Melkon Khosrovian

Purchased in 2014. Fully automatic t-top corker with nitrogen sparger and vibratory sorting bowl on separate steel cart. Comes with star wheel for 3" diameter bottles (not pictured). Panasonic touch screen operator interface. Able to operate at 1,500 bph. Works flawlessly. Conveyor not included. $18,500. Pickup from Greenbar Distillery in Los Angeles, CA. Shifted closures to ROPP and no longer need the unit.

2,358 x 700 ml Saverglass bartop bottles with with matching plain kraft shippers/dividers available. https://www.saverglass.com/en/bamboo-70-cl-plate-white All (bottles, boxes and dividers) fit onto two 40x48 pallets Selling as a set: $1,200

Thanks everyone. These bottles are all gone!

All of the Bruni Aspect bottles are gone. Saverglass Bamboo bottles are still available. Saverglass Bamboo 750ml bartop: 9,360 available https://www.saverglass.com/en/bamboo-75-cl 9,360 bottles / 9 pallets 1040 bottles/pallet. Pallet weighs 1460lbs, L*W*H = 48*40*74 Matching Tapi Enbloc bartop stoppers: 8,000 4 x 2,000 count bags https://www.webpackaging.com/en/portals/tapigroup/assets/11117524/-tapì-spa-enbloc-/ Bottles only: $0.42/each Stoppers only: $0.11/each Bottles + stoppers: $0.50/set

Yes. Still for sale.

Guys -- we're not arranging shipping for these. FOB is Los Angeles, CA 90021. BTW, the Bruni Aspects take a 33mm top with 23mm shank cork.

Saverglass Bamboo 750ml bartop: 9,360 available https://www.saverglass.com/en/bamboo-75-cl 9,360 bottles / 9 pallets 1040 bottles/pallet. Pallet weighs 1460lbs, L*W*H = 48*40*74 Matching Tapi Enbloc bartop stoppers: 8,000 4 x 2,000 count bags https://www.webpackaging.com/en/portals/tapigroup/assets/11117524/-tapì-spa-enbloc-/ Bottles only: $0.42/each Stoppers only: $0.11/each Bottles + stoppers: $0.50/set Bruni Aspect 750ml bartop: 3,520 available http://www.bruniglass.com/en_GB/prodotti/tutti/showproduct/asp6/bot-aspect-750-f-13 3,520 bottles / 5 pallets Made in Germany (not Asian version) 704 bottles/pallet. Pallet weighs 1,000lbs, L*W*H = 48*40*46 Bottles: $0.43/each

This week, ADI announced its Certified Craft Distiller program. As I initiated this idea on the ADI forum board almost three years ago and framed some of ADI’s current definition, I want to set the record straight on how, in my view, its final implementation will not benefit craft distillers and why I urge all of my fellow distillers to avoid adopting it. Background I initially proposed the idea of certifying our spirits as the handiwork of real, small distilleries when Diageo launched Moon Mountain vodka in 2010 and tried to market it as craft. (The brand, which had nothing to do with craft distilling, has subsequently been discontinued.) Since then, our ranks have swelled and craft spirits are beginning to gain recognition and shelf space throughout the country. Because of our success -- and knowing full well the parallels between craft spirits and craft beer -- large brand owners and their wholesalers are jockeying to take advantage of the movement. Their answer to the threat (and opportunity) we represent is a classic jiu jitsu move: embrace the category and re-direct its energies towards small-to-mid sized brands that large players own or control. This is a serious threat to our future. As big brands jump into the space and claim to be craft, they’ll introduce enough confusion in the marketplace to thwart our growth. It was and remains my hope that, by articulating what makes our spirits “craft” in simple terms and then uniting behind it, we’ll bring clarity to the term and strengthen our position in the marketplace. The ADI Program and why it’s flawed ADI proposes to create two tiers of certification. Here’s how they define them: - CRAFT DISTILLED SPIRITS are the products of an independently-owned distillery with maximum annual sales of 52,5001 (sic) cases where the product is PHYSICALLY distilled and bottled on site. - CRAFT BLENDED SPIRITS are the products of an independently-owned and operated facility that uses any combination of traditional and/or innovative techniques such as: fermenting, distilling, re-distilling, blending, infusing and warehousing to create products with unique flavor profiles. Craft blending is not merely mixing high-proof spirits with water or sweetening. Beyond the inconsistencies and confusing language of these definitions (why does blending include fermenting and distilling?), I find three critical faults with ADI’s approach which, I fear, will undermine our efforts to define craft spirits in a meaningful way: 1. Message. Precision can be great for certain types of communication but it’s deadly when trying to introduce a new idea to a large audience in a short period of time with limited resources. Our audiences -- spirits fans, trade buyers, wholesalers and reporters -- will realistically grant us just enough of their attention to remember one clear message about craft spirits. If we insist they remember two or more, then they won’t remember any. More than one definition would also open the door for others to introduce their own schemes to frame craft spirits. This will complicate the message further until even our most ardent fans will stop paying attention. BOTTOM LINE: We need one definition of craft. 2. Control I believe that we, the craft distilling community, not ADI (a private corporation, which is not our trade association) should be in control of defining craft distilling. In framing what constitutes craft distilling, ADI made a decision for us that wasn’t its to make. Ceding our right to define our industry is dangerous for craft distillers. One day, Bill will retire and ADI will likely have a new owner. If we go along with ADI’s proposed definition and begin promoting its certification, then that new owner will have undue control over our industry. This new owner could easily be a company like Pernod Ricard, for which the idea of certification as a means to influence the market is not new. It owns a business called BarSmarts that trains and certifies up-and-coming bartenders by teaching them how to make cocktails using primarily Pernod Ricard brands. Do we want really want someone like Pernod Ricard to control the definition of craft on our behalf? BOTTOM LINE: We, the distilling community, not a private corporation, need to define and maintain control of the definition of our industry. 3. Ownership In all of my communications with Bill Owens, the owner of ADI, I have stressed that we, the craft distilling community, need to own the trademark for “certified craft.” It’s our industry and we, its members, need to own this legal title to its certification -- much as NFL teams own the NFL trademark. Given its resources and history of involvement with the craft distilling community, ADI could make a good administrator of the certification process and profit from its maintenance and marketing. But it should not profit from its ownership or be in a position to sell it to another company. After verbally agreeing to this, Bill proceeded to trademark the term “certified craft” and has remained mum about its ownership. BOTTOM LINE: We, the distilling community, not a private corporation, need to own the trademark for “certified craft” and ADI should turn over its ownership. Next Steps I urge all of my fellow distillers to avoid using or adopting this certification scheme on any level. I’m working on a solution and will report back in the next 30 days.

Have the following for sale: 10 x 55 gal open head drums with lids and straps -- $450/piece 5 x 55 gal tight head drums -- $450/piece Casters -- $5/piece

In his state of the union address last week, President Obama laid out his blueprint for creating more jobs: Cut taxes for American manufacturers so they can grow and hire. This morning, we released to our members findings from last year's survey of small spiritsmakers. We asked DSPs how they would invest the $1.71 per 750ml bottle of 80P spirits. The answers, aggregated to the nation's 300+ small DSPs, are: Hire 623 full-time employees and Buy $16 million of equipment If Congress and President Obama were looking for "shovel ready" tax cuts to implement that would not only create American manufacturing jobs, but also support related business -- e.g., U.S. farmers, equipment and packaging makers, as well as members of the trades (electricians, plumbers, mechanics, welders) -- 777 is it! Please help us by.... Personally contacting your representative and senators asking them to co-sponsor HR 777 in the House and introducing a similar bill in the Senate Like and tweet ADI's post on Facebook Send the announcement in the above link to the business editor of your town's newspaper, radio station and TV station If 777 becomes law, the 30 minutes you'll spend doing the above will bring the biggest return-on-investment for your business! Melkon

Small, established, and rapidly expanding craft liquor manufacturing company (www.greenbar.biz) with a long-term growth opportunity for the right person. Duties to include: 50% - Cellar work, machine operation, and cleaning 25% - Shipping/receiving 25% - Record keeping and general office work Please note, this is not a sales or marketing position. Position reports to Director of Operations. You should be a very hard worker, and must be comfortable managing others. This job requires mental and physical agility, and a very good understanding of mechanical systems. Must be comfortable following frequent instructions, but also taking personal responsibility for outcomes. Some sort of winery and/or culinary production experience is required. We will take into consideration Military service, College degree/GPA, Math skills, and general aptitude. Compensation to include salary of 30K annually and paid vacation. To apply, have a look at our website (www.greenbar.biz) to gain an understanding of what we do. Email your resume along with a brief note explaining why you would be interested in the job to office@greenbar.biz with Production Job Opening as the subject. We'll reply to all applicants within 30 days of submission.

Gang, Looks good. Thanks for everyone's help to get us to this point. Here's to luck 777! Melkon

Hi Gang, Thanks to all of you, our proposal has garnered 340 signatures. Virtually all operating DSPs have now co-signed, along with a significant number of trade partners and individuals planning to enter the business, as well as a handful of media and mixologists. This is great momentum! For the next step of our effort, I'd like each of us signees to reach out to 10 others who will become co-signers from a broader base of supporters. Please forward this proposal (download here) with a short personal note asking for support from the following groups: - Suppliers...for ingredients, processing aids, packaging, equipment, maintenance, etc. - Distributors - Local elected officials...city majors, council members - Media (newspaper, magazine, freelance, blogger) - Brewers and wineries Our goal is to reach at least 1,000 signatures by March 1. This is doable if we each do our part. Key points to emphasize in your notes should be: - Creating a level playing field with small brewers and wineries - ...which will fuel growth among Micro Spirits Makers - ...that will generate American manufacturing jobs, - ...greater trade opportunities for local partners, - ...and exporting. Please ask each of your contacts to email the following: NAME/ORGANIZATION, CITY, STATE to taxes@greenbar.biz or to you, if you'd like to collect and forward me their emails. (Getting the original emails is critical, as it's our only evidence that these signatures are real.) We're near a bill being introduced on the U.S. House floor that closely mirrors our proposal. Continuing to build industry support, with growing media awareness, is going to be key to gain co-sponsorship and, ultimately, success. Then onto grassroots marketing! Cheers, Melkon

Thanks, Jonathan.

Most of you know of our 2+ year-old effort to create a Federal Excise Tax differential -- e.g., lower tier for Micro Spirits Makers. It's been a long journey, but we may have some good news soon in the form of a bill being crafted by a member of the U.S. Congress to address our needs. We'll share more details as soon as we get something official to post. In the mean time, it's time to get our veritable ducks in a row and get ready for the biggest push this effort has seen so far in order for any bill that comes out in our support to become law. The first step is for all of us to co-sign the proposal, if you haven't done so already. A number of you have reached out to me recently to add your support to the proposal, which I appreciate. The latest draft reflects these additions. If I've skipped anyone, please accept my apologies -- it's been a very busy time for us and I may have left someone off the signature page. The second step is for everyone who knows of qualifying spirits makers who haven't co-signed the proposal to reach out to them and ask them to log onto this forum and voice their support. We should have more than 200 qualifying spirits makers who'll benefit from this proposal's passage, but have less than 100 signatures. I'd like for us to get to at least 100 co-signers before we begin our public outreach for a potential bill. I'm working on a simple plan for the third step, which will involve building awareness and support for this potential bill by lobbying our own members of the House and Senate, and local and state politicians, as well as reaching out to the public and media in our local markets. Look for another post with this plan shortly. In the mean time, let's gather some more signatures! Reduced_FET_SmallProducers.pdf

Chuck, I've got no issues with "buyer beware" or even "emperor's new clothes" type articles, as long as their fair and accurate. (I hate wasting money on junk as much as the next guy.) My biggest objections to Clay Risen's piece are that: 1. In screaming "The Microdistillery Myth" from its headline, it's grossly unfair to everyone who makes world-class micro spirits that are NOT whiskey, of which there are lots, and 2. In holding up all micro whiskeys to 4+ year old bourbons, it's setting up false comparisons (at least for many micro whiskeys). On criticizing majors, I understand your frustrations. It's the wonderful/frustrating aspect of being young!

Wadewood, I don't get the sense that this is a strictly "truth in advertising" issue because: 1. TTB rules require sub-categorizing whiskey into a number of mash- and age-related types that help the public figure out what they're drinking, 2. A large number of small whiskey makers actually put very granular information about their production and aging processes on their labels and 3. White whiskey wouldn't have caused such a stir, since everyone could clearly see that the liquor wasn't aged at all. I think the underlying current in this discussion is more about tradition and taste. Understandably, micro distillers aren't big fans of current tradition, as it generally protects the interests of large producers. (We're huge fans of traditions from the days when there were lots of micro distillers, though.) Taste keeps changing and I think it's our responsibility to offer options that the public may be missing or may learn to appreciate and love in time.

Chuck, Do you really get the sense that micro distillers are trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes by masquerading 3 month-old "immature" whiskeys for 4 year-old "fully aged" ones? I don't think that anyone's that naive (on either side of the transaction). And if they are, they're businesses will not be long for this world. I think what's really happening is a free-form, messy exploration of whiskey's natural boundaries. We probably won't know for a few years still which areas will fill a need in the marketplace and thrive, but the outlines of a couple of strategies seem to have emerged. First is white whiskey. It's how whiskey was initially made and drunk, so it's valuable for bringing back an old time style, and, if done right, can deliver what a growing number of bartenders seems to be seeking -- vodka with flavor. Will it tend toward moonshine, with its burn and fiery temperament -- a distillate that can rightfully be called immature, as it's made to taste best after spending years in wood -- or a more refined distillate that is not made for wood aging at all? Can't wait to find out. Second is minimally-aged whiskey. This style doesn't seem have an established history in whiskey, but does in other spirits like tequila and rum. Right now, this style seems to be driven as much by producers need to put out something quickly, as by an honest embrace of its potential to balance the flavor of the distillate with the flavor of wood. Again, where this one goes is anyone's guess but there is precedent and consumer desire for this general approach in other types of liquor. Calling these types of whiskey "immature," however, is unfair because many of these whiskeys aren't really "young" in the sense that they've skipped necessary time in barrels. They're just not meant to be aged long or at all. They're their own entities -- admittedly not fully defined or developed yet -- but already distinct and with a different and valid point of view. They're the "blancos" and "reposados" of whiskey, and calling them out for not being aged longer makes about as little sense to many of us as criticizing blanco and reposado tequilas for not being anejos.

While micro liquor may have a long way to go to reach its quality potential, I think that this article obscures most of its reality by looking at the industry through bourbon-colored lenses. Sure, whiskeys aged 6 months won't taste the same as ones aged for 4 years. In 4-5 years, we'll get there. In the mean time, we could help create a new style of whiskey, one which seeks to express the flavor of its mash bill in harmony with the flavor of wood, versus have the wood totally overwhelm all but the most basic sweetness of corn and spices of rye. By ignoring "problematic quaffs" like light and spiced rum, gin, vodka (especially infused), fruit spirits, liqueurs, bitters, absinthe, et al -- basically the bulk of the spirits world -- this article misrepresents reality and at the very least shouldn't be titled "The Microdistilling Myth." I'd be willing to bet money that most micro spirits in the above categories can win the "Pepsi challenge" against the best international big brands for the same reasons that the public likes micro brews -- because they taste better. Smaller producers almost universally use better quality ingredients, more hands-on techniques and take more changes in creating flavor profiles. The writer took a complete dive in focusing on one category!

My friend, Gather your strength and get better soon. We're all pulling for you. If anyone has the spirit for it, it's you! Melkon

If we get this done, then we could make an "I'm a micro spiritsmaker" video like this... Or, better yet, like this... Happy holidays, all. Melkon

I think Jonathan has pretty much covered all the bases. The business model for bitters is very important. Do your math well before getting in too deep. Melkon

I think Stranahan's, Tuttletown, Hangar One should all be considered micro spirits if their DSPs sell less than 65,000 PGs. This should be the case regardless of how they sell and market their products. This should protect our collective interest adequately, as the odds of a major company starting up a bunch of small DSPs just to qualify for our certificate is virtually nil. (Moon Mountain, for example, is NOT produced at a qualifying plant and probably never will because its price point can't support the operations of small-scale production.) Finally, DSPs that do not distill but practice other crafts, like maceration and blending, should qualify because they add value to the final product. Melkon

Chuck, Diversity (and perversity) of opinion is how we seem to roll on this board! And the devil is certainly in the detail of executing an idea like this. The simplest approach, of course, would be to apply "micro spirit" certification to any spirits bottled at a DSP that qualifies as a Micro Spirits Producer (e.g., selling less than 65,000 PGs per year) and the label reads "made by _________" (the producer itself vs a DBA). Emphasis here would be on size, which is verifiable, versus specific production processes, which would be tricky or impossible to verify. Without verification, I'd recommend not even bothering with the program. At this stage in our industry's evolution, I think enough people care about "little guy produced booze" that the certification would deliver value to the marketplace by helping consumers find genuine "micro spirits." Who'd be left out? Most subcontract manufactured brands and brands created by big producers designed to look & feel like they came from small producers. What about the really fine print -- like small brands produced by subsidiaries of big brands or big companies spinning off small brands to become micro? I'd welcome everyone to weigh in on these issues with as much detail as possible and recommendations for how to execute their suggestions. Specific to your question about Tuttletown and William Grant, I thought that WG just purchased the marketing and distribution rights to their whiskey, not their whole product portfolio or the distillery itself. If that's true, then I think all Tuttletown products should qualify as "certified micro" until they cross the max sales threshold. If enough of us see value in this idea, I'd be up for preparing a formal proposal for voting and adoption at the ADI board at the conference in April. Melkon

Jonathan, It's all cool. We're just talking. As far as the size limits for micros, 65,000 PGs may seem like a walk in the park...until you hit your first steep incline. Then it turns into a rigorous hike...with rainfall...which turns to sleet...until wind chill freezes your clothes to your body...and then the hike turns into a slippery rock climb...with moments of oxygen deprivation...and you're just halfway to the peak of the upper limit...which turns out is actually base camp. Anyway, it's not that easy.