cowdery

The definition, "whiskey is a distilled spirit made from grain, distilled so as to retain the flavors of its ingredients, and aged in wood" is a good definition, but I don't object to fanciful use of the word 'whiskey' in a context like 'white whiskey.' Aside from all the pretense, and there is plenty of that, for most of whiskey history the word 'whiskey' described a spirit that was not aged. Then for a time it described both aged and un-aged spirit. The term for un-aged whiskey was 'common whiskey.' Then the government (with input from the industry) decided 'whiskey' describes only aged spirit, except in the case of corn whiskey. That's the law. No denying it. The law in Europe and Canada is even tighter. You can't call it 'whiskey' unless it has spent at least three years in wood. I don't mind 'white whiskey' because it's not misleading. Since there are 'white goods' like vodka, gin, white tequila and white rum, the meaning of 'white whiskey' is intuitive. But the objections are legitimate too. Supporters of the Federal Standards of Identity support them because they protect the consumer from being misled. I don't believe 'white whiskey' is misleading particularly, but it is potentially confusing. This quibble is not with the products themselves. Call your un-aged grain spirit 'unaged grain spirit' and no one will say a word. You want to call it white whiskey because white whiskey has clear marketing advantages. I don't know Sean Ludford but I know Paul Pacult and David Wondrich pretty well. They're smart guys, good guys, and they care about drinks and drinkers. They care about authenticity. I suggest you dialogue and learn from each other the way I have learned from all of you in this forum.

Most of the microdistillers I know are doing it in one run. The macrodistillers all do two. It has nothing to do with proof, as they can achieve any proof they want in the column still. They tell me they double (the second run, in a pot still) to 'polish' the spirit. More specifically, it lets them get rid of a few of the peskier high boilers. Or maybe it's low boilers. I forget. Many of the macros have experimented with single run distilling for bourbon and a few have practiced it for long periods of time, but at the moment everyone is doubling.

That's the nice thing about laws. When properly drafted, they mean what they say. You can't have a distillery in a dwelling house nor in any out building that is connected with the dwelling house. Nothing about surveyed lot. Laws are also good about not saying what they don't say. The clear intent is that the plant can be in an out building on the same property so long as it is not connected with the dwelling house. It's certainly possible someone at TTB gave out some bad information, but if a TTB official said the plant has to be on a separately-surveyed piece of property, that official was in error. It's not what the rule says.

While this sort of thing can be a good deal for a producer, be aware that after you give the fixture to the retailer, the retailer is under no obligation to continue to fill it with your merchandise.

I strongly doubt that this is factually accurate. For example, I know of small (and licensed) farm-based fuel alcohol distilleries that I doubt are on seperately surveyed pieces of property from the farm residence. I also know of several bourbon distilleries in Kentucky that have residences on the property. I suppose it's possible those parcels are "seperately surveyed," but when you start to put it together that way, it just seems silly. Yes, it is semantic to an extent, but it helps for people to broaden their way of looking at things to look beyond merely what they want to be the case, i.e., pissing and moaning.

That's a red herring. Saying you can't have a still in your bedroom is hardly a "ban" on "home distilling." As for my first point, perhaps I should have said that the people doing hobby distilling and the people talking about it are not necessarily the same people.

It is important to remember in this discussion about unlicensed distilling that what people talk about doing on the internet and what they actually do are often two different things. There is no rash of "home" distillers, there is a rash of people talking about it on the web. In part, this is because of what Delaware said. People are surprised when they learn that you have to have a license to distill potable alcohol, period, no exceptions, even if it's "just for fun." Since news is whatever I'm just finding out, that's news to a lot of people and they want to talk about it. But I think we need to adjust our thinking. What people like to call "home distilling" is not so much prohibited as it is unaddressed. That's why I say there is no "ban on home distilling," as people often say. Instead, there is a requirement that producers of potable alcohol be licensed so they can be taxed. It doesn't matter if you intend to sell the alcohol, because the tax isn't based on what you sell. It's based on how much you make. That's why anybody who makes alcohol has to be licensed. The so-called "ban" also has nothing to do with safety. As hobbies go, home distilling is probably more dangerous than needle point and less dangerous than chain saw juggling, but that has nothing to do with the law requiring producers of potable alcohol to be licensed so they can be taxed. That's also why the licensing system doesn't care if you manufacture the alcohol yourself or not. Non-distillers don't pay the FET but there are lots of other alcohol taxes they do pay. The licensing is about more than taxes. It is justified by the need to regulate distribution of alcohol for the public welfare. You may not agree with it, but it is public policy in the United States to control potable alcohol more than, say, potato chips. When moonshiners get busted they like to portray themselves as harmless hobbyists, but Max Watman's Chasing the White Dog puts the lie to that fairy tale. Probably most of the people here who have made a moonshine connection have been told that the guy, "just makes a little bit, just likes to keep his hand in, mostly just makes it for his friends." Or some similar fiction. In the real world, the people who get busted are all large scale, commercial producers. A person with a small still who uses it as a true hobbyist and practices minimal discretion (i.e., doesn't brag about it on internet bulletin boards) will never be busted. Why? Because nobody is looking for you, nobody cares. There is not a single agent in any alcohol control agency anywhere in the United States tasked with finding and busting hobbyists. And it is alcohol control officials, federal and state, who do alcohol busts, not local or state cops. That's because while it is criminal, the crime is tax evasion. So the bottom line is that the people bitching don't care about not being able to distill, they care about not being able to tell everybody that they distill. That's why they want it to be 'legalized.' So they can talk about it.

Good idea. ADI should file one too.

If you have the stock and won't be pulling it away from more profitable channels, and your distributor has willing customers, then you should not hesitate to take it; that's the Holy Grail of the industry. Retailers only make quantity buys when they are confident they can sell the merchandise through, quickly and at a nice profit. That's nothing but good for you because the retailer will do everything in his power to make sure everyone who walks into the store walks out with a bottle of your stuff. I'm guessing you want that. If you do, then say yes immediately.

The real shame is that Berglund's notice is so amateurish. Although it takes a special talent to get so many things wrong using so few words.

It would appear that Dr. Berglund has consumed too much of his own spirits, because he is delusional. Wasn't there someone a couple years ago who was trying to claim exclusive rights to use the term "craft distillery"?

I know the still and living quarters can't be in the same building but that changes nothing about what I wrote. I admit my point is semantic but still important for a clear understanding of this matter. The relaxed Federal licensing terms were intended to facilitate farm-based production of fuel ethanol, so a farm could use its own corn to make fuel for the farm's use. In that context, a requirement that the still be housed separately from the people surely seemed sensible. It remains incorrect to construe that as "a ban on home distilling."

I don't have anyone specific to suggest, but I recommend that you use someone with a lot of package design experience, preferably in beverages. Package design is very specialized. That said, Koval's packaging is lovely and was designed by Sonat's mom. Regardless of who you use, do your job, which is to have a clear idea of what you want your packaging to say and to whom.

This thread is a good illustration in how people talk past each other. There is no "current U.S. ban on home distilling." There is a requirement that producers of potable alcohol be licensed so they can be taxed. Period. End of story. As hobbies go, home distilling is probably more dangerous than needle point and less dangerous than chain saw juggling, but safety has zero to do with the law requiring producers of potable alcohol to be licensed so they can be taxed. Regardless of that fact, a person with a small still who uses it as a true hobbyist and practices minimal discretion will never be busted. Nobody is looking for you, nobody cares. There is not a single agent in any alcohol control agency anywhere in the United States tasked with finding and busting hobbyists. So it's a moot point. Right now, if you want to set up a still to screw around with, it will cost you some money--for licenses and taxes--but you can do it. If you think you should be able to set up a still to screw around with without paying money, that's a different issue. There is no "ban."

"CFR" stands for "Code of Federal Regulations," which encompasses everything the Federal government regulates, which is a lot more than distilled spirits. Normal shorthand is "standards of identity" or "TTB regs" or "Federal regs." The standards are helpfully provided in a sticky post here on this site.

In the late 1960s, some of the major producers appealed to the feds for a number of changes to the Standards of Identity. Most of the proposed changes were rejected and instead the "Light Whiskey" category was created. I stumbled across this document which details the ATF's reasons for the changes it did and did not accept. It's pretty interesting reading for the extremely geeky like me. Most pertinent for members here are some of the points about aging, which explain why the rules are what they are.

The above is the absurdity to which I was reacting. This is just silly, silly and preposterous. Is the craft distilling movement really a Ponzi scheme? I don't think so, but this kind of thinking makes one wonder. If this is "outside the box thinking," it makes a good case for the box.

The big producers tried something like this in the 1960s. They wanted the government to redefine words such as "straight bourbon whiskey" to allow distillation up to 190 proof and used barrels, among other proposed changes. It didn't pass. Instead, the Light Whiskey category was created. You guys just got here and already you want to change everything. Don't forget, you can make whatever you want. The regulations only govern what you can call it. Why do you think you should be allowed to call something "straight bourbon whiskey" when it doesn't fit the long-established definition? What gives you the right to change that definition? You don't need to make an established type to succeed. Look at Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey. The only legally-controlled word they use is "whiskey." If your product doesn't even fit the standard for whiskey, so what? Come up with a better name.

I've been talking to a lot of small distillers lately and without exception they all wish they had bigger stills. Maybe it's a guy thing? Also, you might want to clarify what you mean by "1bbl." 42 gallons? 53 gallons? 10 gallons? Per day? Per hour? Per week? 53 gallons a day is not "nano."

Seagram's experimented with oak boxes at one point. I think they were going for storage efficiency. Anyway, they didn't consider the experiment a success, but it was legal.

The suggestion to keep gift shop prices slightly higher than prevailing retail is a good one but that shouldn't prevent you from promoting; within the local law, of course. Use promotions strategically; to introduce a new product, incent an add-on purchase, stimulate impulse sales, blow-out a discontinued product, etc. Always have something for people who can only buy things on deal. The temptation is to cut a lot of prices because your margin is so good but you should go the opposite way to support the intrinsic value of your product, then use incentives to plus-up the total register ring. Sometimes the best premium is a promotional item the consumer might not ordinarily buy. For example, if you're already printing cardboard coasters for on-premise, use a set of them as a gift-with-purchase premium.

Most successful wineries, especially those outside of Northern California, will tell you that tourism and sales at the winery are an essential part of their business model. Many if not most craft breweries are associated with a brew pub and most brew pubs are designed so the brewery operation is visible from the dining area. If local law prohibits sales at the distillery then you probably have to look a little harder to justify welcoming visitors, but Jack Daniel's was a very successful brand, supported by its tourism operation, long before sales at the distllery became legal. The point about "local business" was the efficiency of being as successful as possible as close to home as possible. Unless you've chosen your location very badly, your best potential loyal, long-term customers are your neighbors. It's not about turning down sales from further away, it's just about concentrating where you have maximum efficiency. It's almost always more cost effective to sell five units to one person than to sell five units to five people, and it's a well-established principle of marketing that the most cost-effective sales are repeat sales. And as for "intangibles," brand loyalty and identification is not measurable, the relationship a consumer has with a brand -- whether a liquor or a car or a hot sauce -- is intangible. That's usually what marketers mean when they talk about intangibles, and if you think intangibles have "no place in business," tell that to just about every major business in the world. They all talk about intangibles such as corporate image, brand image, etc. Most "branding" deals with intangibles. Also, one of the oldest adages in advertising is the statement by Sam Wannamaker, a department store mogul, "I know half of my advertising budget is wasted, I just don't know which half."

There are few hard and fast rules in marketing, as people often succeed by doing things everyone told them wouldn't work. It's like, "humor doesn't work in liquor except when it does." Even gimmicks, like crystal skulls or tommy guns, can make you some nice money in the short term if they catch people's fancy. All I would advise is think it through. The worst thing that can happen with humor is when people don't get the joke, such as when it's too inside, or rooted an a particular cultural milieu or, you know, just not funny. The other thing is that the joke shouldn't just be out there on it's own. All of your marketing needs to say something about your company and your product, and everything you do should work together to produce a consistent message. The other thing I always harp on is that you really need an overall marketing strategy and a unique selling proposition. Not humor just for humor's sake, but humor that says something persuasive about your product, is what you want.

It depends on your business model and the regulatory situation, but as a general proposition you are going to benefit in many ways, some of them intangible, by being open and welcoming to the public. Not all of the big distilleries welcome visitors but most of them do and, in fact, fall all over themselves to provide a positive visitor experience. It's no coincidence that Jack Daniel's is both the best-selling American whiskey in the world and one of the top tourist attractions in Tennessee. If you want to think in terms of cost, think about this. Which is more profitable, selling all of your output within (say) five miles of your distillery, or having to market to a much larger geographical area in order to sell everything you care to produce? Most of you--virtually all of you, I dare say--are running local businesses that are going to remain local. The main advantage you have over bigger producers is that direct connection to your best potential customers; your neighbors. If you're trying to sell craft and quality and artisanship, how better to do that than to immerse your customers and prospective customers in the total experience? To say it's "all in the bottle" is hubris. This is a high-touch business. Your customers don't just want a drink, they want a drink and a story. Granting that there are business models where a 'no tours' policy makes sense, as a general proposition it's extremely short-sighted. I don't know if you've all seen this article about Tuthilltown, but in it Ralph reports that his distillery’s store is the company’s second-largest customer – raking in over $150,000 in its first five months.

It exists but it's the sort of thing you have to pay for. One good source for that kind of research is Just Drinks.