cowdery

You might want to look into a packed still, which is traditionally an easy-to-build form of continuous still.

I don't necessarily want to start a conversation here about it, but I wanted to make sure everyone is reading Sean Kenyon's excellent series on Westword about Stranahan's. The series began yesterday and will end tomorrow. Today's is a long interview with Jake. Here is a link to part one.

I know Truman and he is definitely one of the good guys.

Rick Wasmund (Copper Fox) famously malts his own barley and uses fruit wood instead of peat. Is it common practice to smoke malt? By which I mean obtaining malt from a maltster and smoking it for flavor, not using smoke as part of the malting process. Is peat produced in North America and if so, where?

Does Frank Lin actually distill something? I thought they were just a bottler and rectifier.

What are you actually making under the rubric of 'moonshine'?

In that period, it would have been appropriate to call a distillery proprietor a "distiller" even if that person had no actual involvement with production, though the person who actually made the whiskey might also be called "distiller," and many owners either were or had been hands-on distillers themselves. They often weren't very precise with their terminology. I suspect you are more likely to find a 19th century female proprietor, probably a widow, than a 19th century female hands-on whiskey maker.

Mary Dowling was the proprietor of the Waterfill and Frazier Distillery pre-Prohibition. This was the original Waterfill and Frazier Distillery in Anderson County. Augusta Dickel was the proprietor of George Dickel after her husband's death in 1894. Louisa Nelson may have preceded both of them.

Is this you, Chuck? Drew, I can think of several female proprietors but I don't know of any who were hands-on distillers.

To clarify, some of the approaches Brian mentions, such as use of "exotic (non-oak) woods," would not meet the TTB's definition of "charred new oak container" (obviously). Others, such as "manipulating the interior of the staves to increase the surface area," which are "integral to the barrel," should be no problem. Getting clearance from TTB is up to the distiller, not the cooperage, because cooperages aren't licensed producers.

There are no female distillers at Four Roses. Also, Sonat is great but I don't think she considers herself a distiller. No major distillery in the U.S. has had a female distiller, but plenty of females participate on tasting panels. The VP in charge of all of Brown-Forman's distilleries, including Woodford Reserve and Jack Daniel's, is a woman. As far as real hands-on distillers in the U.S., I don't know of anyone but Cheryl.

Why are you posting a 14-year-old report as if it's news?

If anyone thinks I'm saying the TTB "is a wonderland of simple regulations and helpful bureaucrats," then I have failed utterly to convey my actual opinion, a failure which is entirely my fault, and for which I apologize. I believe nothing of the kind. I believe the TTB is a federal regulatory agency, perhaps better than some, worse than others, but bearing all of the hallmarks of a federal regulatory agency, which is why I agree with you, Nick, that "COLAs are a nightmare. Be prepared for a long, difficult process. You'll probably want a lawyer." To which I might even add, "or a shotgun." But just because I am not on the front lines in this regard is not the same as having "little or no experience in the area," but you're entitled to disregard my observations on any basis you wish. On the other hand, beverage alcohol is a highly regulated industry and you can't work in it for more than 30 years, in any capacity, without getting a pretty good feel for the rules. If I may offer another piece of unwanted advice, micro-distillers who are frustrated with the TTB might want to look around for someone who has worked in compliance at one of the majors (not necessarily a lawyer), who might be willing to consult. The first thing I do when I'm frustrated with a bureaucracy is find someone who knows more about it than I do. While I'm on the subject, Buffalo Trace White Dog is officially classified merely as whiskey, as is one of Heaven Hill's Try Box releases. I am assured by both producers that both products spent the minimum amount of time in oak containers to qualify as whiskey. In the case of Try Box Rye Whiskey, the container was new charred oak, as required. The phrase "straight from the still" is what the TTB calls a 'fanciful' descriptor. It was submitted and approved months before the product was released. But what do I know?

The cheap shot was "the ones producing the product" part, as if running a still has anything to do with interpreting rules. In addition to being a lawyer, I have worked in and around the distilled spirits industry for more than 30 years, working with virtually every major producer, so I just might know a few things. But even more to the point, why can't we argue the merits rather than immediately attacking the person? Tell me why I'm wrong, don't tell me why I have no right to speak. I offered the opinion that Paul is exaggerating and misinterpreting, but I never questioned his right to have and express his opinion. At this point in my distilled spirits career I'm primarily a journalist. Telling journalists to shut up and go away tends to be a bad way to promote a product you want the public to trust and buy. Questions and scrutiny are something some in this young business seem to have a problem with, and that will be your loss, not the public's. But if you find my views and analysis intolerable, use the forum's 'ignore' feature and you'll never be bothered by me again. That's why it's there.

I'm not attacking you, dude, just disagreeing with you, so the angry rant and ad hominum attack is really uncalled for. I'm also a little confused because you're posting here under multiple identities. Please have a nice day. Sorry you feel the old man on the internet was mean to you.

That's what's known in the business as a cheap shot, especially aimed at someone with my credentials. I don't have a quarrel with Paul's reporting, my disagreement is with his interpretation and his mistaken conclusion that the sky is falling. I have no doubt it can be frustrating as a new producer trying to figure out exactly what the industry regulators require, especially when you're trying to innovate, and I know of TTB rulings that might be called non-conforming, but none of that means a major change in the rules or their enforcement is in the offing, a conclusion Paul's own reporting does not support. It doesn't do you any good, as a small businessperson, to waste time worrying about a non-problem. That's my 'head's up' to the members.

Paul, You are correct only insofar as if there was no contact with oak whatsoever, then it can't be called 'whiskey,' but if one has met the requirement of minimal wood contact, then it's whiskey, and there is no requirement that you put "aged 5 minutes" on the label. Is it fair to call something that spent five minutes in wood "unaged"? Of course it is. I would think that if someone has slipped by with a 'whiskey' that truly has had no contact with wood, then rather than change the label, they could simply and cheaply add brief wood contact to their process. I am confident that the people selling 'white' products -- especially the major producers -- are familiar with the rules and have followed them. For Heaven Hill to label its product "rye whiskey," the minimal wood contact would have to be with a new, charred oak barrel, which obviously raises the cost, but not prohibitively for a small release. That is exactly what they did to qualify the white whiskey made at Mt. Vernon as "rye whiskey." The 'cost' is not the full cost of a new barrel, it's the difference between the cost of a new barrel and the re-sale value of a used one. When you can certify that the 'used' barrel was only 'used' for five minutes, that difference might be pretty small. My bigger point is that nothing has changed. That has always been the rule. Maybe there have been some lapses in interpretation or enforcement, but the rules haven't changed. This tendency of some people to over-complicate and misconstrue the rules must make it tough to be a TTB agent.

Absolutely correct. I didn't mention it because the corn whiskey exception is well established, Paul explained it correctly in his post, and it's peripheral to this discussion. We're not talking about corn whiskey. That's something everyone on this forum should already know.

Where I disagree with Paul is that nothing has changed or is changing. The TTB representative Paul talked to described what the rules are and have always been. The people I know who are selling 'white whiskey' have all, in fact, exposed their spirit to wood in order to achieve the 'whiskey' designation. If for some bizarre reason it's important for a producer to avoid any contact with wood, then a product so made may not be called 'whiskey,' but if the spirit meets the "stored in the type of oak containers prescribed" requirement, then it can be called 'whiskey.' Put another way, if you have an approved label for a 'white whiskey' product, there is no reason to believe you are going to be forced to change that label, as nothing about the rules or how they are interpreted has changed. Another issue, discussed elsewhere, is that American rules in this regard are at odds with EU and other international rules, which require a three-year minimum aging period. There is no '72 hour' rule. That is simply false. The old joke in Kentucky is that if you pour the distillate into an oak bucket and carry it across the room, it will be whiskey by the time you get there.

I agree and, furthermore, I blame DISCUS for letting it happen in the first place.

Don't brush off the difference so easily. Take the SOI definition of cognac and fit into it, say, bourbon whiskey. In both cases, you have to go back to the base definition of the words "brandy" and "whiskey," respectively. We're not asking the rulemakers to make a place for a distinctive type of whiskey, we're asking them to redefine their base definition of whiskey. Don't get me wrong, I think the rules do need to be changed to accommodate the way these terms are understood in the world's largest distilled spirits market, but then again look at how "whiskey" is defined in another huge market, India. It does us no good to pretend these things are simpler than they really are.

Sec. 102.01. TIED HOUSE PROHIBITED. (a) In this section, "tied house" means any overlapping ownership or other prohibited relationship between those engaged in the alcoholic beverage industry at different levels, that is, between a manufacturer and a wholesaler or retailer, or between a wholesaler and a retailer, as the words "wholesaler," "retailer," and "manufacturer" are ordinarily used and understood, regardless of the specific names given permits under Subtitle A, Title 3, of this code. As simple a statement of the three-tier system as you'll find. It then goes on to break it down into every possible situation, ad nauseum.

Everyone just assumes whiskey aged in small barrels will only get better, that the benefits of the small barrel accrue at every age, and I'm not so sure that's right. All the small barrel does is accelerate extraction and there is more tannin in that barrel than anything. Faster tannin absorption means the whiskey may become overaged and bitter sooner. By the time you get the oxidation you're looking for, which only comes in time, you've got too many extractives. As for the Lincoln County Process, distillers in Kentucky quite routinely and unselfconsciously refer to it as 'charcoal leaching.' They, and their counterparts in Tennessee, usually will accept my characterization of it as jumpstarting the aging process, but many in Kentucky feel it ruins the whiskey by taking out too much flavor. One drinker's 'smooth' is somebody else's bland.

What the SOI actually says about cognac is this: (2) "'Cognac', or 'Cognac (grape) brandy', is grape brandy distilled in the Cognac region of France, which is entitled to be so designated by the laws and regulations of the French Government." So it isn't just whatever France says it is. Canada similarly defines whiskey as aged for a minimum of three years. Are Tuthilltown and others able to sell their young whiskeys in Canada as whiskey and if so, how?

I was told once by a non-participating shareholder in a distillery that she was prohibited from working as a waitress in a restaurant that served alcohol. On the other hand, having a few Diageo shares in your mutual fund doesn't prohibit you from doing anything, so I'm not sure where the line is. On the other other hand, ask the Goldrings how they do it.