Jump to content

DEFINING "CRAFT" DISTILLERY


Recommended Posts

So it appears we're still at the definition stage. I hope we'll be able to get this codified at the next ADI conference. This seems to be the most accepted version of the definition of a small alcohol producer:

Micro Spirit Producers make alcoholic beverage spirits utilizing a variety of techniques and agricultural raw materials including but not limited to grains and fruit, which substantially change the character of the raw materials; up to 65,000 proof gallons of product per year in a single licensed premises. These techniques include, but are not limited to: infusion, distillation, blending, and/or rectification.

Ralph Erenzo

Tuthilltown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 5 months later...

I can't find an actual definition in the CFR. The following is the definition for RECTIFICATION from DICTIONARY.COM:

rec·ti·fy (rěk'tə-fī')

tr.v. rec·ti·fied, rec·ti·fy·ing, rec·ti·fies

To set right; correct.

To correct by calculation or adjustment. See Synonyms at correct.

Chemistry To refine or purify, especially by distillation.

Electronics To convert (alternating current) into direct current.

To adjust (the proof of alcoholic beverages) by adding water or other liquids.

In NEW YORK STATE LAW, a "Rectifier" is defined:

24. "Rectifier" means and includes any person who rectifies, purifies

or refines distilled spirits or wines by any process other than as

provided for on distillery premises and every person who, without

rectifying, purifying or refining distilled spirits, shall, by mixing

such spirits, wine or other liquor with water or any materials,

manufactures any imitation of or compounds liquors for sale under the

name of whiskey, brandy, gin, rum, wine, spirits, cordials, bitters or

any other name.

It appears, if you do anything to any alcohol to modify it, you're "rectifying".

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the comments in this section and the fact that we're all going to be in one place next week, might be a good time to consider this draft of the definition of what we are. It is the result of considerable dialog and has been modified quite a bit to get to this stage. The goal was to be specific but retain latitude for the producers; to attempt to find a tipping point where a producer must admit they are no longer a little guy; and allowing for all the different expressions of the artisan spirits movement, regardless if the producer is actually distilling or not. The definition has avoided the terms "artisan" and "craft" as the result of the unresolvable differences of opinion on the nature of the two.

MICRO SPIRIT PRODUCER:

Micro Spirit Producers make alcoholic beverage spirits using a variety of techniques and agricultural raw materials including but not limited to herbs, grains and fruit, which substantially change the character of the raw materials; up to 65,000 proof gallons of product per year produced in a single licensed DISTILLED SPIRITS PLANT premises. These techniques include, but are not limited to: infusion, distillation, blending, or other legal permitted means.

* NOTE: 65,000 pg equates to about 30,000 Nine (9) liter cases (12 - 750ml bottles each, at 40% abv.)

See you all in Louisville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

As the ADI moves forward and pushes such issues as HR 777, of course we want an accepted definition which will set the criteria for distilleries which adopt a "craft" posture. The term "craft" has been hashed out here and the outcome was an acceptance of the term "micro spirits producer" and while that is accurate phrasing, it does not imply "craft" sufficiently to make a clear point to consumers and government agencies. I've been continuing to find the term which appropriately marries the terms "craft" and "art" and conveys the care and thought that goes into making fine beverage alcohol. My attention was recently drawn to (of all places) Wikipedia and the definition for the term "artisan". Here is the text of the Wikipedia definition of "artisan":

An artisan (from Italian: artigiano) or craftsman (craftsperson)[1] is a skilled manual worker who makes items that may be functional or strictly decorative, including furniture, clothing, jewelry, household items, andtools. An artisan is therefore a person engaged in or occupied by the practice of a craft, who may through experience and talent reach the expressive levels of an art in their work and what they create.

I believe this conveys the sense of a higher purpose to exercise of the craft of small distilling. And I propose that we modify the definition we have all accepted for small distilleries, changing the phrase "micro spirits producer" to "Artisan Spirits Distiller". Any comments?

Remember, now that we are promoting HR 777, there will be a need to define the limits of the lower tier of FET classification for the small distillers. This group, ADI, is the only qualified group which can define their own efforts, so it is important we agree on a definition which we can set as a standard nationwide.

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admit it, Ralph. You saw a commercial for Dunkin' Donuts new Artisan Bagels.

And therein lies the problem with 'artisan.'

But it's better that 'craft' and more evocative than 'micro.' I've always used the three terms more-or-less interchangeably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also like artisan better than craft of micro.

Would we be intentionally excluding rectifiers by using the term "distiller"?

Personally, I'd rather not alienate rectifiers from the ADI, although I'd support steps to make the difference between a rectifier and a distiller more clear to the consumer.

"Artisan Spirits Producer" doesn't have the same ring as "artisan distiller", but perhaps "producer" would be the general term, which could be broken down into "artisan distiller" and "artisan spirits blender" more specifically.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, now that we are promoting HR 777, there will be a need to define the limits of the lower tier of FET classification for the small distillers. This group, ADI, is the only qualified group which can define their own efforts, so it is important we agree on a definition which we can set as a standard nationwide.

R

A couple points, if you don't mind.

In HR 777 language the following language is included

‘(A) regulations to prevent the credit provided by this subsection from benefiting any person who produces more than 100,000 proof gallons of distilled spirits during a calendar year, and.....

I think that this limit should be raised. I'm sure our shop isn't the only one that's looking at that 65K PG limit and realizing that it's not too far off. The brewers are dealing with the same issue..... in the sense that they're outgrowing their old definition of craft brewer. This is something we need to watch carefully: that success in the marketplace doesn't outpace these arbitrary limits.

If that 100,000 PG limit is passed by your shop, what then? You lose a few hundred grand in tax credits? Seems too low to me, as silly as that sounds to most today. This may be our only bite at this apple.

I understand that HR777 can't be changed right now, but if it doesn't make it out of committee, perhaps we can change a number or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HR777 is undergoing some revision. The 65,000 pg limit is not fixed in stone. There is general agreement with the 100,000 pg limit. But a distiller making over 65,000 pg of product and selling it seems capable of living with the higher tax rate if necessary; of course this is only my opinion. And production through the still and bottling over 65,000 pg a year implies to me that the distillery is doing well and perhaps backing away from the "micro" status. The Section (A) quoted above applies to the tax "credit", which it seems all agree would be difficult to get passed and hard to manage. A tax discount is what we are aiming for. Tax credits are not looked upon favorably by IRS. A simple discount is apparently the way to go.

I agree (and not sure why I didn't include it in my post earlier) that the term "distiller" in the title does alienate blenders and rectifiers. It SHOULD be "Artisan Spirits Producer" to be more inclusive.

And no Chuck I didn't see that ad. But the discussion about the nature of "craft" has been in my head and I've been searching for an acceptable term. Stumbling upon the Wikipedia description of the term "artisan" struck a chord. It allows for the potential existing in every craft for transforming one's "craft" to "art". I'm not one who believes that an "artist" should be more highly thought of than a "craftsman", but there seems to be a general feeling in the minds of the public that it is somehow a higher calling to be an artist. I don't agree. However I do believe that a craftsman can approach his work with an artistic mindset and therefore raise the work to another level. The main difference between "art" and "craft" is purpose, the artist is free to go where his imagination and skills take him; the craftsman works for profit, perhaps for a client doing his best to produce the finest work product to specifications set by the client or necessity, skilled work for hire. All the greatest artists in history, arguably, were in it for the money and were commissioned to do the work we admire most.

It takes effort and a change in approach to transform craft to art. Distilling shares fundamental characteristics with heroic sport, with great art and deep religion, and with profound mathematics when the distiller is able to create a metaphoric relationship between his (her) work and life, with some objective relevance capable of being recognized by another person. It's a tall order and no room for casual application of the use of the term "art" which seems ubiquitous. It is the transformation of the work from utility to metaphor that matters when trying to make the leap.

Followup thought: we hear distilling fine spirits referred to from time to time as "an art", and the perpetrators "artists". For the craft of spirits making to become art and the distiller an artist I believe it's necessary to adopt a way of life, view the application of skills and the overall effort as an expression of a relationship to something, like the earth, like life. The final criteria is the sharing.

But forgive me getting all pedantic.

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HR777 is undergoing some revision. The 65,000 pg limit is not fixed in stone. There is general agreement with the 100,000 pg limit. But a distiller making over 65,000 pg of product and selling it seems capable of living with the higher tax rate if necessary; of course this is only my opinion. And production through the still and bottling over 65,000 pg a year implies to me that the distillery is doing well and perhaps backing away from the "micro" status. The Section (A) quoted above applies to the tax "credit", which it seems all agree would be difficult to get passed and hard to manage. A tax discount is what we are aiming for. Tax credits are not looked upon favorably by IRS. A simple discount is apparently the way to go.

To clarify, what I'm concerned about is for a distiller to get to that 65,000 pg limit, cross it by a few cases, and then suddenly have to pony up several hundred thousand dollars in excise taxes at the full rate. There should be language that makes it so that the anything after 65K proof gallons gets taxed at the full rate.

Thank you so very much for all your work on this, Mr. Erenzo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Thought I would mention on this thread that Coale has initiated a new round for trademark threats to organizations that are not spirit marketers or sellers for the use of the term craft distiller. One of these was the ACDA, which they sued. Unfortunately, the ACDA decide for various reasons to rename themselves ACSA and the suit was dismissed without prejudice. So now Coale is going after other similar organizations. The problem for Coale is he LOST his attempt to get a service mark for craft distiller, with the reply from USPTO being it was a descriptive term. And since many states now use the term to define a legal permit type, the associations are in good legal standing to resist, since they are service organizations, and not manufacturers, marketers, or sellers of spirits, and in some case, actually represent holders of legally define "craft distiller" permits. But, someone has to take him on, and it would have been best to do so via a national organization. His most recent threats use the ACSA name change as prima facia evidence that they have a good claim to the trademark in this usage.

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...