Ralph at Tuthilltown

The following from www.FREETHEGRAPES.COM HR 5034 PRESENTS TANGIBLE THREAT TO CONSUMERS, AS WELL AS WINEMAKERS, WINE MERCHANTS, BREWERS AND DISTILLERS Wholesalers Attempting to Dupe Congress June 8, 2010, Napa, CA – The nation’s winemakers, brewers, and distillers have each issued statements urging Congress not to consider House Resolution 5034. Meanwhile, wine wholesalers cynically claim the bill would have no effect on current laws. Drawing from producer statements, HR 5034 presents significant, tangible threats to thousands of businesses – most of which are family-owned and operated – and millions of consumers who enjoy wine, beer and spirits. More specifically: • Winemakers: HR 5034 Will Decrease Consumer Choice, Increase Prices: States could pass laws that discriminated against interstate wine commerce and, if HR 5034 passed, make it nearly impossible to overturn them in federal courts. This would turn the clock back on consumer choice from the nation’s 6,000+ US wineries. Over the past 12 years, the number of states that allow legal, regulated winery-to-consumer shipments has grown from 17 to 37; these states represent 83% of wine consumption. Additionally, states could pass laws allowing wholesalers to fix prices and, if HR 5034 passed, these laws would be immune from challenge on federal antitrust grounds. • HR 5034 Will Bankrupt Wineries: Only 17% of wineries are distributed nationally, and 54% of them were unable to find a wholesaler in states where they actively sought representation, according to a survey by Wine Institute, a public policy trade association representing more than 900 California wineries. As a result, many wineries now rely on direct sales to survive. If a winery cannot secure distribution, but is prohibited from selling to its customers directly, the winery will be locked out of the market. • Brewers: HR 5034 Intended to “Protect In-State Interests.” In its May newsletter, the Beer Institute warned of “unintended consequences” of HR 5034 and that, if passed, “…imposes a virtually insurmountable burden on anyone challenging an unfair, anticompetitive or even unconstitutional state law regulating alcohol beverages.” The Brewers Association warned that the bill would allow states to enact new laws to “heighten discriminatory treatment of out-of-state brewers (and beer importers) or to limit or ban commercial activities that wholesalers do not like.” • Distillers: State-Imposed Price Fixing: The Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. wrote Congress that HR 5034 has been misrepresented as “no big deal, but it is in fact a big deal.” States could “set their own labeling requirements,” impose price fixing, give tax advantages and consumer convenience measures such as Sunday sales only to in-state distillers and companies. According to the Kentucky Distillers Association, the bill would allow states to establish their own formulas, labeling and bottling standards for Bourbon, concocting their own whiskey and calling it ‘Bourbon,’ thus overriding uniform federal requirements and 200 years of American heritage. “Contrary to wholesaler claims of solving a ‘problem,’ HR 5034 is a legal distortion and full-scale attack on the balance of federal and state laws that prevent monopoly protections for wholesalers in each state,” said Jeremy Benson, executive director of Free the Grapes!, a national grassroots coalition of consumers, wineries and wine retailers. Wineries Representing wineries across the U.S., a joint statement by Wine Institute and WineAmerica was issued May 17: “Oppose H.R. 5034 – Wholesalers Monopoly Protection Bill.” Brewers The Beer Institute’s May newsletter The Brewers Association statement in opposition to H.R. 5034 Distillers Separately, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, and the Kentucky Distillers’ Association issued statements in May. Discus: Controversial "State-Based Alcohol Regulation" Bill Will Undermine Longstanding Framework of Alcohol Control (H.R. 5034). Kentucky Distillers Association: “Bill Could ‘Wipe Out Centuries of Kentucky Craftsmanship, Quality and Heritage.’” Since April 20, wine lovers have sent more than 35,000 letters through www.freethegrapes.org to Congress in opposition to HR 5034. For more information on Free the Grapes’ response to HR 5034

I'm preparing an update to the work on this issue. This thread contains background info on the issue of EU redefinition of American Bourbon and Rye Whiskeys.

Actually there is another discussion on this topic: TUTHILLTOWN SPIRITS VS THE EU. I will post a brief note to it to bring it forward, unless you want to simply merge these last bits with that thread. Jonathon's comments are right on the money. Attempting to parse out the actual origins to practically anything with as long a history as spirits, spread out over so much geography and adapted as it has been to a wide variety of "local" agriculture is simply impossible. The production of spirits has undergone great change, certainly enough to render any single claim of origin questionable at best and outright theft at worst. In NYS a recent law permits the sale of Soju at on-premise sites holding only beer and wine cafe licenses, it is the sole exception to the fermented products limits of the license; a distilled spirit. The law was amended at the behest of a single constituent lobby. A good thing? It would be if the sponsor had not defined it in the law as being "an import from Korea", thereby making it impossible for a NY distiller to make Soju, or Sho Chu as the Chinese call it, or any of the other dozen or so varieties in Asia which make up the general category of this raw distilled spirit; the single most popular spirit drink in the world. Of course in New York State only the Korean product is Soju. Aging (Storage in the US), various grain bills, codification of particular handling as qualifications for various spirits have evolved over time depending on the prevailing methods and materials at those times. The way we define whiskey/whisky now is not the same as its definition 100 years ago, or 200 years ago. I'd be curious to see what Jonathon's research turns up, or the responses of Mssrs. Hansell and Cowdery. Debating history and its context is one thing. Insisting your version is the only acceptable version of the truth is another thing altogether. When it comes to claiming ownership of an entire Class of spirits it seems a bit overreaching to me. If this were the case, why not the French extend their rights over Cognac to include all aged grape Brandy, worldwide? German brewers might claim Beer. I believe the distinctions must be made at the Type level. Bourbon Whiskey is not the same as Scotch Whisky, is not the same as Irish Whisky; but all are whiskey/whisky as a general Class of spirits made from cereal grains and aged in wood. To be any Type, we look to the country of origin for the specifics. Frankly, if the only true whisky comes from Scotland and Ireland, what have they to compare their wares too, each other? Themselves? We take particular pride in making American Whiskey one of which is a Single Malt, an American Single Malt made according to US regulations. It is not Scotch, we don't pretend it to be. In fact we say, "This is American Single Malt, it is NOT Scotch." But it is whiskey no less than Scotch Whisky or Irish Whisky or Welsh Whisky or Japanese Whisky. R

Chuck raises an interesting fact about our agreements with Canada and Mexico which are not in sync with the agreement with the EU on the definition of certain American whiskeys. The comments on What John Knows blog following his report on our recent fortunate agreement with GRANT. The topic turned to a cordial debate on what is and what is not "whiskey". The topic is not unlike the discussion on the white whiskey on this forum. I raised the issue, not the first time, that new American distillers are prohibited from calling their legitimately made and approved American Bourbon Whiskey and American Rye Whiskey in the EU till their whiskey is three years in oak. The addition of the three year minimum is not traditionally part of the law, it is a recent (Bush Administration) addition to EU law. Here is the applicable regulation defining "whisky" in EU law and applying to all spirits sold in the EU and able to be called "whisky" or "whiskey": Whisky or whiskey: A spirit drink produced by the distillation of a mash of cereals - saccharified by the diastase of the malt contained therein, with or without other natural enzymes, - fermented by the action of yeast, - distilled at less than 94,8 % vol, so that the distillate has an aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used,and matured for at least three years in wooden casks not exceeding 700 litres capacity. One of the comments in the thread also made the point whiskey is made of "cereals" and not rice for instance, but rice is a cereal grain (according to Merriam Webster) There appears to be a great deal of confusion and disagreement on the simple question: What is Whiskey/Whisky? Not whether or not white whiskey is a legitimate whiskey or whiskey at all, not what State it's made in or if the oak is charred enough or the oak is new. Many very vocal traditionalists feel there is only one authoritative voice on what the term "whiskey/whisky" means and that is European. The discussion may be dismissed as semantic or pedantic, or (the ultimate diss) a marketing concern. And though all those characterizations are true, they are not a reason for dismissal but for discussion. With contradictions existing between our agreement with the EU on this score; and similar agreements with Canada and Mexico, the potential for export of new American whiskeys are likely to be limited. There is a need to open foreign markets, and not just for American spirit makers, it is a national economic problem: the balance of trade. And for the new distiller a willing foreign market may help make next month's payroll. So looking at the US (and our American cousins to the north and south) and the EU definitions of "whiskey/whisky" what would be your definition? Does age matter in the definition? Does "new" or "used" oak matter? Is it from all cereal grains even including such as rice or millet, or be limited to specific cereal grains (and who will draw up the specific list of included cereal grains?) Perhaps it IS moot and all that matters to us is what the Fed regulations say; that is, till you want to ship your goods abroad. This has the same implications as the alleged move of the Swiss to own "absinthe". R

There may be laws specific to the State of Florida which place special requirements on the location of a distilled spirits plant on a residential parcel; but there are none at the Federal level. The law is specific about the where a spirits plant may NOT be located and there is no reference to parcels. This issue has been discussed at length in the other "home distilling" thread elsewhere in the Forum. See DISTILLERY IN YOUR HOME discussion.

I don't think there is a distillery owner/operator I've met who does not agree the STANDARDS OF IDENTITY need revision. The changes in the marketplace, the character of the industry (production/wholesale/retail), the character of society and the recent reemergence of micro distilling nationwide have made the regulations perhaps not totally obsolete (at least at the Fed level, the States....fo-getaboutit), but certainly in need of revision and updating. As we begin to look at how to improve the climate for micro distillers in the US we should begin also to consider how to work with DISCUS and the Fed to at least attempt over the next five to ten years to get those revisions seriously considered. My favorite example is the naming of flavored vodkas. GNS mixed with fruit flavoring yields vodka which can be called, for instance APPLE VODKA. But vodka made from apples must be called VODKA Made from Apples and any reference in the label copy to the distiller or distillery must not say "apple vodka distiller/distillery". This is the result of course of timing, the major vodka producers started making and marketing flavored vodkas long before we or our contemporaries began making vodka from apples or grapes, so the name applies to the first one in the door. But it is misleading to the public from my little perspective, "apple flavored vodka" seems more appropriate for a flavored vodka; and "apple vodka" seems appropriate to a vodka made from apples; not unlike "potato vodka" is made from potatoes not with potato flavor. Make no mistake this is a long term undertaking, if it can be done at all. And it should not inhibit distillers making anything they want to make, only what they call it. And we all admit openly that what you call something makes a difference when you're marketing the goods. R

Thank you Chuck.

H.R 5034 was introduced into the House of Representatives on April 15, 2010. Written and supported by the National Beer Wholesalers Association with support from the Wine and Spirit Wholesalers Association, the bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee where it awaits a date for a hearing. It is noteworthy that H.R. 5034 was introduced, supported and lobbied for only by alcohol wholesalers and with no support by any other sectors of the American alcohol industry and no state alcohol regulators or their professional associations. You may learn more about what portends to be a devastating blow to the small distiller trying to introduce new brands. Several articles and major groups oppose the bill including: STOP HR 5034, which website is located at: http://www.stophr5034.com/ This is an issue that concerns every small distiller. Please visit the site and review the info and then contact your State and Federal representatives to voice your opposition to this blatant attempt to undermine the COMMERCE CLAUSE of the Constitution. This is serious stuff. The site also offers you the opportunity to send off a letter of opposition through the site to your Congressmen and Senators. Read the info. Voice your opinion here. But more importantly, CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS.

How might you suggest we confirm this Chuck. You make a very good point here and before we go off and pursue this with our Federal officials, perhaps this should be vetted to ensure it's for real. Thanks. I will do some research on it. Perhaps someone more qualified than I in international trade issues will take a look at this and see if it has legs. R

Please (all) make this point to our Senator and Congressman. That is the only way we can counter the protectionist actions the Swiss are about to take.

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.

Agreed. Thanks. My apologies to all.

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.)

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

Tuthilltown has initiated a challenge to the EU definition of "whiskey" or "whisky" that specifically includes American Bourbon and Rye whiskeys by name. The Swiss move to own the term "absinthe" is another example of EU protectionism. I am taking action now with our NY Senator Gillebrand and Congressman Hinchey to challenge these inappropriate prohibitions. Below is my letter to both offices. I invite anyone equally concerned to use it and contact their Federal and State officials to initiate their own challenges and support ours. At this rate what is next, a claim by the French that "brandy" can not be used by any but a French brandy?? Please contact your Senators and Congressmen and register your concern and protest. Letter text follows: Sent today: 5/29/10 We have been attempting to wage a minor skirmish with the EU over the definition of “whisky/whiskey”. I have described the problem in previous emails. In essence, the EU regulation for the sale of “whisky” or “whiskey” (American spelling) in European countries includes a specification that it must be aged minimum three (3) years in oak. The definition specifically includes by mention “American Bourbon and Rye Whiskey”, thus redefining American whiskeys which in the US Regulations have no minimum aging period required for designation “whiskey”. The prohibition enforced by the EU makes it necessary for such as our distillery which exports to the EU to remove the word “whiskey” from our labels entirely. US code defines “Scotch Whisky” and “Irish Whisky” as being products of those countries and made under their laws and does not extend to any requirements under US code. It’s their product and they can call it what they want. We ask only for quid pro quo. So far no apparent forward motion has been seen on this topic, though it limits international trade and reduces the opportunities for new distillers in the US, and adversely affects the balance of trade in favor of the EU. Now the subject comes up again for the term “Absinthe” which is a generic term used by many producers in the US who currently make this product. Please visit this link: http://adiforums.com/index.php?showtopic=1060 The forum link describes the actions being taken NOW by EU to prohibit use of the term, extending by treaty to the US. It is time for the US to challenge these inappropriate protectionist actions and take back our own whiskey definition as well as protect the use of the generic term by American producers. Please review the comments and copies of the documents in this link and let’s discuss strategy for taking action to remedy this situation as soon as possible. Ralph Erenzo Tuthilltown Spirits Gardiner, NY End of Text Five years ago I made the pilgrimage to the "home" of absinthe, Pontelier FRANCE (not Switzerland), near the Swiss border in the Jura. It is the location of the Absinthe Museum and at least four absinthe distilleries, none of which are Swiss. Perhaps Ted Breaux will comment since he has the deep institutional knowledge of Absinthe. Is it Swiss as the Swiss claim, or French in origin?

I have to agree with Chuck here. This is simply revisionist thinking, trying to redefine that which is already accepted thinking and history, and the law. As Delaware Phoenix points out, once you put spirits in a barrel the barrel is no longer new. More to the point, what is the point? Is porter attempting to accomplish something that will actually improve our conditions; or is the suggestion a semantic argument with the sole purpose of challenging the definition of "new" for the purpose of saving money on oak? You can make whatever (non-toxic) goods you want and as Chuck has pointed out many times, the rules only determine what you call it. So the question is really: "Why not call it what it is and then educate the consumer?" The consuming public, in the main, does not recognize a difference between the phrases: "Bourbon Whiskey" and "Whiskey, From a Bourbon Mash", which is the only difference in name for whiskeys from new or used barrels. The whiskey geeks and experts may snarl, but what do we care. If the result from a used barrel is good whiskey, the general consuming public (most of whom do not know the color and aroma and taste they recognize as "whiskey" is from the oak) will not care. The Scots have been making whisky using our American bourbon barrels, no one challenges their use of the word "whisky" and the popularity of Scotch speaks for itself. The whole debate is for nothing unless the industry decides to challenge the Federal Government AND the big alcohol producers whose businesses are designed around the current laws and definitions. Perhaps there are those with the money and stamina, and the time to take on the TTB and DISCUS and all the large successful producers. I don't, and I would recommend to anyone as Delaware says, use the time to make good product and get it out there.

Best thing you can do is get your attorney and accountant together, look at tax law and then decide. What was best for others may not be best for your situation or in your state. R

I just returned from an hour long round trip to a "local" retailer to deliver some whiskey and your question was in my head the entire trip. Intent, deliberate action seems really key. I'm not sure I agree on the question "what made you think you could start a distillery". But the drive to "do", that's at the center of it. Craftsmen "do" to make a living, produce quality goods in a particular style, mostly by close personal labor. An Artist is compelled to "do" whether or not it makes him/her money. A writer MUST write. A composer can't help the music coming. Of course there are those who are compelled to the point of "obsession", which may or may not be the tipping point; there have been and continue to be some crazy artists turning out seminal work, but try to have a reasonable conversation with one..... They perhaps are more in the class of "genius" in the classical sense of it, "touched by god" for better or worse. Perhaps for Distilling to be considered an artistic endeavor it must involve the whole cycle from the idea in someone's head to the spirits in the glass, and more than just making whiskey, but also having purpose in the whole effort, not only the end product. In my case, my partner and I both wanted to "do something useful". It wasn't necessarily spirits. But distilling presented itself as an option and we looked around at the raw materials at hand, conceived of the interaction with farmers and the marketplace and each other (though that was less considered at first, which was probably a good thing looking back); and decided we would take the whole concept and make it happen by our own efforts, to prove the point it can be done. That is not to say there were no financial considerations, first and foremost it had to pay the bills (sometime in the foreseeable future), it had to work as a business too. But the overall concept has considerable purpose. Brian Ellison of DEATH'S DOOR is compelled to affect the future of an obscure island, a former agriculturally successful island that fell on hard times when moving grain from there to the mainland became too costly for the commodity brokers. He invented his brand, nursed it through the process, worked with the farmers and now has not only a successful brand but the island is back in production growing organic grains for spirits. It is a business, and it is a statement, and both borne of an idea. The final product in this case has an important message behind it. And maybe Brian had no artistic intent behind his work, we have not discussed this aspect of it. But it carries much of the characteristics of Art. Perhaps even orchestral, all the players organized to one final end performance, in someone's glass. There are many others who are compelled to invent, to create, have a vision and absolutely MUST do it. Doesn't matter much if it's waffles or whiskey, or does it?

For the record, I did not delete your posting. My comment was based on the note in the "Interests" section of your profile which shows up next to your post (which is no longer there.) But let's put that aside. More importantly there is no reason for you or anyone to exit the conversations. This is for now an open forum and the questions and answers are valuable to everyone from beginners to licensed DSP operators. Having a license is not the criteria for participation. This site is meant to be informational, not confrontational. However, there are some who come onto the forum (any online forum for that matter) and in their disagreement with any particular post, get indignant or post meaningless drivel for the sake of provocation. We need the input and questions of ALL who are interested enough to come to this forum and read, learn and pose pertinent questions or comments. We're all learning here. And this should be a "NO FIGHT ZONE", no meaningful progress can come of antagonism.

Every one of the DSP owners want the same thing. The question is not what we should call ourselves or others; ego will be the determining factor in what a person chooses to call him or herself (not necessarily what others might call them). The topic proposed is the "nature of our work". It is perhaps more philosophical discussion than some care to engage. But I feel there is some importance to it. In the Art community there is always a tension, for instance, between the "Illustrator" and the "Fine Artist". The Illustrator is a Craftsman using artistic talent to meet the needs of a client; the Fine Artist has no such restriction, the expression from their artwork is the goal. But each is presumably paid for their work. DaVinci, Calder, Peter Max, Beethoven, Mozart; every one of them worked for a living and got paid for it, so payment is not a good gauge. The Fine Artist cringes at being labeled an Illustrator; it would seem that there is more "status" attached to the title Artist which is ubiquitous in the Art world. One only has to look at high quality professional Illustration, then look at what passes for "art" in many galleries to come to a conclusion which of the two is higher quality, more technically proficient, which is more meaningful. How does this apply to the Distiller? How do we raise "Work" to "Craft"? How do we elevate (if it is an elevation at all and not just a lateral step) "Craft" to the level of "Art", and do we need to, does it matter? Not only how do you see yourself: Boss, Worker, Journeyman, Master, Craftsman, Artist; but also why? Why does it matter if one is a Craftsman or an Artist? How does that relate to our work. The media refers to the "Art of Distilling", those in the industry use the phrase with impunity. As a general statement I cannot say if it is (to borrow the TTB phrase) "A truthful statement". My belief is that it takes more than a mere declaration, or a media friendly phrase, or experience, or even "intent" to be either a Craftsman or an Artist. So this was not meant to be a literal discussion so much as an exploration.

Eventually, and it will be a measure of the credibility of the future ADI, this will need to be addressed by the distillers (those holding DSP licenses) to decide how to qualify people recognized by the ADI and its membership as: DISTILLERYMEN DISTILLERS MASTER DISTILLER But the question of the titles: ARTIST or CRAFTSMAN are another more contested matter. One constant in my own investigation on what is the difference between Art and Craft, agreed by many of artists, climbers, philosophers and wordsmiths is something along the lines: Craft becomes Art when the aesthetic qualities of the work and product surpass the utilitarian value of the thing. That's a bit broad. For me there must be a few other elements to the Art. It must be as Charles points out a deliberate act of communication, there must be a message; it must be a new interpretation; it must have some meaning which is transferable to another person or at the least carry some value that can be inferred from the work beyond its use; and there must be a final product. A Craftsman (using the generic, without gender bias here) is not necessarily an Artist. But an Artist, it seems to me, must be a Craftsman. He/she must know about their materials, how to get them to produce a desired result which serves a purpose. The Artist goes beyond the use when his work also communicates a message, or sparks an emotional response from the user or viewer, or in the case of spirits, the taste, aroma, color and execution. Beyond that there is the question of the dedication to the "Artist's life", which may be a separate discussion altogether. As for the proposal of upinthehills (above), an Engineer is a licensed Professional with credentials. There's a heap of difference between the Engineer and the Engineer/Artist. Where the Engineer works with science and facts and math to respond to a problem, the Artists' vision is more likely to be the problem the Engineer is attempting to work out. Science provides a framework which the Artists then stretch and bend to make their minds known. The laws of physics in our world and the known universe are what the Engineer has to work with. The Artist has no such limitation to imagine, to conceive. I believe it is possible to turn all things to their Artistic potential, but it takes vision before the work begins and technical skill to execute satisfactorily. It is not incorrect to call a Distillery worker an Engineer if he is indeed an Engineer; though he may not be an Artist or a Master Distiller. But the point of posing the question in the first place is to get you to look more closely at the nature of what we do and call it what it is, not what you dream you'd like to be, not what you put on your business card, but a real statement of what you feel is the character and nature of what any particular distiller is doing in his shop.

Check out the BEGINNERS section of the forum, there is a post there now VODKA: HELP. It reads: brewgasm has just posted a new topic entitled "Vodka help!" in forum "Beginners". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey everyone need some help. I just made my first batch of vodka, but I am getting smell that reminds of of nail polish remover. Its my first batch so i dont feel to bad but what can I do to avoid this in the future?? any help would be great. I can not think of a better argument against lending any support to the notion of unregulated "home distilling" than this post. The topic of the question is probably one of the most fundamental pieces of information a qualified distiller knows. It is unfortunately not unusual and points to the fact of the potential for the unwitting production of toxic materials by uninformed amateurs. It is not beer or wine, the goods are alcohols (note the plural) at high concentrations, some of which are toxic. R

The question comes up often during a tasting or presentation, “Are you the Master Distiller?” The answer is the same every time, “None of us are Masters. We’re all Journeymen, still trying to get it perfect”, though we all know it never can be (perfect). The two words “Craft” and “Art” are used in discussions and descriptions of the work of making whiskey and other fine spirits. Is it appropriate, is it an overstatement, egotistic, or simple hype? I find myself often wondering if the Craft to which my partner and the distillery staff at Tuthilltown apply our efforts daily has the potential to become Art, how to do it, if it matters. The two words are used interchangeably by the media and by some distillers. But is spirits production Art or Craft, what is the distinction, why does it matter? How does the Artist or Craftsman have authority to take on any title other than “Maker” or “Worker”? Even “Professional”, according to various dictionaries implies a “license” or official certification of some sort. Is an honorarium self-awarded, or is it earned and bestowed? Do we have the right to call ourselves “Master” or “Artist”, or is it such as a university degree, a formal recognition determined by qualified others based on an accepted arc of education and experience? It may seem at first to be a purely philosophical and semantic debate. The perception of “art” versus “craft” and who is entitled to use the title “Master” is important. As the Micro Distillery movement gains ground and credibility these things will matter. How can we or the public know the qualifications of the owner of a startup distillery with one product, a year or two experience and no formal training who claims to be a "Master Distiller" on his business card. Who will risk an opinion? Make no mistake, it has all the potential for serious debate; indeed it has been for many many decades among the lowest and highest levels of the Arts community. For me the question first arose during a meeting of the Board of Directors of the American Alpine Club when I sat on that Board. During discussion on climber access in wilderness areas one climber expressed his belief, “I consider my climbing to be Art, a form of self expression. It’s protected by the Constitution.” That comment set me off on a personal two year intellectual journey in an attempt to understand the difference between Art and Craft. And now the same question appears and the same debate presents itself to the American Distiller. Is Distilling Fine Spirits “Craft” or “Art”; and why? Ralph Erenzo Tuthilltown Spirits

A piece of advice for goinbroke2 ("Interests" comments above), starting out your venture into a small and tight community in such a highly regulated environment, it is not a good beginning to insult those from whom you might learn and whose support you may need in the future. There is not one distiller I know of who considers themselves "glorified"; more often they feel humbled by the process and grateful to have succeeded getting through it. It is perhaps a "pride of accomplishment" you are confusing with boastfulness or self-glorification.

The TTB is clear on this topic. And we are the example. Our "bonded premises" includes our entire property (a single surveyed lot) and all the working buildings of the distillery. I live on the property in a house that is not attached to the nearby distillery and barrel storage buildings (I can spit out my window and hit the distillery, but I don't, really). The regulation reads, direct from the CFR: § 19.131 Restrictions as to locations. Distilled spirits plants shall not be located in any dwelling house, or in any shed, yard, or enclosure connected with any dwelling house, or on board any vessel or boat, or on premises where beer or wine is produced, or liquors of any description are retailed, or (except as provided in §19.133) on premises where any other business is conducted. When in doubt, go to the regulations.