cowdery

The DISCUS reports are about the only good ones released publicly. There are several companies that provide more detailed industry statistics but they charge dearly for them. You probably can get a report providing exactly the data you seek, but it won't be free.

I'm not a distiller but this doesn't seem very complicated. Distillation is all about separating alcohol and water. The lower the concentration of alcohol in the fermentate, the more energy it takes to remove it. That's all I see as a difference between starting with cane juice or starting with molasses. I don't see why consistency would be an issue either. Do you have any experience with fermentation and distillation? To my simple mind, a sugar-and-water solution is a sugar-and-water solution, isn't it?

I am ignorant of anything that may have happened on March 1, 1938 regarding the Standards of Identity. What seems to be happening with label approvals is that the TTB is allowing producers to use grain names prominently on the label as long as they are not used right before the word 'whiskey' in the name. In other words, a product called 'Chuck's Finest Whiskey; Radical Rye' or 'Rye Riot Whiskey' would be acceptable even if distilled above 160 proof and aged very briefly in used barrels. It is classified on the COLA as just 'whiskey' or 'other whiskey,' but not as 'rye whiskey,' and so would not trigger the <160 proof and new charred barrels requirement. Everybody wins. I doubt TTB would regard the word 'bourbon' so generously but they're being sensible in terms of letting people prominently feature their source grain or grains. The difference is probably negligible to the consumer. If the words 'rye' and 'whiskey' are both in the name, regardless of the order, the consumer will get 'rye whiskey' from that, not as the TTB understands that term, but as the consumer understands it. There seems to be no getting around the touch-and-go aging requirement but resting your still output overnight in used barrels hardly seems prohibitive. Use an old barrel instead of a tank to feed your bottling line and the word 'whiskey' is yours. In the USA anyway. The message to consumers, then, is that all whiskeys are aged in wood but not all of them pick up color from the wood, typically because they are aged very briefly. Most consumers will be satisfied with that explanation. I don't think you do yourselves any favor by portraying touch-and-go aging as a trick on the government. Just call it a very light aging that doesn't impart any color.

I don't think you're arguing, John. That's a good spot. Raises more questions than it answers, though. My best guess is whether or not BT and HH can call these products 'whiskey' they would rather not for their own marketing reasons. The ways of the TTB become more mysterious every day, which is why it's good that they have the COLA process. If your COLA is honest you can take TTB's approval to the bank, even if it's arguably wrong. I know of some cases where TTB has made mistakes, later recognized and admitted them, and ordered corrections, but allowed the producers to use up label stock, etc. I've never heard of them ordering a recall. I'm not sure if they can, although Federal agencies can always 'request' a 'voluntary' recall (wink, wink).

Note that Heaven Hill and Buffalo Trace are not calling their white dog products 'whiskey.'

The traditional term in the United States for unaged whiskey was 'common whiskey,' but that was long before the Standards of Identity. Of all the terms mentioned in the original post, 'whiskey' is the only one that is regulated. It's probably the most desirable word to use, with or without a modifier, for any flavorful grain spirit. Since whiskey must have contact with oak by law, we have to teach people that wood-aged whiskey can be clear. That doesn't seem like a huge obstacle. So 'white whiskey' is a good term. The average person's intuitive sense of what it means is largely correct, which is a great recommendation for it, and rare. 'Moonshine' is tough to resist because it resonates with the consumer, but using it on a legal product corrupts the true meaning of the word, leading to confusion. Many people mistakenly believe that moonshine is a type of distilled spirit when, in fact, it is any distilled spirit produced illegally. Using the term 'moonshine' on an unaged whiskey product is doubly wrong since virtually all true moonshine is sugarjack. I don't like 'American whiskey' as a catch-all category, although 'other American whiskey' is fine. The natural meaning of 'American whiskey' is a whiskey made in America, an umbrella term that includes bourbon, rye, corn, blended, Tennessee, i.e., everything not everything except the major categories. It has never been all about bourbon and even Tennessee whiskey has to be respected as a de facto type even if it's not de jure. 'White Dog' is nice because it is colloquial and sounds vaguely 'bad' (like 'moonshine') but it's also traditional and authentic. I've been hanging around American distilleries for the past 30 years and folks in the industry probably use the term 'white dog' the most. It seems to roll off the tongues of distillers in Kentucky and Tennessee most naturally, that's for sure. 'New make' is similar but doesn't have any tang. It's bloodless, but equally authentic. 'New make' is for use in company that might not get 'white dog,' especially non-native English speakers. Both terms also get around the need to have oak involved. You can't realistically make any of them proprietary so there's some value in trying to think of a term that communicates what it is as effectively as 'white whiskey' but that you can own. Back at the beginning of my career I used to hear 'high wines' a lot but almost never now.

I've been looking into this. The Old Potrero labels were changed because they were using used barrels, not because of the aging requirement. This seems to be one of those laws that is universally ignored despite being on the books. It is a great example of the mischief HR 1161 could cause if enacted. Imagine if this was enforced?

Unless you plan to market your grappa in Europe, you don't care what the European rules require. 'Grappa' is not a protected name like 'bourbon' or 'cognac,' as in protected by bi-lateral agreement, a situation which pisses off the Italian grappa producers, but there it is. So there should be no impediment to using the name 'grappa' on a product made for the U.S. market. If you anticipate a problem with TTB you can easily document that fact.

I have been informed that Old Potrero has a special label for California that doesn't use the word 'whiskey.' Has anyone who sells in California run into this?

This is fascinating! Apparently, all micro-distillery whiskeys are illegal in California. Presumably if this rule were to be enforced it could be challenged on the grounds that the federal rules control, but it would be interesting. Here the section is in its entirety. 25175. Age of whiskey. Any person who sells at retail any potable spirituous liquor product labeled as whiskey, including blended whiskey and blends of straight whiskeys, except products containing 20 or more percent of straight whiskey or whiskeys which have been aged in charred oak containers for three or more years after distillation and before bottling is guilty of a misdemeanor, except that this section does not prohibit the sale at retail of unaged corn whiskey, when so labeled, or the sale at retail of gins, brandies, rums, cordials, liqueurs, bitters, or other distilled liquor products or products compounded of distilled spirits and other materials, when in no wise labeled as whiskey or blended whiskey or blends of straight whiskeys, or the sale at retail of Scotch whiskeys, or spirit whiskeys containing not less than 5 percent straight whiskey, three years old or older. History.—Stats. 1970, Ch. 534, in effect November 23, 1970, added last clause concerning spirit whiskeys. Stats. 1984, Ch. 921, in effect January 1, 1985, substituted ‘‘three’’ for ‘‘four’’. Cross reference.—Health and Safety Code section 26550, et seq., Misbranding of foods.

All pending bills expire at the end of each Congress and have to be re-introduced. This is the new version of HR 5034, which was discussed at length in this thread begun in May of 2010. I call it the Wholesaler Monopoly Protection Act and wrote about it here. The problem is that wholesalers throw around a lot of campaign contributions and many legislators see this as a harmless sop to some big contributors. Not being thinking people, they don't think about how this could harm the hospitality industry. It would harm producers too, off course but, state-by-state, wholesalers are much more influential than producers. It's also bad for consumers so counter-pressure is effective. It's a bad law and probably can be defeated (again) but it will take some effort.

There is never any point in arguing with people who only want 'evidence' that supports what they already believe.

It's not for lack of trying. Everybody knows Asia is where the action is.

Charles, Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed the web site and am impressed by the competition organization. The call-for-entries materials are excellent. I grew up in Mansfield, Ohio, and although we lived in town we patronized Sandy Hill Fruit Farm out in the county, mainly for the apples and cider. I didn't get to visit farms often as a kid so it always made an impression. My parents would occasionally let some cider harden a little bit, just so we could experience it. Mansfield was a base of operations for John "Johnny Appleseed" Chapman, so I feel like apples are a big part of my heritage. It's good to see Great Lakes orchardmen getting the word out.

I think they're throwing down the gauntlet. You want to sell 'white whiskey'? Well here is our white whiskey, try to top it! Not just on the assumption that yours is better because you made it and cause you're little and junk and of course your stuff is better, but side by side, face to face. Here's what comes out of our stills, since that seems to be the currency these day. Compare new make to new make. Mellow corn is a HH product. I have been trying to get into the habit of saying "the only major distillery that..." when that's the point. You can point to some micro who's doing anything, after all, which is what's so great about it. HH is the only major that makes all four types. It is the only major that makes wheat whiskey and it is the only major that makes corn whiskey to sell as corn whiskey, although others make it for blends. There is also one major, LDI, that is supplying a lot of the Potemkins and it's not always possible to know what whiskey of theirs is out there, but so far as I know no one is selling LDI's corn. Those of you who are out in the market know how much bartenders love this stuff. They're going after your customers but many other people too, like the people who do their own aging at home.

...and would anyone deny that elements of the micro-distilling community are doing their best to add to that heritage?

Continuing in my role as evil incarnate... The basis of Heaven Hill's claim is that no other major makes all four types. Only Heaven Hill makes straight wheat whiskey and Heaven Hill is the only one that makes corn whiskey for sale, although others make it for blending purposes.

For everyone wondering about whether or not 'white whiskey' has legs as a product type, consider this. Heaven Hill announced today the first two releases in the Trybox Series of New Make Whiskeys. The new Trybox Series, named after the copper and glass “tasting station” where new make whiskey flows off the still, offers up several styles of Heaven Hill’s world famous American Whiskeys. Each is taken straight off the still, before aging in a charred oak barrel—the same way legendary father and son Master Distillers Parker and Craig Beam taste-test them. (This is all straight from the press release.) The first two, as you would imagine, are a rye-recipe bourbon white dog and a rye white dog. They should begin to appear in stores in May and will be distributed nationally. All releases in the series will be in 750ml bottles, packaged three to a case, at the "full traditional barrel entry proof of 125, or 62.5% alcohol/volume." The suggested national average retail price will be $24.99.

I love Bill Owens but he writes books faster than most people can read them. One time he asked me to look at a budget, trying to figure the full cost of a barrel of whiskey, and he had neglected to include taxes. Of course, you did the right thing which is find another source and now you're trying to resolve the conflict. If you are planning to age your spirits in new, charred oak barrels assume about 7 percent evaporation/absorption loss for the first year and 4 percent for every year thereafter, although that can vary too depending on your aging conditions.

This is a great idea. Customers banding together to strike a blow for quality is nothing short of revolutionary. Bravo. A suggestion, based on some tastings in which I have participated. Include as part of the activity a brief, mandatory educational component -- a 'how to taste critically' seminar. If taught by someone who is truly qualified, and kept brief, it should be useful to even the most experienced taster and no one should be insulted about being required to participate.

I know of one small distiller in an arid environment who uses groundwater and captured rainwater, as well as recycling his water as much as he can. He does not, to the best of my knowledge, do anything unusual in his actual processes in order to conserve water. One common consideration in whiskey-making is mash thickness. A thin mash can be easier to work with in many ways but a thick mash conserves both water and energy.

I don't know about the glasses Bill had, but Glencairn has lots of other stuff. They have the covers, which are called watch glass covers. You can also get them from scientific supply companies. They're really good when you're pouring in advance for a large group. Much sexier than using paper coasters.

It's a mixed question but it's nice that you're thinking about the ethical part. Many people don't. Ethically, I think the obligation is to tell the truth and tell it in a way that is not misleading. Obviously, that second part can be tricky. I recommend thinking about what a reasonable person is likely to assume upon seeing or hearing the statement you want to make. Generally, when people see "Established 1971," they will understand that to mean that the business began to conduct its business in 1971.

Dr. Crow died in 1856. I can provide a photograph of his headstone if necessary.

Bottled-in-bond means 100 proof but it means more than that. There's nothing that says this is barrel proof, so distillation proof and barrel proof wouldn't seem to be relevant to anything, except they followed the standards for bourbon. Wouldn't "foxed" refer more to contamination by wild yeast? Don't most distillers consider lactobacillus helpful and compatible with yeast?