Is KY Owl Confiscated the copycat of the ‘white van speaker scam’?

Have you ever heard of the ‘white van speaker scam’? If not wiki link – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_van_speaker_scam. The gist is a con artist driving a white van makes you believe they have some high-end speakers left over from some job and must move fast. They are willing to move well below retail; often 80% below ‘retail price’ but you must act NOW. The reality is they are selling super cheap imported from China crap speakers. They are still out there but now have moved to flat screen TV’s; I was approached just last year.

In my opinion, KY Owl Confiscated is the whiskey version of the ‘white van speaker scam’. Its bulk sourced non-age stated KY straight bourbon whiskey for $129. Every single major KY bourbon distillery sells the same for $25 or less. Since KY Owl has no distillery they bought this from one of those other major KY distilleries. They are pitching high-end bourbon but delivering something pretty basic. Did I mention it has no age statement?

The white van scam generally starts in parking lot with the con artist approaching you saying ‘you look like a cool dude’. And since we all want to be cool, this relaxes your guard against being scammed. KY Owl does about the same; they immediately tell you they are ‘The Wise Man’s Bourbon’.

I thought the KY Owl Rye was overpriced but at least it carried an age statement. Perhaps one could justify the price if this was a very limited release, but it’s a national release with wide distribution. It carries no added secondary value.

I can’t stop you from buying $25 whiskey for $129; it’s your money. However, I can at least say I warned you and I will laugh at all the fools who do buy it.

Next level label deception – Old Fourth Distillery

A friend recently asked if I knew anything about Old Fourth Distillery out of Atlanta, specifically about a Bottled in Bond straight bourbon they had recently released.  I did not, so I googled their website and did a little reading. I also looked up their COLA label approval. The Bottled in Bond Act has some very specific requirements about labeling.  At first glance from what I read I thought surely they had distilled this bourbon, they fooled me. Their website proudly proclaims, “Atlanta’s Own Straight Bourbon Whiskey Aged 4 Years”.  The website says they knew they wanted to make whiskey when they opened in 2012, they barreled this bourbon in Jan. 2015, and it’s taken 4 years for the initial release. It’s very careful wording without ever saying distilled. The friend then sent me a blown-up picture of their label zooming in on some print hidden in some artwork that showed DSP-IN-15023.  Can you spot this in the picture below?

The “IN” portion indicated this bourbon was distilled in Indiana.  One would then assume the likely source would be MGPi, but their DSP is IN-15016.  Despite the dubious DSP number, I have confirmed this was distilled by MGPi.

I emailed one of their owners to express my concerns about the deceptive website information as well as to bring to their attention some specific sections in the TTB code they are violating.   It’s been a week with no response, so the blog is going up without comment from them.

They are in violation of 27 CFR 5.36 (d), which I have blogged or posted about many times.  If certain types of whiskies are distilled in 1 state but bottled in another, then the label must have a ‘Distilled in XYZ state’ statement.  In this case, they must say Distilled in IN on the label.

For Bottled in Bond spirits, the code says “27 CFR 5.42 (b) (3) – the label shall bear the real name of the distillery or the trade name under which the distillery produced and warehoused the spirits, and the plant (or registered distillery) number in which produced; and the plant number in which bottled. The label may also bear the name or trade name of the bottler.”  While they list an IN DSP number cleverly buried in the artwork, they don’t list MGPi by name nor do they list their DSP number on the label as required by this code.

It must take a lot of work to be this deceptive.  It would be so much easier to be upfront with customers about your process and sourcing.  Plenty of companies such as Smooth Ambler, High West, and others have found much success with the upfront disclosure business models.  In 2019, I’m surprised we still find those that like to engage in such deception. Shame, Shame, Shame.

Update – I emailed a preview of the above blog post and did receive a response from one of the owners.  He said “We are very sorry that you feel deceived by our product.  We openly tell our customers that we sourced the white whiskey from mgp and aged it 4 years in Georgia.”

Here is link to their website page on this bourbon; you can decide for yourself if they are being open that it is sourced whiskey.  https://o4d.com/bottled-in-bond/


Make your own ‘finished bourbon’ at home in the bottle.

As part of my drinking for science projects, I decided to test if I could recreate a bourbon that was finished in a secondary barrel by just adding a small portion of that finish directly to a bottle.  I will start by saying these products are NOT bourbon. We all know by federal code bourbon can’t have added colors or flavoring. Placing a bourbon in a secondary barrel that previously held another type of product adds both color and flavoring.   Bourbon by code is class type 101 for straight bourbon or 141 for bourbon.  Finished American whiskies by federal code become class type 641 – whiskey specialties. The catch is the TTB allows producers to state Bourbon on the front label if they also state what was done to it.  So ‘KY Straight Bourbon with added yellow food coloring’ could appear on a label.

My theory is I can replicate, or even surpass, these whiskies by just adding small amounts of the secondary product directly to a bottle and allowing it to marry for at least 30 days. In many cask finished bourbons the secondary cask finishing times are often very short.  Also, producers have been known to recharge their secondary barrels – after emptying they add some additional port/sherry/etc. back to the barrel before refilling with bourbon.

For the test, I made 3 ‘finished bourbons’ employing my method starting with standard available bourbons.  I added my secondary finishing directly to the bottle and let this marry in the bottle for 30 days. I have learned from previous testing that allowing time for flavors to meld together is an important step in the process.  I purchased 3 well known secondary cask finished bourbons. I also limited my costs to around half the retail cost of their commercial counterparts. I had a group of 11 testers blind taste and score each whiskey.

In the past for scoring I employed a 100-point scale.  The issue with a 100-point scale is 0-60 is not used. After discussing scoring systems with a NASA scientist friend I decided on a 5-point scale.  This time, and going forward, I will be using this 5-point scale:

  • 1 – off putting with flawed notes
  • 2 – meh – would work good as a mixer
  • 3 – sipping whiskey – good everyday pour
  • 4 – Good whiskey, above average with little to no flaws
  • 5 – OMG, my mouth is having multiple orgasms – the best of the best

I debated how much to add on percentage basis to each bottle.  How wet are the barrels when producers add whiskey to them? I came across an interview on the K&L blog with Alexandre Gabriel of Maison Ferrand in which he said “Back to the Port barrel analogy, we have done tests and found that when you empty a barrel there is still roughly 3.5% of the previous liquid in the barrel. If it’s a wet barrel, then you’re now up to 5%.”  Of note, the TTB says if over 2.5% of wine flavoring is added, then the product must be stated as Flavored Whisky with the type of wine listed. This makes me wonder if some of the commercial products really should be labeled something like Port Flavored Whisky.  Perhaps producers elect to use secondary barrels to finish rather than add directly to the bourbon barrel to avoid the requirement of calling the final product a flavored whiskey. I elected to keep my additions under 3%, which is a very small amount per bottle and calculated out to 0.75 oz per bottle.  I’ll list my exact recipes at the end of the article.

The test was in 3 rounds.  Each round the testers tried 2 whiskies side by side; my version and the commercial version.  The testers did not know the whiskies selected or the finishes.

Round 1  For the first ‘finished bourbon’, I selected Angel’s Envy, which was the first widespread release of a bourbon finished in a port wine barrel.  For my version I used a base of Old Grand-Dad 114 proof, some water to reduce proof, and Tawny port.  The cost of my version was $21.50 whereas the cost of the Angel’s Envy is $47 in my market. While they don’t disclose who they source the base bourbon used in Angel’s Envy, it has always been KY Straight Bourbon.  They do have their own distillery, but as of now their own distilled bourbon is still aging. I saw Wes Henderson from Angel’s Envy recently and he mentioned they had sourced KY bourbon from 12 different KY distilleries. So who knows, there might be some Beam distilled high rye bourbon in the mix.  The result of the tasting panel:

My bourbon with port added scored 3.04

Angel’s Envy Port finish scored 3.14

The result was close, but Angel’s Envy won this round.  5 testers scored the AE higher, 4 testers scored my version higher, and 2 had it as a tie.

Round 2  For the second ‘finished bourbon’, I elected to go with a brandy finish.  I selected Belle Meade Bourbon finished in a Cognac Cask. For my version, I started with Wild Turkey Rare Breed, some water to reduce proof, and Armagnac.  My version cost $41 whereas the Belle Meade was $75.

My bourbon with Armagnac added scored 3.0

Belle Meade Bourbon Cognac Cask Finish scored 2.59

The testers clearly favored my version.  8 selected my version as better, 2 preferred the Belle Meade, and 1 had it as a tie.

Round 3  For the third ‘finished bourbon’, I went with an Orange Curacao finish.  The commercial whiskey was Parker’s Heritage Collection 12th Edition. For my version I used Elijah Craig bourbon including both the standard and the barrel proof versions to match the 110 proof of the PHC 12.  I added Pierre Ferrand Dry Orange Curaçao to the bottle. My version cost $43.50 whereas the PHC cost was $90.

My bourbon with Orange Curaçao added scored 3.14

PHC 12 Bourbon finished in orange curaçao barrels scored 1.85

This was not even close.  10 of the testers scored my version higher and 1 had it as a tie.  

 

My conclusion is if you are a fan of ‘finished bourbons’ you should definitely try making some at home.   I have open bottles of all 3 of my ‘finishes’, where as you might have to purchase a bottle. A bottle of ‘finish’ will go a long way as I used only 0.75 oz each time.  Below are my exact recipes used, but I would encourage others to play around with their own versions. Be sure to let the blend marry for at least 2 weeks or preferably 30 days.

My bourbon with port added:

  • OGD 114 – 23.5 oz
  • Reverse Osmosis water – 2 oz
  • Kopke 10-year Tawny port – 0.75 oz

My bourbon with Armagnac added:

  • WT Rare Breed – 21 oz
  • Reverse Osmosis water – 4 oz
  • L’Encantada 13-year-old Armagnac – 0.75 oz

My bourbon with orange curaçao added:

  • Elijah Craig standard – 15 oz
  • Elijah Craig barrel proof – 10 oz
  • Pierre Ferrand Dry Orange Curaçao – 0.75 oz

Drinking for Science – 2019 Projects

In past ‘In the Name of Science’ experiments I’ve tested how long an OWA/W12 needs to marry and if a bourbon really changes in the bottle once opened.  In 2019, I plan on testing some other theories:

-First on the testing block will be secondary cask finished ‘bourbons’.  Angel’s Envy was the first widespread release of a bourbon finished in a port wine barrel but now the shelves are full of such products.  These whiskies are no longer bourbon but are class type 641 – whiskey specialties. The catch is the TTB allows producers to state Bourbon on the front label if they also state what was done to it.  So ‘KY Straight Bourbon with added yellow food coloring’ could appear on a label.

My theory is I can replicate, or even surpass, these whiskies by just adding small amounts of the secondary product directly to a bottle and allow it to marry for at least 30 days. In many cask finished bourbons the secondary cask finishing times are often very short.  Also, producers have been known to recharge their secondary barrels – after emptying they add some additional port/sherry/etc back to barrel before refilling with bourbon.

For the test, I will make 3 whiskies employing my method starting with standard everyday available bourbons.  I will purchase 3 well known secondary cask finished bourbons. I plan to also limit my 3 to half the retail cost of their commercial counterparts.  I will have a group of 10 testers to blind taste and score each whiskey.

-Second test, does leaving a glass of whiskey out for 30 minutes change the taste?  I often hear friends say they like to leave a pour sitting out before drinking. For this test we will compare a pour that sits out vs a fresh pour from a bottle.  Like my prior tests this will be a 3-sample triangle blind taste test. Glasses used will be Glencairns. I have not picked the bourbon for the test but it will probably be something with a little higher proof, possibly between 110 and 120.  My guess is tasters will be able to tell a difference as I believe enough alcohol will evaporate to a point that it is perceptible.

-Third test – Does the water used to cut a bourbon to proof noticeably change the taste?  Most producers use as pure as water as possible post distillation to cut to proof prior to barreling as well as before bottling.  However, a few are starting to tout their water source used to cut proof for bottling as a key part of their process. For the test I will choose a high proof bourbon and cut it to proof with some different waters.  Distilled water will be the control water that should have no effect on flavor. There are a couple of waters being used I’d like to obtain samples for testing.

What other drinking for science projects would you like to see tested?

Labels that tater too far

Having a name for a private barrel or store pick goes back a long time.  Doug Phillips, who picked among the very first WFE barrels in 2006, had the label information filled in with green ink.  A second pick was done in black. Over time, these bottles became known simply by Doug’s Green or Black Ink. In 2014 the Facebook group T5C upped the ante by naming a Smooth Ambler Old Scout pick FS/FT, an acronym meaning For Sale/For Trade.  More creative barrel pick names followed. For the most part, the producers allowed a certain amount of characters and this was applied to the bottle label on the producer’s bottling line. Certain bottles have empty areas and groups/stores learned they could take advantage of this by placing a graphical sticker there and no longer be bound to the producers character limitations.  These would typically be applied after the store received the bottles.

This trend quickly caught on as many saw taters clamor for bottles with these new additions. The sticker game was on full force.  Secondary sales on bottles can be easily manipulated, some groups used stickers to engage in pump and dump schemes. They hyped up the latest pick, adorned with a creative sticker, as the best.  Because many taters have an irrational FOMO (fear of missing out) they are easily conned into believing the hype and paying 10 to 20 times original cost of these picks.

In 2018, a new trend emerged – labels that covered up the original producers label.  Unfortunately, most stores aren’t aware of federal labeling codes that stipulate certain information is mandatory on liquor labels.  Federal codes even specify where on the bottle certain information must be located. Here is one example:

This is the front label of a Knob Creek 120 proof bourbon pick.  The TTB BAM Ch. 1 on mandatory label information states that front label has the brand name and the class/type.  In this case that would be Knob Creek and Straight Bourbon Whiskey. This label covers up both.

Here is an example of a store applied label that covers up the mandatory government alcohol warning along with the required producer’s statement.  

Naming a barrel pick with a good or funny name or applying a sticker in a blank area is fine.  Covering up required labeling information is going too far.

This post inspired by these 2 you might be a whiskey tater reasons:

59.  Hype up any barrel pick you bought bottles of only later to flip a bottle on secondary

76.  You have an irrational fear on missing out by thinking this ‘limited’ special release or that single barrel pick is the ONE.

Basil Hayden’s – It’s so smooth

Basil Hayden’s is part of the original Beam Small Batch Collection which also includes Baker’s, Booker’s, and Knob Creek.  Beam uses 2 different bourbon mashbills, a low rye and a high rye bourbon. The low rye produces most of their whiskies and the high rye produces only 2 – Old Grand-Dad and Basil Hayden’s. Basil Hayden’s, with its high price point and over the top bottle packaging, shouts to the consumer that it is a premium bourbon.  As a matter of fact when friends who don’t really know bourbon, that want to surprise me with a bottle as a gift, often choose Basil Hayden’s. Gifted bourbon is always good and there is nothing wrong with this selection. It’s a pleasant pour, but at a low 80 proof it just does not excite me. For 1/3 less in price one can purchase Old Grand-Dad 114, which remains one of the best values in bourbon today.  A few years back there were rumors that Beam was planning on discontinuing OGD 114. I purchased a case and tucked it away in the back of a closet. Thankfully those rumors proved to be false as OGD 114 is still readily available. But I still sleep better knowing that the case sits there, just in case.

In 2014 Basil Hayden’s was 8-year age stated whiskey.  Now the top label of current Basil Hayden’s states ‘Artfully Aged’, which is marketing speak for we removed the age statement.  They dropped the age statement claiming that this will allow our distiller to maintain the same profile by artfully blending younger and older whiskeys.  A year later I did a group blind tasting, including both the 8-year version as well as the NAS version. Blind tasters were asked which they liked better.  The results were evenly split, which indicated Beam did a good job maintaining that profile.

Beam Suntory just recently introduced a 80 proof 10-year age stated Basil Hayden’s KY Straight Bourbon Whiskey with a suggested retail of $60.  The standard version here in Texas goes for about $32. Has the standard version maintained the profile of the old 8-year bourbon as Beam indicated that it would?  Or has younger whiskey been gradually introduced into the mix? Is a 2-year bump in age worth almost double the price? Or is the price that high just because the 10-year version will be a ‘limited’ quantity release?  I’ll stick with the OGD 114 and be very happy.

It has become a trend for brands to drop age statements and then, a few years later, reintroduce very similar whiskey with a much higher price.  Wash, lather, rinse, repeat.

Whiskey tater reason 76.  You have an irrational fear on missing out by thinking this ‘limited’ special release or that single barrel pick is the ONE.

Saving Taters from Themselves – the Bourbon 30 Ban

Recently the admins of several major sites where secondary sales of spirits occur made a joint decision to ban all products from 1 distillery.  And before I continue, no I will not name or get you into any of these sites and yes, it is illegal for individuals without a license to sell or trade spirits.  That said these sites exist and hundreds of transactions occur every day. The distillery was Bourbon 30 Craft Spirits.

Bourbon 30 Craft Spirits was started by Jeff Mattingly.  They specialize in ‘the art of barrel finishing’ and ‘direct purchase of their barrel crafted spirits’.  Pictures of their website show a small still on site, but I’m not sure how much they distill themselves. From sources, their primary business is a NDP, Non-Distilling Producer.  They have sourced barrels from various producers and allow customers to procure a private barrel selection or even a blend of barrels as well as different ‘finishes’. There is nothing at all wrong with that concept.   And this ban does nothing to stop his business from continuing their normal everyday operations.

Bourbon 30 first started bottling single barrels in 2014 but it was not until 2017 that the hype for them in the bourbon community began.  Ed Bley, who was the spirits buyer for a large liquor store well known in KY, had developed a strong following for his barrel picks done for this store. He picked over 200 barrels for this store.  Ed, who in my opinion has a great whiskey palate, worked with Bourbon 30 to create a marriage of whiskies from barrels procured from Bourbon 30. The first version was popular enough that a second version was also done in 2018.  This time lines were out the door with waits to procure a bottle. It did not take long for the fresh flippers, those who buy to immediately resell, to start listing these bottles on secondary sites. I asked Ed on his thoughts on his picks being flipped on the secondary market.  

He stated “When I began picking whiskey barrels it was a passion I can’t describe. I love the thrill of the chase. It wasn’t about profit, because I made very very little money working for a liquor store. It was about sharing a passion with my friends. Today I’m saddened. I’m sad that Jeff has to deal with this, I’m sad that as a secondary market that we’ve turned into a pack mentality as a group. What we don’t realize is that we have built up an industry together. Today we are working together to tear it down.  Wade was nice enough to ask my opinion on my bottles not being able to be sold on the secondary market. My answer is I’m sad that we even have to ask that question, when my entire goal has been to share my passion with you. At some point some greedy individuals decided they deserved to make a lot of money off of the hard work of others. This is when it went from being a positive to a negative.”

These secondary sites allow a national reach for a product that was conceived to be sold in 1 local market.  Demand from a national base exceeds local supply and the price adjust up to accommodate. Those in KY think they have struck gold; and they have – tater gold. I’m convinced taters have this fear about missing out.  Any single barrel that starts to get some positive blog posts or mention in one of the gazillion podcasts out there can instantly start a tater frenzy.

I have tasted 3 whiskies from Bourbon 30 including one called Bald Monk.  I don’t really do reviews of spirits on my site because I like what I like, and you like what you like.  Sometimes those might align but often not. The 3 whiskies I tried from Bourbon 30 all were to me average whiskies.  I would put them on the scale of standard products from big producers like Wild Turkey 101, Elijah Craig, Eagle Rare or Buffalo Trace.  The 3 whiskies I tried from Bourbon 30 all retailed over $100, which already puts it in my category of a big stretch.

One of the nicest thing that has come from these secondary sites is some bottles are sold with proceeds going to charity.  Some of these Bourbon 30 picks sold for charity with over $1000 raised per bottle. Unfortunately, I think this created a market impression that Bourbon 30 must have old Stitzel Weller stocks laying around.   This lead to Bourbon 30 doing more limited release barrel picks that taters were lining up for overnight, primarily so they could immediately sell on the secondary markets. I have always believed a sale can only take place when you have both a willing buyer and a willing seller.  However, one thing that can happen in any market is market manipulation. A seller ‘sells’ a bottle to his friend, but it is a fake sale to create a market established price. The Bourbon 30 bottles reached a point the admins of these groups feared this was happening, thus the ban.  Based on my opinion of the Bourbon 30 products I’ve sampled, I think they are saving taters from themselves. If they ever opened this bottle, they would realize have foolish they were to pay the going rate.

Most of what MGPi have available to sell to NDP’s is very young whiskey or its older stocks are mostly light whiskey or whiskey that has been aged in used barrels.  2 recently released Bourbon 30 whiskies that led to the ban were ‘Butterface’ and ‘Everything Butterface’. Each of these were labeled Bourbon Whiskey. My source confirmed both contained a percentage of Light Whiskey.  The Bald Monk that Bourbon 30 bottled says on the label that it is ‘Straight Blended Whiskey’. To be labeled this the product must contain a mixture only Straight Whiskies. It can’t have any finishing, nor oak staves added to the blend.  It can’t have any light whiskey added to the mix. Bourbon 30 has violated federal labeling codes.  I’m not sure if they did so intentionally or because lack of knowledge of the federal labeling code.  I reached out to Jeff Mattingly for comment, but he declined to answer.

There are many rumors out there about the Frankenstein whiskies Bourbon 30 created in trash cans.  I’m not here to comment on their process but will say consumers need to be able to trust producers when it comes to labels complying with federal code.  Straight Blended Whiskey sounds much better than Blended Whiskey finished with added oak staves, but you must label whiskies truthfully.

I’ll let Ed finish with this statement “We look a lot better raising glasses than torches. Let’s get back to drinking and less selling please.”