DEFINING "CRAFT" DISTILLERY

[cowdery]

We may want to move this discussion to another thread, because the gist of this one is more practical than philosophical with regard to defining the industry.

In that article, I ask a lot of questions but I don't draw conclusions. I don't know the answer. My personal attitudes about this are evolving as this young industry evolves and I hope I'm participating constructively in that evolution by raising issues that deserve the kind of careful consideration you plainly are giving them.

On the StraightBourbon.com board, I asked some people who were discussing your Baby Bourbon if it mattered to them that you use industrial enzymes instead of malt in your mashing. The responses were not simple yes or no, but very thoughtful. That group is generally well-informed. One guy, who I love because he just always thinks the best of people, speculated that you might be using some even older, more traditional technique to convert your grain.

I do find the logic strained where you equate experimentation with tradition when one could easily argue that the two are mutually exclusive, especially if you are using 21st century technology. Would it be so wrong to call yourself an experimental distiller? Again, I emphasize that I am not judging, and I'm certainly not damning, I'm wondering. I salute all of you guys for crawling out on this limb.

Ultimately, this discussion is important because of consumer expectations. What you or I mean when we use terms like "craft," "artisan," or "tradition" is beside the point. What does the consumer expect when those terms are used?

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

Thanks Chuck. Consumer expectations are indeed the bottom line for all us trying to make hay with our craftiness.

But I do think that "traditional methods" and "experimentation" are not mutually exclusive. It is, after all, an American tradition to improvise and innovate, a tradition I'm sure was also applied to distilling spirits since the first still was erected in the US.

And I also agree with your comment about the discussion on "craft". We should not get off point here. There seems to be no objection to the language or the scope of the proposed definition. Let's move forward. Who among the readers and industry types participating here agrees with the definition as it has evolved, to be inclusive of "Micro-Spirits Producer"? We need to come to decision on this so that it can be turned out to legislators and used in the reduced tax discussion with the Fed and various States.

[Paul G]

It appears that the consensus is about scale and thus "micro-" seems to be the most apt prefix.

In the verbage of the definition, I'm still not on board with the need to include a statement specifying agricultural raw materials. This isn't because of any intent to NOT use agricultural raw materials personally, but because of some potentially unforeseeen "bite-us-in-the-butt" curveball that may come down the pike in years to come. However, that's just my two cents. I'm still behind the intent and I'm 100% behind the current statement should it be presented in its most recent iteration.

Cheers,

Paul

[Jonathan Forester]

I agree with the latest version of the definition.

Jonathan

There seems to be no objection to the language or the scope of the proposed definition. Let's move forward. Who among the readers and industry types participating here agrees with the definition as it has evolved, to be inclusive of "Micro-Spirits Producer"? We need to come to decision on this so that it can be turned out to legislators and used in the reduced tax discussion with the Fed and various States.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

I'm agreed with Chuck's revision of the structure of the definition, let's focus on the following text and start to build concensus here:

Micro Spirit Producers may make no more than 65,000 proof gallons of product per year in a single licensed premises. Micro Spirit Producers use a variety of techniques which substantially change the character of the raw materials. Those techniques include but are not limited to: infusion, distillation, blending, and/or rectification. Micro Spirit Producers use agricultural raw materials including but not limited to grains and/or fruit.

The reference to "agricultural raw materials" perhaps needs more discussion. To my way of thinking, the phrase refers to the base materials that form the basis for the alcohol production, not process additives. For instance, adding a buffer to reduce acidity, that buffer could be a mineral rather than from agricultural source. Or nutrients added to aid in the startup of fermentation which have an organic origin (that is to say, not necessarily certified as "organic" but rather produced from organic matter). These seem to me more in the way of "process". Perhaps there is a way to clarify that in the definition, but I'm thinking it's not necessary.

Comments??

[dgpoff]

I think that from an all inclusive," lets get a lower tax rate" standpoint, this is about as harmonious as we can get.

I do still hold the unpopular opinion that this definition has nothing to do with defining either this organization or providing any consumer direction when it comes to small artisan/craft distillers.

Don

[rich phillips]

I think a lot of the language that surrounds "craft distilling" or "artisan distilling" is more properly termed "micro-distilling."

In my opinion, craft is not about whether one uses a pot still or column still—they're just tools—or whether one purchases pre-made GNS—it's just a blank canvas—or even if the volume is over a certain amount. And it damned sure isn't about where you source your materials. It's about what you do with all of the above.

It's about utilizing craftsmanship, calling upon one's talents and skills in an intimate, personal connection with the materials and process. Certainly, most of the products that we would generally think of as craft-distilled would be made in a pot still, but if one wants to produce a true "craft vodka" from scratch, one needs a column still. Is it less craft because of that?

If I produce 200,000 proof gallons of spirit in a year, but I've done it in a battery of fifteen, 300-liter, copper alembics handmade by artisans in Portugal, and I've blended the the ingredients and tasted every batch personally, as it distilled, and made decisions about my cuts, am I not a craft distiller?

If I buy GNS, but I then hand-grind and blend the foreign-sourced botanicals and distill it into a fine gin, tasting every few minutes, am I not a craft distiller?

HERE HERE!

Well stated.

[Marc]

Absolutely well stated.

[Jonathan Forester]

Don- I agree, this isn't about defining what are artisan/craft distillers. The bulk of this thread has been re-directed to forming the definition of 'small spirits producers' for a legislative effort to reduce taxes. I think that the topic defining the differences between the varying types of 'small spirits producers', distillers. rectifiers, infusers, etc. is important as well and should be continued.

I wonder if Guy can split this thread into posts the original topic, and another thread with the posts about defining 'small spirits producers', and the legislative effort to lower the tax rate?

Jonathan

I think that from an all inclusive," lets get a lower tax rate" standpoint, this is about as harmonious as we can get.

I do still hold the unpopular opinion that this definition has nothing to do with defining either this organization or providing any consumer direction when it comes to small artisan/craft distillers.

Don

[Fred Linneman]

I'm agreed with Chuck's revision of the structure of the definition, let's focus on the following text and start to build concensus here:

Micro Spirit Producers may make no more than 65,000 proof gallons of product per year in a single licensed premises. Micro Spirit Producers use a variety of techniques which substantially change the character of the raw materials. Those techniques include but are not limited to: infusion, distillation, blending, and/or rectification. Micro Spirit Producers use agricultural raw materials including but not limited to grains and/or fruit.

....

Comments??

I suggest that we may want to do something so that a private label, made from a plant that produces thousands of gallons of hooch cannot market themselves as ‘small batch’ producers. We have several private labels here, being marketed as a local product, made out of state where the owners don't touch the product other than at the liquor store where the buy their own product. I do not know if this can be accomplished by limiting to 65,000 proof gallons or some other means.

What I do know is that a well-capitalized marketing firm can private label (contract) a brand and make it very difficult for a small distillery to overcome the marketing efforts to educate the public that the product is not local but made in another state. The above statement to me achieves this issue.

That said, unless someone has a better thought,

I am on board.

Fred

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

I think this is another discussion. Since the distillery is the entity which is licensed, a larger manufacturer making a private label brand under its existing license would not fall into this category if they are making over the 65k gallon top end. As for any misleading promotion, that's a problem for the Fed and the consumer to sort out. Let's just focus on this definition. Thanks for signing on.

[Rogue Spirits]

Craft Brewer Definition developed by the Brewers Association:

An American craft brewer is small, independent, and traditional.

Small: Annual production of beer less than 2 million barrels. Beer production is attributed to a brewer according to the rules of alternating proprietorships. Flavored malt beverages are not considered beer for purposes of this definition.

Independent: Less than 25% of the craft brewery is owned or controlled (or equivalent economic interest) by an alcoholic beverage industry member who is not themselves a craft brewer.

Traditional: A brewer who has either an all malt flagship (the beer which represents the greatest volume among that brewers brands) or has at least 50% of it’s volume in either all malt beers or in beers which use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.

Microbrewery: A brewery that produces less than 15,000 barrels (17,600 hectoliters) of beer per year. Microbreweries sell to the public by one or more of the following methods: the traditional three-tier system (brewer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer); the two-tier system (brewer acting as wholesaler to retailer to consumer); and, directly to the consumer through carryouts and/or on-site tap-room or restaurant sales.

Brewpub: A restaurant-brewery that sells 25% or more of its beer on site. The beer is brewed primarily for sale in the restaurant and bar. The beer is often dispensed directly from the brewery's storage tanks. Where allowed by law, brewpubs often sell beer "to go" and /or distribute to off site accounts. Note: BA re-categorizes a company as a microbrewery if its off-site (distributed) beer sales exceed 75 percent.

Contract Brewing Company: A business that hires another brewery to produce its beer. It can also be a brewery that hires another brewery to produce additional beer. The contract brewing company handles marketing, sales, and distribution of its beer, while generally leaving the brewing and packaging to its producer-brewery (which, confusingly, is also sometimes referred to as a contract brewery).

Regional Craft Brewery: An independent brewery with an annual beer production of between 15,000 and 2,000,000 barrels who has either an all malt flagship or has at least 50% of it's volume in either all malt beers or in beers which use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.

Last updated on 12/14/07

How do craft brewers make beer?

Craft beer is made using a traditional process of blending the sugars from malted grains (such as barley or wheat), with hop flowers and water. The skill of the Masterbrewer brings out the desired aroma, color, mouth feel, foam and flavor qualities of the hops and malt through formulation of recipes and the fermentation of sugars into alcohol, carbon dioxide gas and other characters. After careful aging at just the right temperatures the beer is packaged and delivered to the consumer.

Craft-brewed beers are usually not pasteurized, but often go through a filtration process to improve clarity. But this is not always the case. Many craft-brewed beers are not filtered and you may experience what's called a tasteless "chill-haze or protein-haze" in unfiltered beer. Some craft beers may also still have yeast present either in suspension or as sediment, increasing its appeal to beer enthusiasts that enjoy these characters.

Does the beer made by craft brewers taste different? If so why?

It's hard to generalize about the taste of beer, but nevertheless we might say that beers from America's craft brewers will usually have a fuller more complex flavor than the typical light American lager style of beer popular throughout the world. Because of the increased percentage of specialty malt and hop ingredients you are going to experience flavors and aromas not found in light American style lagers.

The aroma of the beer may remind you of citrus, flowers or herbs. This is attributable to how the Masterbrewer utilizes the delicate characters of the hop flower. You may also smell caramel, sweet biscuits, cocoa, coffee-like character, honey, fresh baked cookies - all pleasant sweet notes contributed to by the skillful selection of specialty toasted and roasted malted barley.

And there's even more you'll discover with the Masterbrewers use of specialty yeasts whose delicate byproducts of fermentation result in sensual aromatic and flavor characters such as clove, spice, banana, strawberry, apples and more.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

Thanks for that last from our cousins making beer. This is the kind of extended description we will need (to steal from the brewers) as we go forward and the national industry organization comes together. It is along the lines of a mission statement in that it has subjective descriptions of each type of producer.

We may want to separate out the term "craft" and stick with a generic "micro" till the organization has established it's base and can address the more philosophical issues.

In this discussion we have tried to focus on a broad stroke definition of what we all do, so that we have a technical starting point, a clear statement of the constituency the organization represents, which is not limited to distillers, but includes a wide variety of types, not unlike the sample above from the brewers.

Thanks.

[Odyssey Spirits]

I'm not here to give legal advice, but any trademark that consists of common words or a common expression is entitled to little if any trademark protection. One cannot "own" a word. No one need worry about using either of these terms descriptively. Beyond that, consult your own legal advisors, but I think you'll be reassured by what they tell you.

In terms of Ansley Coale's trademark on "Craft Distillers" ~ they made the point in their letter that at the time they registered their trademark the term Craft Distiller was not in use (of course proving that is on them). The fact is - they did trademark the term and no one opposed it during the Opposition Period. They own it . . . for now.

The burden is now upon them to enforce their rights to be the sole user of the trademark, and thus mail Cease & Desist letters to every distillery, marketer, journalist, government etc. to prevent them from using the term loosely because in doing so they will eventually lose their trademark protection (if it's use becomes common as a descriptive phrase). Most trademarks start with "common words" used in a not so common way. However if one's trademark becomes used in a common descriptive manner (i.e. adjective) then the protection is lost (to Rollerblade became inline skating, to Xerox something - became to photocopy, Kleenex > Facial Tissue, Band-Aid etc.)

It's great to see all the participation in this discussion and the strides that have been made to define "Micro Spirits Producer" for legal and legislative use by the industry. Clearly we as artisans in the art of distilling like emotionally appealing terms such as "craft" and "artisan", though "Micro" is more in line with what government folks would understand in that it is definite, neat and less open to interpretation - it speaks clearly of volume and nothing else. Combined with the statement that follows the definition of what a Micro Spirits Producer is becomes very clear indeed.

Once the Micro terminology has been agreed upon for this purpose, perhaps as an industry we can then discuss adoption of a list of 'Artisan' designations and guidelines for terms such as "Hand Crafted", "Grain to Bottle", "Farm to Bottle" etc. akin to in France they have the terms "Mis En Bouteille a la Propriete" = bottled at the producer, "Mis En Bouteille Par" = bottled at other company, "Mis en Bouteille au Domaine" = bottled at estate, "Mis par le Propriétaire" = bottled by the producer, and "Mis en Bouteille dans nos Caves" and "Mis en Bouteille dans nos Chais" = "bottled in our cellars," and usually suggest that the grapes were grown elsewhere and that the wine is not the quality of one that is estate bottled.

Creating industry backed terminology with clear guidelines to be met in order to use those terms in marketing and on labels would be the starting point. Enforcement would be the next step and could possibly be enforced through participation in an industry association (such as in ADI) for which violations could result from expulsion from the association and restriction of use of the terms (possibly via trademarks filed by the Association on behalf of the industry, or collectively pursuing legislative standards for terms?).

[Guest Liberty Bar - Seattle]

I'm not here to give legal advice, but any trademark that consists of common words or a common expression is entitled to little if any trademark protection. One cannot "own" a word. No one need worry about using either of these terms descriptively. Beyond that, consult your own legal advisors, but I think you'll be reassured by what they tell you.

This may or may not be true. While it is a fact that the term and descriptor "craft distillery" has reached a point of representing an industry, if Hangar trademarked it BEFORE it became such a descriptor, then they have it. As I understand it, one can't go back and take away a trademark because that trademark has become a industry term. Try to tell Coke Cola that any brown soda can now be called 'Coke'.

Get to the definition instead of avoiding the issue and arguing semantics. Distillers distill. Everyone else is a producer, but not necessarily a distiller.

I've found that fairly often in similar situations, it takes a lot of debate around an issue to get to the point of the issue. This is a large idea, discussed by a large group, all who have their own ideas about the idea. Y'r basically building a platypus here.

"Craft distillers produce alcoholic beverage spirits by distillation, or by infusion through distillation or redistillation. Maximum production for a "craft" or "artisan" distiller should not exceed 50,000 proof gallons per year. The "craft" or "artisan" distiller utilizes a pot still, with or without rectification columns, for distillation of beverage spirits".

My question is where did this 50Kproof gallon number come from? Why 50K? It's my opinion that this has become the standard because someone stuck that in a bill in the last 10 years and that's become some kind of standard for that reason alone.

For instance, if someone has a 300liter still, they can produce at least a couple hundred liters of product per day (if they use GNS), right? So, that means that if they run their still only five days a week, that's 1,500liters per week, or 78Kliters/yr. That represents 21Kgallons/yr without really trying, right? So, someone that had a good business could work hard and produce that 50K/yr. Why that limitation? Why just 40 or 50K/yr? Was there a reason for that number or was it just some arbitrary amount that has been perpetuated for no reason? Hell, here in Washington, Dryfly has a gin and a vodka, so they should be limited to 25Kgallons per spirit if they want to be called a "craft distillery"? That's nonsense.

Perhaps the nature of the stills is the key to the definition. A craft distiller uses pot stills. Could the size and type of still be the determining factor? A 1200 gallon still is not producing the same way as a 200 gallon still. Maybe....... Food for thought. Any comments?

Why do you suggest that "A craft distiller uses pot stills"? I do not understand that. You'd like to define "craft distilling" by the kind of still?

I think use of a potstill and the definitions max gallonage (50,000) is a great category definition in itself.

Yeah, but of what? If someone gets a nice Bavarian-Holstein with an attached column......or one of those reflux stills...........they can't be a 'craft distillery'?

Though I do not personally agree with using a column to produce "craft spirits", I do agree to disagree and move forward. If we are all agreed that it's about "craft" and not about hardware, we should leave the discussion of column vs pot behind and move on.

Oh. Nevermind.

So, why have a trade group? I think it's much more for lobbying collectively than it is for marketing collectively. The lesson, then, is pitch a big tent.

There are so many reasons. That's a whole different thread.

Micro Spirit Producers make alcoholic beverage spirits utilizing a variety of techniques and agricultural raw materials including but not limited to grains and fruit, which substantially change the character of the raw materials; up to 65,000 proof gallons of product per year in a single licensed premises. These techniques include, but are not limited to: infusion, distillation, blending, and/or rectification.

I do not understand the ..."including but not limited to:..." The "not limited to" part makes the former part irrelevant. If it's "not limited to grains and fruit", then why even mention it? As a guiding principle? OK. I suppose - I mean this is not a legal document or anything, but that part makes the whole less relevant. Why not limit it to just "agricultural raw materials"?

Jeffery - all your points are good ones.

What happened to this thread? No decisions, or - are the discussions going on privately now?

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

Many of the points raised in your comment, above, are addressed in later comments in the discussion.

I think we have gone past "equipment" as the determining factor. Whether or not it is a pot, has a column or whatever, it is not the hardware that makes it "craft". The term "craft is really not appropriate for a legal definition, but more in the way of a characteristic of the type of producer you are. We seem to have addressed the use of the word "craft", generally agreeing that the phrase "micro spirits producer" is more inclusive.

The total volume suggested is a number that was chosen to be most inclusive while still keeping ourselves focused on the qualifier "micro". It is certain that using GNS, a producer can turn out 100,000 gal a year. But is that "micro"? States which define "micro" or which have small distillery license classes seem to top out at 65,000 a year and we are attempting to be inclusive and consider the existing limits developed by different states.

In my humble opinion, a distiller who is packing (and selling, that's an important point to remember, you have to sell it all) 26,000 - 750ml bottle/cases a year (65,000 gallons or product) or roughly $12mil a year gross revenue, is already stretching the limits of "micro" (and enjoying equity value in the neighborhood of $100mil). For our operation (at current production level - 4,500 - 375ml bottle/cases a year) we would happily acquire the next license class and graduate out of the "micro" class if the gods of the marketplace blessed us with that kind of good fortune and consumer acceptance. We know, from our own experience, that kind of mass production requires heavy investment in machines and serious upgrade of staff, equipment, waste treatment and space; it is not what we here at Tuthilltown imagine as a "micro" or "craft" operation. But that's an opinion.

The question about the phrase: "including but not limited to" was included to steer the understanding of what we use by way of example. It is arguable to say that "including but not limited to" is self-contradictory. In this case it is a way to clarify what materials are mainly used. The more salient question might be, is GNS an "agricultural raw material"? It is made from corn, but it is made in an industrial plant. If it comes as GNS, has it become an industrial raw material?

The definition of "micro producer" is not expected to totally satisfy everyone. But we must make accommodation for the necessity to arrive at an accepted definition before the Fed or Big Alcohol do it for us. We will not all agree, but we must agree to disagree and move on.

The definition proposed is on the table, unless anyone can find some substantial problem with it we should leave behind the discussions on the finer distinctions and get on with it. Melkon has made some tremendous progress in his starting efforts at lobbying our case for reduced tax rate. But before we can really settle out any issues, we have to come to some consensus. Time to shit or get off the pot.

R

[cowdery]

Re trademarks, one cannot trademark a descriptive term, before or after the fact.

But I still don't want to get into a legal discussion here. On the issue of trademark claims regarding use of the term "craft distillery," here is my advice. Before you decide that you think you know what you can or cannot do in that regard, talk to a lawyer.

[Guest Liberty Bar - Seattle]

The total volume suggested is a number that was chosen to be most inclusive while still keeping ourselves focused on the qualifier "micro". It is certain that using GNS, a producer can turn out 100,000 gal a year. But is that "micro"? States which define "micro" or which have small distillery license classes seem to top out at 65,000 a year and we are attempting to be inclusive and consider the existing limits developed by different states.

Yeah. 65K seems a reasonable number. Erring on the side of the larger number is the more appropriate choice to make in my unhumble and; frankly, unlearned opinion.

In my humble opinion, a distiller who is packing (and selling, that's an important point to remember, you have to sell it all) 26,000 - 750ml bottle/cases a year (65,000 gallons or product) or roughly $12mil a year gross revenue, is already stretching the limits of "micro" (and enjoying equity value in the neighborhood of $100mil). For our operation (at current production level - 4,500 - 375ml bottle/cases a year) we would happily acquire the next license class and graduate out of the "micro" class if the gods of the marketplace blessed us with that kind of good fortune and consumer acceptance. We know, from our own experience, that kind of mass production requires heavy investment in machines and serious upgrade of staff, equipment, waste treatment and space; it is not what we here at Tuthilltown imagine as a "micro" or "craft" operation. But that's an opinion.

My whole idea of commenting on that was to plan for a decade from now. Yes, someone that produces and sells that much product will be in a whole different class and neighborhood. But, we're comparing a 'micro' from a 'distillery', right? So, that edge obviously needs to be where that break is most logically placed, and I think that you made a good decision on that level.

The question about the phrase: "including but not limited to" was included to steer the understanding of what we use by way of example. It is arguable to say that "including but not limited to" is self-contradictory. In this case it is a way to clarify what materials are mainly used. The more salient question might be, is GNS an "agricultural raw material"? It is made from corn, but it is made in an industrial plant. If it comes as GNS, has it become an industrial raw material?

I believe so. When the whole idea is that up to 65Kgallons of product are created - there's some kind of loss of the integrity of the product when 90% of it comes from an industrial raw material. Now, that's not to say that Marc's gin is not a truly fantastic gin (and I genuinely mean that), but no one here would argue (I think) that controlling the product from the first step all the way to putting the filled cases on a truck and then going out to sell those cases creates a more holistic product. I have never met anyone that - given the chances - they'd not want to control 100% of the elements to their product. It's just so damn expensive and - frankly - difficult.

Part of what constitutes a 'craft distillery' is the nature of what constitutes such a distillery. And, for good and ill, using GNS is one of the elements of what often constitutes this niche.

I'd like to thank you for leading this charge. It's forward thinking and important to really define what it is that many here do - and what I will one day be doing. In the end, most people won't even know that this discussion happened: They'll just read the definition.

Thanks again.

We've still got a bottle each of the Baby Bourbon and Rye here at Liberty sitting next to a wonderful bottle of Willett, so I'm going to go and take a sip in your honor. Thanks, Ralph.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

In a week I will be meeting with the NYS Law Revision Commission to discuss the restructuring of New York Alcohol Beverage Control Law. The goal is a reasonable rewrite of the laws pertaining to Production. The SLA mission in NY is "regulation" there is no mention of "support" in the enabling legislation by which the SLA came into existance. This is a fallback position when the SLA is asked to provide some guidance and help to Producers. It is not in their nature to "help" the Production side of the beverage alcohol industry.

I have proposed to the State of NY, and will discuss it at this meeting, the State separate Production from Enforcement and move the responsibility for licensing and regulating Producers of beverage alcohol products in NY to the Department of Ag and Markets where it belongs. The SLA is organized for and experienced with the regulation of Distribution, dealing mainly with on and off premises retail locations, distributors and importers. They have no experience or desire to shape the Production side.

Wineries in New York are under the wing of the Department of Ag and Markets, recognized in law as "Farm" operations. The same is not true for the small brewer or distiller. We will attempt to cure this by putting all responsibility for Producers under Ag and Markets. Once the goods are bottled and leave the Producer's bonded premises (or are shifted to the retail side of a winery or farm distillery or brewery) the goods and their sale would fall under the watchful eyes of the SLA. That is the appropriate structure, allowing for the fact that Producers making use of New York agricultural raw materials, and especially when they are actually growing or contracting to grow the raw materials they use, are Farm operations. Wineries are already recognized thus. Keeping grain growers from this status and from the help and support of Ag and Markets is discrimation against grain growers in favor of fruit growers. Ag and Markets is better equipped to address waste, water and any other agronomic issues the small ag Producer deals with daily.

For the above reason, it is now time in New York to define the "micro spirits producer", otherwise it can not be codified in NY law. I have proposed to the Commission and to Ag and Markets the definition which has evolved in this discussion. This is the exact reason why it is important to come to consensus about the definition. Not unlike the issues of carbon emissions (bear with me, this is not as big a stretch as it at first seems) if each individual state elects its definition on a catch as catch can basis, we will have no consistency across the country. We must try to agree on a definition we can submit on a State by State basis and to the Fed. And we must get to it soon.

[sean@wolfbros]

For the above reason, it is now time in New York to define the "micro spirits producer", otherwise it can not be codified in NY law. I have proposed to the Commission and to Ag and Markets the definition which has evolved in this discussion. This is the exact reason why it is important to come to consensus about the definition. Not unlike the issues of carbon emissions (bear with me, this is not as big a stretch as it at first seems) if each individual state elects its definition on a catch as catch can basis, we will have no consistency across the country. We must try to agree on a definition we can submit on a State by State basis and to the Fed. And we must get to it soon.

We fully support the current definition and production limits. Thank you all, especially Ralph and Melkon, for your efforts on our behalf.

Sean Wolf

Wolf Bros, Distillers

Rochester, NY

[delaware_phoenix]

I'm in complete agreement. Just emphasize that all producers need to be under a separate licensing procedure than the retail side. Personally, I feel the licensing procedures need to be transparent and open rather than opaque and byzantine. It's a disservice to the honest, small business entrepreneurs who are trying to start businesses and have to invest thousands of dollars before they even start, and then get left hanging in the breeze for 6 months or longer waiting for a permit. Especially now, when the SLA requires new distillery permit applications to already have their Federal license.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.

And if the Legislature, etc is serious about promoting this new industry, an interesting idea might be establishing a micro-wholesale license category, or allowing micro-distillers the ability to act as small wholesalers for other small distillers. The big wholesale businesses aren't really interested in us. It wouldn't even make financial sense for them to send a truck to my factory to pick up the miniscule quantity I produce. Just a thought.

Edited October 31, 2008 by delaware_phoenix

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

The A-1 and DD licenses in New York both permit acquisition of a Wholesale Distribution license, permitting self-distribution. This is how we got started. It is a separate license application and requires additional bonds in place, but it is available.

I'm sitting with Commissioners of the NYS Law Revision Commission shortly. We will be discussing revisions of NY State ABC law as it relates to Producers. All New York State distillers or applicants are invited to email me your talking points and I will bring them to the table. Please keep the comments and concerns brief and to the point. And lets stick for now to the things that are easily accomplished and reasonable. For instance, we have positive reaction from some quarters in Albany to the notion of a proposal to shift the licensing and regulation of Producers of alcoholic beverages in NY to the Department of Ag and Markets.

Which of the arcane, ridiculous, costly, illogical, unenforcable, impractical, meaningless regulations would you like revised; but more importantly, HOW? We will be speakng with attorneys, not producers, not industry types. We must not limit our comments to whining and complaining, we must offer alternatives which accomplish the same overall need.

You can email your comments AND possible solutions to me: ralph@tuthilltown.com

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

New York Distillers should should check this link: http://www.lawrevision.state.ny.us/Prelimi...portrv90208.pdf

This report gives you an idea what is underway at the NEW YORK STATE LAW REVISION COMMISSION has learned and where it is headed.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

New question.

In New York State we have managed to amend the Farm Distillery and A-1 licenses to permit the holding of multiple licenses by a single distillery without need of creating separate distinct distillery premises for each licensee; this is permitted for wineries who often hold distiller licenses. It raises the question: If we are putting an upper limit on the production capacity below which a distillery is considered a "micro spirits producer", what happens when a distiller acquires two licenses having different prohibitions and which license annual production capacities are considered cumulative by the State.

Example: We hold an A-1 license with an upper capacity annual limit of 35,000 gallons (notably NYS ABC Law does not specify if that means "proof gallons" or "wine gallons"). The recent approval of our Farm Distillery ("DD") license allows us a similar 35,000 gallon (again ambiguous in the law) annual capacity. The law specifically permits the total output of a distillery holding multiple licenses to be the CUMULATIVE total. So our distillery facility now has the right under our license to produce up to 70,000 gallons (we assume proof-gallons) a year.

This may imply we need to look at what that "annual capacity" means. Should a single distillery company holding multiple licenses be considered to be multiple "micro distillers", regardless the configuration of the plant or ownership?

Comments?

Ralph

Tuthilltown

[SinglemaltTV]

As we start delving into more involved coverage of Craft Distilling we'd like a definition too. Brainstorming in our office today we had an idea:

Make us a short video with YOUR definition of what it means to be a Craft Distiller. We'll take your submissions to make a piece for Singlemalt TV, a video culmination of sorts, exploring the term as defined by the people who are passionate about it.

You can submit your videos on Singlemalt TV (just follow the instructions for viewer submitted content) or get in touch with us via the forum if you have any questions at all. We look forward to hearing from you!

The following is meant as a jumping off point, though it does seem to cover the meat of the subject. Time to define the terms: "craft" and "artisan" distillers. Here's my first attempt. Comments welcome.

****

PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "CRAFT" OR "ARTISAN" DISTILLER

"Craft distillers produce alcoholic beverage spirits by distillation, or by infusion through distillation or redistillation. Maximum production for a "craft" or "artisan" distiller should not exceed 50,000 proof gallons per year. The "craft" or "artisan" distiller utilizes a pot still, with or without rectifcation columns, for distillation of beverage spirits. A distiller starting with neutral spirits produced by others, who redistills without substantially altering the neutral character of the spirit may not be said to be a "craft" or "artisan" distiller.

***

This definition deliberately excludes producers of infused products making use of alcohol which the producer has not made from the fermentation and/or distillation process. It is inclusive of the distiller who starts with grain neutral spirits and then redistills as a function of infusion or some other process which substantially alters the neutral character of the original spirit. It excludes the distiller who starts with gns and merely runs it through a still again to create another neutral spirit; or starting with grain neutral spirits only adds flavoring and/or color unless those changes are introduced as the result of distillation, not merely as additives. It excludes blenders or bottlers who buy spirits from another distiller to blend and bottle it under another brand. The "distiller" must distill.

Ralph Erenzo

Tuthilltown Spirits

Gardiner, NY