cowdery

If you have a licensed distillery in Kentucky you can now join the Kentucky Distillers Association, as Alltech did Thursday. http://www.kybourbon.com/index.php/alltech_joins_kentucky_distillers_association

Four Roses actually makes ten different bourbon recipes, using five different yeasts and two different mash bills, and while they may propagate the old fashioned way, their yeast is 'scientific' to the n-th degree, coming from the Seagrams portfolio of 350 proprietary yeasts. The Belgians and Mexicans use what you might call "semi-wild" yeast. As Denver Distiller points out, if you capture wild yeast in the middle of a brewery or distillery, you're just re-capturing your own yeast. Granted, all practical considerations argue against it, but we're talking about craft here, aren't we? Don't at least some of you guys call yourselves "craft distillers"?

Yes, Beam, Four Roses, Wild Turkey and others propagate a jug yeast rather than using dry yeast. That's one thing. I'm talking about doing it from scratch with wild yeast, which no one has done for decades. They used to talk about "scientific distillers" versus "practical distillers," and the distinction was whether or not you made your yeast from scratch.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana And after you buy my new accelerated aging system, I have a bridge I want to talk to you about. Here comes another one just like the other one. I could go on. You can dress this stuff up with all the science mumbo-jumbo you want, but we've seen and heard this all before and nothing ever comes of it. Look into it if you want, get all worked up about it if you want, I've got better things to do with my time. These schemes always seem to find an audience, much like the latest "get rich quick" or "lose weight fast" products. I wrote here about why they are so seductive.

Although I think they finally abandoned it, Maker's Mark used to print their own labels on a small, manual, antique, cast iron printing press. They used black ink on a brown stock. I know they were still using it in the early 90s. It was part of the tour and added to the old-timey image.

Back before Prohibition, before the rise of the "master distiller" as we know them today, the people who made whiskey were often referred to as "distiller and yeast maker." Booker Noe used to tell the story about his grandfather, Jim Beam, making yeast on the back porch of his house in Bardstown. That yeast is still used to make Jim Beam bourbon. If your intention is to be a craft distiller, making your own yeast would seem like something you would want to do, yet I have not heard of anyone attempting it. You don't 'make' yeast, of course, you capture and propagate it. In the old days, before there were commercial yeast manufacturers, every distiller had his own secret yeast mash recipe and yeast-making technique. Sour mash, which most mircrodistillers also do not use, was developed as a way to control yeast and make it perform consistently from batch to batch. Most of the old timers who are still around will tell you that handling yeast is one of a distiller's most important skills, the first thing you are taught, because if you can't master that you shouldn't bother with the rest. They're mostly talking about propagating an existing jug yeast for production, not making it from scratch, but few if any microdistillers do either. I ask bourbon distillers about this from time to time. I once asked a member of the Beam family if he thought there was anyone still living who knew how to do it. He thought for a long time and said "maybe." So, who is up for a challenge?

Finger Lakes Distillery uses green malted corn for its corn whiskey and likes the results. Their website describes and shows their technique.

As long as you are not selling alcohol -- and 'selling' means exchanging anything of value for it -- and not distilling alcohol, then you don't need a license during your 'product development' phase. What you have described is perfectly legal. Infusing is not distilling. Many people make flavored vodka or liqueurs to give as gifts. As long as you are obtain the vodka legally -- i.e., buy it in a store -- and don't sell your 'product,' you're not doing anything contrary to the law. People who have advised you otherwise are mistaken. A rectifier is a type of licensed distilled spirits producer who does not distill. A recitifer buys neutral spirits (vodka) and often other types of distilled spirits, adds other ingredients, then bottles and sells the results. That's not to say that a small distiller wouldn't be able to work with you as well, just that what you're talking about doesn't require distillation.

Obviously, any grain can be malted, but there's a reason distillers usually use barley. Since malted rye is commercially available you could get some to compare to your own efforts.

You don't need a distillery. In fact, you probably don't want a distillery. Making the vodka from scratch would be a waste of time and money. What you want is a rectifier/bottler. Anybody with a producers license can do this for you. Find somebody close to you and begin discussions. You don't ever even need to get a license because your "partner" can handle all of that. If there are some microdistillers around they might be more interested in working with you than an established rectifier would be, as they tend to be innovative and entrepreneurial. If all you are doing is an infusion, not a redistillation, then all you need is someone with a DSP and a willingness to work with you.

Look into Nelson County, Kentucky. It hosts several major distilleries and whiskey warehouses. Property taxes, in particular, are lower there than in the surrounding counties because the distilleries pay so much tax on their aging whiskey. Those taxes support the schools and other county business. This is covered regularly in the Kentucky Standard, the local newspaper. You also can get some good statistical support from the Kentucky Distillers Association.

I'm glad Andrew linked to that old thread. I just want to point out that the article of mine that begins it was written three years ago. There's been a lot of water under the bridge since and I think most of our opinions on this matter have evolved. That said, the word "master" still implies mastery, which is hubristic to claim at the beginning of your journey.

Submitted for your consideration, Indiana Artisan. At least one Indiana micro-distiller, Heartland in Indianapolis, has taken advantage of this 'certification' opportunity.

That entire quote feels like it was written in some other language then poorly translated into English. I think I understand what they're getting at, but not thanks to the person who wrote that blurb. I suspect the panel itself will be equally as incoherent.

There is nothing inherent in the nature of craft distilling that would prevent a certification system from being established. The devil is in the details. It's been tried here before, but there hasn't been a really fruitful discussion about exactly how "craft distilled" should be defined. Agree on that and setting up a system to administer a certification system would be no big deal. In nearly 40 years in the marketing business, I have observed that the most common mistake people make is focusing on tactics (e.g., promotional videos, certification programs) when they haven't worked out their objectives and strategies yet. Remember the parable of the blind men and the elephant. That's where this nascent industry is now.

You shouldn't be making anything at a commercial batch level until you know exactly how to make it. You do that by making a small pilot batch first, then scaling it up. That doesn't mean you won't ever have a bad batch, but they should be rare. That said, and as Porter said, depending on what it is there may be a way to repurpose it. Depending on your still, whatever you've done wrong can always be distilled out to neutrality. You might have to flush something at the fermentation stage but if you have the means to make neutral alcohol, that's something you can always use, so you should never have to flush something you've already distilled. The large whiskey distilleries have various things they can do, depending on their lines and the nature of the defect, but selling it to a neutral spirits producer is always the last resort.

You might also want to contact Eric Gregory, who is president of the Kentucky Distillers Association. Obviously, in Kentucky's case the law covers all distilleries, not just small or farm-based ones, as it was put forth by the big bourbon distillers who are the members of KDA. I know there is at least one participant here who operates a micro-distillery in Kentucky, who could tell you how Kentucky's law works. At present, distilleries may provide free samples at the distillery as well as sell bottled product directly, although they have to do paper transactions with a distributor, as the distillery and its retail shop are separate entities, legally. That's just for the bottles they sell, not for the samples they give away. I know one peculiar aspect of the law is that they may sample only on days and during hours when the jurisdiction in which they are located permits off-premise liquor sales. Kentucky has local option and if, for example, the local jurisdiction doesn't permit liquor sales on Sunday, then the distilleries in that jurisdiction may not sample or sell on Sunday either. I don't know if Georgia has local option but you might have a local restriction to deal with as well as the state one.

Apparently everything at Stranahan's is for sale.

Consistent with what Drew says, I believe they will go after a whiskey with a red wax top, tendrils or no, but not a non-whiskey. A wax top of any other color is clearly safe as many other bourbons use them, most notably Knob Creek (another Beam product) and Evan Williams Single Barrel, a Heaven Hill product, both of which are black. But tendrils in any color, especially on a whiskey, are likely to incur their wrath. The bev alcohol industry has a long tradition of knock-offs, so just as there are trademark owners spending money to defend their marks, there are other producers spending money trying to break those marks. Both Eagle Rare and Fighting Cock bourbons were conceived as Wild Turkey knock-offs, just as Ezra Brooks, Evan Williams, and a host of others were originally Jack Daniel's knock-offs. There used to be a score of different Southern Comfort knock-offs, with names like Southern Host. And before anyone gets too pissy about Maker's, wouldn't you love to have a trademark that strong yourself someday?

This represents a good example of what a proper trade association can do and also points out the limits for small distillers of the affiliate relationship with DISCUS, which certainly is not going to take a position on a dispute between two of its full members, let alone take up a cause on behalf of its micro-distillery affiliates that is contrary to the interests of any full members. Unfortunately, this is one of the ways trademark law can be used. A small company will almost always choose to get out of the big company's way rather than fight, but these things do get sorted out. Let Beam and Diageo fight the war on your behalf. Having observed who gets letters like the one Guy got, it tends to be related to the tendrils, not to the mere use of wax, nor do I know of them going after anyone because of wax + color without tendrils also being involved. It is probably good advice for anyone in this business to have some kind of relationship with an attorney who practices in intellectual property. Most people, if they think about trademarks at all, seem to think there is some entity that enforces them, independent of the trademark owners, a sort of trademark police. In fact the trademark owner has a legal obligation to defend the mark. While it's certainly important to do the right thing if you are accused of infringement, it's also important to do the right thing with regard to protecting your own marks.

Maker's Mark cannot and will not try to stop a standard wax closure with a clean cut at its base, regardless of the color of the wax. The key to Maker's exclusive claim is what they call "tendrils," the irregular legs of wax that drip down the side of the bottle. The tequila case probably pushed the limits of that claim, since the tendrils on that bottle were so different, but it's in the nature of trademark defense to see how far you can push the envelope. There are many examples of wax closures that do not terminate in tendrils, including examples that use the same color. No tendrils of any kind, no worries.

Well, Melkon, I think some of the posters in this thread are defending products thay haven't made yet. There is nothing wrong with caveat emptor articles about micro-distilled whiskey, because people who don't know very much about how whiskey is made will tend to compare the micro product to the whiskeys they know, like Jim Beam and Jack Daniel's, and will expect -- because they do believe in the whole 'small is better' thing -- that the micro product will be recognizably better in the context of what they know. If what they taste is so different from what they expect that they can't contextualize it, their reaction probably will be negative. It's about managing expectations. Actually, lightly-aged whiskey has a long history just like unaged whiskey does, and in this country it was common both just after Prohibition and again just after World War II. Still today there are a few three-year-old straight bourbons. They are not, unfortunately, highly regarded and that's another consumer perception small distillers have to overcome. One of the biggest things I object to is ill-informed bashing of the majors. I believe most of the people who attack "industrial distilling" have no real idea how those companies make their products. That's where the wool-pulling comes in, when distillers use the public's willingness to believe that 'small is better' to sell them crap. Then when the consumer says "this is crap," they try to browbeat them into believing it's ambrosia.

I get it now. My mistake. But now I'm wondering ...

That is essentially what the ADI whiskey contests have been and in every case a well-aged, macro-distilled product won. Look, nothing I've said or, for that matter, nothing Clay Risen said should be taken as bashing micro-distillers. It's not a judgment on what you make, it's a judgment on what you claim. Be what you are, talk honestly about it, and don't demand to be insulated from criticism. Don't tell me I'm not supposed to say that a very young bourbon tastes like a very young bourbon.

When you put yourself out there as a writer and commentator, you open yourself up to personal attacks from people who are unable or unwilling to attack the message so they attack the messenger. The speed with which some posters in this thread descended to personal attacks on Clay Risen and myself says more about them than it does about us. I take it for what it is. If you intend to be in the marketplace, you have to deal with perceptions and reactions that are not always within your control. If you just want to make spirits for yourself and your family and friends there is nothing wrong with that, but that makes you a hobbyist, not a professional. If you intend to be in the marketplace you have to find less defensive ways to respond to criticism, even criticism you perceive as ill-informed and unfair. That's why these conversations are worthwhile. I've learned a lot by engaging with people here. I've changed or tempered many of my opinions. That's healthy. But you have to engage. You can't just dismiss people as "not on your side." The hard truth is that the micro-distillery movement includes a lot of immature whiskeys and immature whiskey-makers.