grain to bottle, and someone who uses purchased NGS? I believe there is. People have called our process of making spirits from grain inefficient, not economical, and even stupid. We call it craft distilling. Does that make us "better?" No, just different I guess. More local.

If NGS is the answer, why not take that thought process all the way and buy rum, whiskey, gin, and other finished products that you can then add a personal touch to, and market as locally produced spirits? THus the problem. Where to draw the line.

[Jonathan Forester]

Gwydion- I agree with you about the point that a more encompassing and correct term is micro-distilling. A few months ago Bill Owens and I were tossing around some thoughts on terminology and definitions when he published the above letter from Ansely Coale, and then chatted a bit about it again earlier today. This is a great discussion because we really do need to define these terms as we also define this industry.

Back in November I even predicted that this discussion on terminology would be happening soon. http://www.slashfood.com/2007/11/30/micro-...nto-high-speed/

Someone has even started towards defining the term at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdistilling

I think a lot of the language that surrounds "craft distilling" or "artisan distilling" is more properly termed "micro-distilling."

In my opinion, craft is not about whether one uses a pot still or column still—they're just tools—or whether one purchases pre-made GNS—it's just a blank canvas—or even if the volume is over a certain amount. And it damned sure isn't about where you source your materials. It's about what you do with all of the above.

It's about utilizing craftsmanship, calling upon one's talents and skills in an intimate, personal connection with the materials and process. Certainly, most of the products that we would generally think of as craft-distilled would be made in a pot still, but if one wants to produce a true "craft vodka" from scratch, one needs a column still. Is it less craft because of that?

If I produce 200,000 proof gallons of spirit in a year, but I've done it in a battery of fifteen, 300-liter, copper alembics handmade by artisans in Portugal, and I've blended the the ingredients and tasted every batch personally, as it distilled, and made decisions about my cuts, am I not a craft distiller?

If I buy GNS, but I then hand-grind and blend the foreign-sourced botanicals and distill it into a fine gin, tasting every few minutes, am I not a craft distiller?

[Charles@AEppelTreow]

For me, part of the definition of craft (or artisan) producer is a production philosophy that works _with_ the natural variation in one's raw materials, rather than trying to control and subdue it. A macro-producer needs every bottle opened by a consumer to be identical. A craft producer looks at the differences in crop to crop and source to source and goes with it. They typically don't have the resources (or inclination) to blend to perfect consistency.

Size is not necessarily easy to address. It's somewhat subjective. A craft producer may start small, but I know a winemaker (happens to be the biggest in the state, but not big by CA measures) who makes, literally, 1000 times what I do. Started small and grew - and yet I don't think he's lost the artisan 'spirit'.

And why do the terms need strict defining? Who's the intended audience?

[Jonathan Forester]

Personally I feel we need to define the terms for several reasons. Here are a few that just pop in my head easily. First, for our target, consumers of fine beverages. They should know and feel comfortable that we are producing an artisanal, handcrafted, premium product. Second, our secondary target, consumers who aren't yet familiar with artisanal spirits but with education may become consumers. Third, something along the lines of what Coale states that the terms be defined so that the big boys can't market products as artisanal, etc. when they are not. (Although I definitely don't agree with his approach of trademarking the term and then fighting to 'own' it when 'craft distillers' want to use the because it rightfully applies to them and their products. I think he is fighting a battle that long term will lead to him losing the war. Several states are setting up licenses for 'craft distilleries' and so taking his trademark out of the realm as such, and into that of legal terminology and defining it as a proper noun rather than an adjective.)

For me, part of the definition of craft (or artisan) producer is a production philosophy that works _with_ the natural variation in one's raw materials, rather than trying to control and subdue it. A macro-producer needs every bottle opened by a consumer to be identical. A craft producer looks at the differences in crop to crop and source to source and goes with it. They typically don't have the resources (or inclination) to blend to perfect consistency.

Size is not necessarily easy to address. It's somewhat subjective. A craft producer may start small, but I know a winemaker (happens to be the biggest in the state, but not big by CA measures) who makes, literally, 1000 times what I do. Started small and grew - and yet I don't think he's lost the artisan 'spirit'.

And why do the terms need strict defining? Who's the intended audience?

[grehorst]

I think the definition can be fairly broad and still separate us from "the big guys". I agree with Gwydion- NGS is a blank slate and there's nothing wrong with a "craft distillery" using it if you are adding value to it. It's called NGS because it's neutral, it doesn't matter where it's made because in theory it's the same- add your ingredients, your creativity, your expertise, your sweat (figuratively speaking of course) and now you've produced a "craft" product.

I think added value is key. Lets face it, not every state has the agricultural or sourcing variety that (for example) California does. The state of Wisconsin has an agricultural program which defines something produced in Wisconsin as "50% of a product's ingredients, production, or processing activities are from Wisconsin". I think this is a pretty good guideline, it takes into account those intangibles of production and processing- a big part of the craft distilling process. I also think this fit's into Ralph's definition.

[Robert Hess]

The NGS issue can be trickey.

The goal of a true NGS can be its absolute neutrality of any characteristics. To achieve that takes a "big bucks" distillery. And at that level NGS becomes simply a "raw product", just as the water is which is added. Thus a "craft" distiller would want to focus on simply finding the best possible product to use. For a true NGS, it doesn't matter if it is made from grain, grapes, or whatever.

That doesn't mean there isn't value to making a high-proof spirit that isn't "quite" neutral to use. In the Absinthe world there is some discussion about instead of using NGS, to use a grape spirit as the base to add an additional layer of character to the product. Likewise you can simply look at Cointreau versus Grand Marnier to see how this plays out in a liqueur. Cointreau uses NGS, Grand Marnier uses a brandy base, resulting in two similar products, which are properly used differently. I feel high-proof spirit made in a low-production still will exhibit characteristics of it's base product, and/or it's manufacture methods, which could be a good thing, or could be a bad thing, depending on what the distiller is really trying to achieve.

I think it is perfectly fine for a craft distiller to choose to make their own high-proof base spirit, which might not "quite" be true NGS. In fact I think it is admireable for them to do so, but I don't think that such needs to be seen as the "definition" of a craft distiller.

-Robert

[Robert Hess]

...defines something produced in Wisconsin as "50% of a product's ingredients, production, or processing activities are from Wisconsin". I think this is a pretty good guideline...

But what if you want to produce something that is made from ingredients which aren't grown in Wisconsin? Does this mean that a craft distiller should be artificially limited to what they are able to produce?

I'm all in favor of bottle labeling which can proudly inform consumers of some sort of "Produced With Local Ingredients" type of concept of that product. But I don't think that this should be tied to the range of products which a craft distiller should be able to make. In fact, such labeling is far better than simply a "line item" in a regulation. Without bottle labeling, there is no consumer awareness, without extensive marketing, which the craft distiller clearly is not capable of doing.

-Robert

[grehorst]

But what if you want to produce something that is made from ingredients which aren't grown in Wisconsin? Does this mean that a craft distiller should be artificially limited to what they are able to produce?

-Robert

Absolutely not. That was my point when I quoted the guideline which includes 'production' and 'processing' among the 50% of the product. Perhaps you read it as 50% of the ingredients had to be WI?

It's hard to quantify, but I use NGS to make Gin- this gin includes some local botanicals but I 'produce' and 'process' it in WI so it easily meets this 50% requirement.

[Robert Hess]

Ahhh.... you are so right. I was blinded by "products ingredients", and didn't parse the "production or processing" bit :->

[Rich Morgan]

Definition of a CRAFT DISTILLERY is when.....

you do not have Diageo PLC or Pernod Ricard on your business card (HA !)

[cowdery]

"Micro" just means small and is easy enough to define, although one of the first companies to use the term "micro-distillery" was Jim Beam, about 15 years ago, in a completely phony way (for a product called Jacob's Well bourbon), and they got me fired for calling them out on it.

Terms such as "craft" and "artisan" are a little trickier, and spurious trademark claims notwithstanding, they suggest that something special and individualistic is being done that makes the final product more desirable in some tangible way. It suggests that "something" is important and cannot be achieved on an industrial scale.

America's industrial whiskey-makers grind their own grains, do their own mashing and fermentation, employ the traditional sour mash process, distill the beer at a relatively low proof (70% ABV is about average) using a unique double-distillation process (one pass through a column still, followed by one pass through a pot still), and age it in new charred barrels for, in most cases, no less than four years and often much more.

Some, though not all, still make their own yeast.

Who, among micro-distilleries, is more "craft" or "artisan" than that? My question, and it's a sincere inquiry, is if you want to make whiskey, don't you need to top that and, if so, how?

To me, it comes down to the difference between a professional and a hobbyist. Nothing wrong with having a hobby, but I suspect most micro-distillers don't consider it a hobby, so how can it be wrong to bulk up on the professionalism with some standards?

[Osocalis]

Charles,

Again, I couldn’t agree more! In fact (I know this is heresy) most of my favorite beers are not microbrews.

In terms of whiskey, you make a strong and compelling argument and while I do not disagree at all, let me make a few observations from the brandy side of things.

1) In Cognac, to use the name Cognac on the product, there are a number of regulations that need to be followed (it is Europe after all). Most of these are aimed at insuring a basic quality of the product. While not touching on all of these, let me point out that it is required to use a still of less than 24hl. Why, one might ask? Because size does matter and the surface area to volume ratio has a profound influence on the final brandy. Thus, an argument can be made for micro.

But does this not beg the question of whether or not all Cognac is made in micro-distilleries? I note, that I am not suggesting that 24hl is the magic number for all distillates (whiskey I would imagine, would be different) but just that there is a magic number and technique for all classic distillates.

2) In the US, modern brandy production with traditional techniques was truly pioneered by Hubert Germain-Robin of Alambic, Inc. (who unfortunately no longer works for the company). Here in California, Hubert experimented with new fermentation techniques and the distillation of single varieties of grapes (Pinot Noir is the classic example) that were never used before in either Cognac of California. Over the years (and it took many) Germain-Robin achieved a worldwide status for quality brandy as well as other products. This, I would claim was truly artesian.

Overall, I think ‘craft’ is a loaded concept and pre-supposes a level of quality that frankly, I think is presently lacking in many of the small startup distilleries. My sense is that ‘micro’ is likely easier to define. I suggest that before defining ‘artisan’, ‘micro’, ‘craft’ or another distillery descriptor, we should focus the discussions on the definitions of the quality factors (much of which has already been done by the way) of the traditional products that the new small distilleries are trying to produce. The similarities or differences here might both shed light on the industry and suggest some possible differences that might warrant a title different from just distillery (which by the way is fine for me).

[A Craft Distiller : )]

One quick note to this tread. I know that Craft Distiller is being claimed. BUT - microdistilling is also trademarked. Some oil company trademarked it for some process that they came up with.

We seem to be running out of things to call ourselves!!!

[cowdery]

I'm not here to give legal advice, but any trademark that consists of common words or a common expression is entitled to little if any trademark protection. One cannot "own" a word. No one need worry about using either of these terms descriptively. Beyond that, consult your own legal advisors, but I think you'll be reassured by what they tell you.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

The definitions proposed in my early post were starting points. The terms "craft distiller", "artisan distiller", or whatever, may be agreed or not as the overall descriptive terms for the small distiller. The key issue for us at Tuthilltown, and I think for the nascent industry, is "distilling". If a producer takes already made spirits and merely ages it, or infuses it then filters and into the bottle, or in the case of ngs, simply waters it down and bottles it, or redistills ngs adds water and bottles it, is not a "distiller"; but instead is a "rectifier" or "bottler". If you are not substantially changing the nature of the product you start with by the process of distillation, it isn't a craft or artisan production by distillation.

And yes, it is important that these things be defined. If you want a place at the table in the regulatory process, then you had better be able to define your terms in a qualified manner. I can tell you from direct personal business experience, any newly emerging business, and especially one so competitive as ours is, must take itself seriously if the players expect to make any progress without being trounced by the existing structure (read: BIG ALCOHOL). And guaranteed, the growing micro/artisan/craft distilling industry does NOT want big alcohol or the government telling it what it is or is not. Define the terms and accept them as the industry standard and it will be easier to convince the lawmakers and regulators and the industry at large that this is not a fluke and the small distilling industry is the future of high end spirits production.

For me, the terms "craft" and "artisan" imply hands on, small batch production. The numbers are up for debate. I do think that trademarking the term "craft distillers" could be challenged as being to vague and generic. Regardless how long it has been in use, just means no one has challenged it yet. But it is my opinion that a trademark issued a phrase or term in common usage in the trade is not sustainable under challenge. Notwithstanding the issue of trademarks, defining terms is important in the larger picture.

The Fed, in case you have not noticed, has changed the spelling of the commonly and traditionally used American "whiskey" to the Euro spelling: "whisky" in the Federal Standards of Identity. This seemingly innocuous change has the potential for great impact upon the small distiller. Why? Because the Euro definition of "whisky/whiskey" requires minimum of three years in oak. American Whiskey is different from European Whisky. The American definition has not minimum aging requirement for whiskey. The US definition requires aging in "new charred oak" barrels, the Euro definition has no such requirement. The EU definition was adopted from wording provided by the Scottish Whisky Association (you think they're a wee bit protectionist?) The decision was accepted by the US upon the acceptance of DISCUS (you think the big whiskey guys care if your young whiskey is prohibited from the EU market??)

If the Federal Government has switched the spelling, the stage is set for acceptance of a European definition of American Whiskey. Scotch is Scottish, Bourbon and Rye Whiskeys are American Spirits and should not be defined by the Euros/SWA.

So quit the debate and focus on the real issues. Sure no one of the wildcatters getting into the small distillery biz likes to be classified or named or told what the boundaries should be, me among them. But this is the serious side of the business, who are you? What do you make? Who says what you can call your product? Get to the definition instead of avoiding the issue and arguing semantics. Distillers distill. Everyone else is a producer, but not necessarily a distiller.

[cowdery]

"Whiskey" and "whisky" are simply two different spellings of the same word. The "ey" spelling tends to be preferred in the United States while the "y" spelling tends to be preferred in Scotland, but producers in both countries use the other spelling on occasion.

How the word is spelled has NO regulatory significance, either in Europe or the United States. It is one of the dozens of words that Americans and Brits spell differently.

Yes, there is a slight difference between the EU and US definitions of that word, but they have NOTHING to do with the way the word is spelled.

[Ken]

While I'm not going to comment one way or another on the spelling of Whiskey, I do feel the need to comment on Ralph's post. It is a fair warning!

I spend a fair amount of time in Europe on business and the EU is giving me an invaluable education on bureaucracy run amok. If craft distillers or as I like to think of myself as a brandy grower let others define our products, it will be at our expense. I'm 6 months from opening the doors and there is plenty to worry about…. the paperwork, my wife thinking I’m nuts, the Baptist Church up the road, the caterpillars, fire blight, early and late frosts, too much rain, not enough rain, but the threat that really scares me is unforeseen future legislation, application of product definitions and the lack of a unified voice representing craft distillers.