jharner1

I don't think you'll be able to get away without a formula. The only exception to that requirement would be if you distilled from a mash (of grains), which is typically what an oude genever would be. We wanted to use that phrase on our label, but of course we couldn't, even though the oude refers to a style, and not any indication of age. You should be able to get formula approval, and COLA, as a gin for what you describe, since you're essentially making two gins and combining them. It's not too far off from a jonge genever style.

You don't even need a formula for a gin distilled from a mash (think jenever-style). I had to fight like hell to make that case to the TTB officer that reviewed our COLA, but it's right there in the regs. Now, don't get me started on how they're dealing with COLAs for aged gins.

Looks like it's a tag that only shows up on the web version, not the mobile.

Be very careful using pectinases on fruit mashes - they can increase the amount of methanol above FDA-allowed amounts. Here's a paper from Cornell looking at the effect on apple mashes: https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/influence-of-pectinase-treatment-on-fruit-spirits-from-apple-mash-qrazZj6lLS

Ok, new question. Why the heck were you heating pear wine (assuming you mean perry)?

Sounds like a pectin gel. Could try a pectinase, or just rack off. That may slow your fermentation, depending on how long it's been and your temperatures.

Negotiate the lease so you're not paying until you open your doors for business. That's common enough. Landlord would likely want some kind of penalty sum if you never do open though, to cover their risk.

First came across this on Chuck Cowdery's blog: http://farnorthspirits.com/news/2015/3/30/minnesota-will-own-rye Not sure what kinds of varieties they're currently working with, but if I'm from PA or MD (and I am!), that's a shot across the bow in terms of appropriating the history and mantle of rye for themselves. Maybe get the ag folks at Penn State on the line and see what kind of grant proposal you can work up?

(Sigh), not everything is so binary. I don't think most reasonable people, looking at the evidence, would be anti-GMO. However, they likely would be against the way GMO crops have been utilized, which generally has been short-sighted. Here's something on increases in pesticide use: http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24 Here's an article in Nature about some of the work on resistance to glyphosate: http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907#/superweeds And here's something related to the effects on monarch butterflies: http://discover.umn.edu/news/environment/number-monarch-butterflies-hibernating-mexico-reaches-all-time-low I think that one links to the study.

The biggest issue to emerge with GMO crops - with some decent science to support it - is that they actually increase pesticide use. Insecticide use has gone down, but herbicide use has gone up because weeds are becoming more resistant to glyphosate (RoundUp). There are some associated effects of increased herbicide use, and some research has been done to show causation between increased herbicide use and declining monarch butterfly populations. If you're using any ingredients that rely on natural pollination - apples, pears - then that's a big deal. All the studies on GMOs (and glyphosate) show that they're safe for human consumption. And for corn, glyphosate doesn't penetrate the husk anyway. However, two things to consider: 1) no studies have been done on the long term effects of consuming GMO foods, and 2) the big ag companies that make the GMO foods (and the pesticides that go hand-in-hand with them) have been involved in falsifying scientific studies in the past regarding the safety of their products.

Chevy Chase Wine and Spirits is also good - in my experience, they're more likely to have decent Armagnac and Calvados. And by decent, I mean they may have two selections, whereas you'd be hard-pressed to find any at all elsewhere. And I'd recommend Copper Fox - they're malting their own grains down there, which is badass.

Sorry Natrat! Didn't mean for that to sound so dickish (though reading it now, it really does). I just wanted to make sure that, even if the Feds look the other way about an archaic, irrational law, folks know it's still the law. But you're absolutely right - that was some fishy stuff. Even if USPS wanted to update their policies to the 20th century (only one behind!), they definitely can't contradict statutory laws.

Natrat, Was it signed by the President? Just because it passed both houses of Congress, it does not mean it's the law quite yet. And it doesn't look like it even passed in the House: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/630 So no, it is not yet legal for USPS to ship alcohol.

That's clearly a hooded sweatshirt.

Hey Sandy, Where are you pulling that quote from? I can't find it in the document linked above. In any case, what is New Columbia classified as, H or F1? PM me if you wanna chat. I'm in Takoma Park, and am working through this stuff myself too. -Jeff

I just read through Hubert Germain-Robin's book (this isn't a product review, I swear!), and he talks a little bit about distillate temperature for brandies at different parts of the run and the impacts on flavor. And yes, it's in English. Not sure if you've seen that one, Nat.

I'm not an IP attorney, so take this for what it's worth, but the TTB language (which is also similar to FDA language regarding same, among other regulators) is written to prohibit giving any kind of official imprimatur to your product. In other words, you can't make it seem like your product is the State's official bourbon, or that it has any kind of formal endorsement or relationship to a state or country where none exists. If the image is in the public domain (which it likely is), you can do just about anything with it.

There seems to be a good amount of griping among 'connoisseurs' about the prices of craft spirits relative to more traditional brands (in the bourbon and whiskey market, in particular). I don't see this same type of argument with craft beer, wine and cider, though. Partly that's because, in those industries, the available product wasn't of great quality to begin with, so people were more likely to pay for a more flavorful, higher quality product. With spirits, that may not hold to the same degree. But, in many cases, craft breweries, wineries and cideries are taxed differently than large producers, which leads to less of a price bump. And in some states, the cost of a license are less for breweries, wineries and cideries is less than a license for distilling. Ignoring the markups on products by non-distiller producers and some of the bigger distilling companies trying to capture the momentum of "craft" and "small batch" products, should that be part of the message about selling craft spirits? That, the prices are higher for you, the consumer, because our government treats us differently than our other craft cohorts?

That's interesting - on page F582 of the same document, a different person (this time from Seattle) is recommending that "The storage of distilled spirits and wines in wooden barrels and casks" be added as an exception to High-hazard group H classifications. So that seems like it's inconsistent with the reason given in the section you quoted (from a Colorado fire marshal), that would make bulk storage (even in casks, over 1.3 gallon capacity) over the MAQ necessarily qualify for H occupancy, and then sprinkler requirements. He still says in his reasoning that "The Nonapplicability of Chapter 57 to distilled spirits is retained." In any case, this document is just a proposed list of changes. I haven't seen any evidence that these changes were accepted.