wadewood07 – Tater-Talk

Traveller Whiskey? Decoding the “Blended Whiskey” Label (and why it’s NOT Canadian)

Celebrity Whiskey

Traveller Whiskey is the much-anticipated collaboration between Buffalo Trace Master Distiller Harlen Wheatley and musician Chris Stapleton. There’s a good amount of speculation swirling around, especially concerning what exactly goes into that bottle.

The label proudly declares it a “Blended Whiskey,” and that term often triggers questions. Some of you might have heard rumors that it contains Canadian whisky, or even grain neutral spirits. Let’s break down the facts and clear up the confusion.

“Blended Whiskey” Defined

First, let’s talk about what “Blended Whiskey” means in the U.S., according to the TTB:

Minimum 20% Straight Whiskey: By law, a “Blended Whiskey” in the U.S. must contain at least 20% “straight whiskey” on a proof gallon basis. “Straight whiskey” means it’s been aged for at least two years in new, charred oak barrels (with an exception for straight corn whiskey, which can use used or uncharred new oak).
The Rest is… flexible: The remaining 80% can be a combination of other whiskies (aged or unaged), and/or grain neutral spirits (GNS). This is why “Blended Whiskey” sometimes gets a bad rap, as it can include a high percentage of unaged GNS.

Traveller’s Key Distinction: No Grain Neutral Spirits

Here’s where Traveller Whiskey explicitly sets itself apart and where Buffalo Trace has been very clear: Traveller Whiskey contains 0% grain neutral spirits.

This is a significant detail. While the “Blended Whiskey” classification allows for GNS, Sazerac has chosen not to use it. This means every drop in your Traveller bottle is, indeed, whiskey of some kind. If GNS were used, TTB regulations would require a commodity statement on the label disclosing the percentage of neutral spirits.

Why It’s NOT Canadian Whiskey

This is a point where some common rumors miss the mark, and it’s important for us as informed whiskey enthusiasts.

If Traveller Whiskey contained any Canadian whisky, the TTB would legally require the label to state its foreign origin, likely as “Product of Canada” or similar.

And here’s the definitive word: Shortly after Traveler whiskey was released I had a conversation with Mark Brown, the Executive Chairman of Sazerac (Buffalo Trace’s parent company), he confirmed that while he wouldn’t disclose the exact components, the Traveller Whiskey label complies with all federal codes.

Since the Traveller Whiskey label does not have any such “Product of Canada” or foreign origin statement, and Mark Brown explicitly stated its full compliance, we can definitively conclude that it does not contain Canadian whisky or any other foreign-produced spirit. The TTB’s labeling regulations are strict on this point to ensure consumers know where their spirits originate, and Sazerac is clearly adhering to them.

So, What Is In It? (And the Barrel Talk)

While Buffalo Trace and Sazerac are famously tight-lipped about the exact components of their blends, here’s what we know and can deduce, based on the TTB regulations and Mark Brown’s confirmation:

A Unique Blend from Sazerac’s Portfolio: Buffalo Trace states that Traveller is a “unique combination of whiskeys hand-selected from multiple Sazerac-owned distilleries.” Sazerac owns a vast portfolio of distilleries across the U.S., including Buffalo Trace, Barton 1792, and A. Smith Bowman, among others.
American Whiskies Only: Given the TTB labeling and Mark Brown’s statement, all components must be American-produced whiskies. This could mean a blend of various American whiskey types.
The Barrel Factor: While “straight whiskeys” (like Bourbon or Rye) must be aged in new, charred oak barrels, the “Blended Whiskey” classification allows for much more flexibility with the aging vessels for the non-straight components. This means Traveller could include whiskey aged in used barrels. This is a key point, as it opens up possibilities for different flavor profiles and production efficiencies.
- Bourbon: Almost certainly a significant component, likely from Buffalo Trace itself and/or other Sazerac-owned bourbon distilleries (like Barton 1792). These would adhere to the new charred oak barrel rule.
- Rye Whiskey / Wheat Whiskey / Malt Whiskey: Components of these types designated as “straight” would also be aged in new charred oak.
- Light Whiskey: Light whiskey is distilled at a higher proof (between 160 and 190 proof) and, importantly, is allowed to be aged in used or uncharred new oak containers. This would explain how they can include whiskey aged in used barrels while still being 100% whiskey (no GNS) and 100% American-made. Light whiskey typically offers a lighter flavor profile with less aggressive oak, which would align with the goal of an “easy-drinking” and “approachable” whiskey.
- “Whisky distilled from [name of grain] mash” (e.g., “Whisky distilled from Bourbon mash” or “Whisky distilled from corn mash,” etc.). For this class, the spirit must be distilled from a mash of not less than 51% of the named grain (e.g., corn for bourbon mash) at no more than 160 proof, and it must be stored in used oak barrels. This allows for a spirit with a bourbon-like grain profile but a lighter oak influence, fitting the “used barrel” possibility perfectly.
- Corn Whiskey (non-straight): While straight corn whiskey can use used or uncharred new barrels, other corn whiskey that doesn’t meet the “straight” definition could also be a component.

The “blended whiskey” classification allows them immense flexibility. Producers can create a consistent flavor profile using various stocks from their vast inventory, without being beholden to the strict definitions of “straight bourbon” or “straight rye” for the entire blend. This helps them meet demand and maintain quality, even with limited aged stocks of certain whiskies.

So, while the exact recipe remains a trade secret, we can confidently say: Traveller Whiskey is an American-made blended whiskey, it contains no neutral grain spirits, and it’s crafted from a selection of whiskies from Sazerac’s diverse U.S. distilleries, potentially including whiskey aged in used barrels to achieve its desired profile.

Uncle Nearest Transparency?

I recently uncovered a “transparency” page on Uncle Nearest’s website, but what I found only deepened my suspicions about their marketing practices. For a brand that touts honesty, their actions seem to tell a different story.
I have long felt Uncle Nearest has been deliberately vague about their product’s true nature. They oscillate between labeling themselves as “bourbon” or “Tennessee whiskey” for awards, yet their bottles consistently bear the generic “whiskey” designation (Class Type 140) – a catch-all for spirits that don’t fit established categories.

I toured their “distillery” last year further fueled my skepticism. While acknowledging the powerful historical narrative of Uncle Nearest, I found the operational aspects of the tour to be a facade. A pointed-out still was non-functional, and the barrel storage facility was largely populated by empty props. This suggests a deliberate effort to create an illusion of a fully operational, independent distillery.

The “transparency” page attempts to explain away the lack of a “Tennessee whiskey” label, offering a carefully constructed narrative that, upon closer inspection, appears to be a half-truth. I suspect the real reason lies in the restrictions imposed by their initial whiskey suppliers, a crucial detail seemingly omitted from their “transparent” explanation.

Uncle Nearest claims to have transitioned to distilling their own whiskey at DSP-TN-21144 in Columbia, TN, starting in 2021. However, looking into that DSP number reveals it shares an address with Tennessee Distilling Ltd. – a company whose primary business model is supplying bulk whiskey to other brands. While Uncle Nearest can technically claim to have their own DSP number, sharing an address with a known bulk supplier on a page dedicated to “transparency” strikes me as deliberately misleading. This isn’t transparency.

TRANSPARENCY – Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey – 100 Proof from Tennessee Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey – 100 Proof from Tennessee

Tater Mentality on New Releases

Taters in the 1st market: The moment a product drops, they scramble to buy it and flip it on the secondary market, hoping to make a whopping $25 to $50 per bottle after shipping. Big dreams, right?

Taters in the 2nd market: They think they can pull off the same stunt, only to realize no one’s left to buy their precious bottles. But hey, they bought a case and actually like it, so it’s all good… or so they tell themselves.

Then it hits nationally, and taters swarm local retailers like it’s Black Friday. The phone calls are relentless: “Do you have it yet? I heard the early batches are better, so I need it NOW!”

Social media bourbon groups are flooded with posts of unopened bottles, each tater proudly showing off their “score.”

Every conversation between taters is a broken record: “Have you tried this yet?”

Fast forward three months, and those once-coveted bottles are gathering dust on the end caps of every major retailer. The hype is dead, and nobody cares anymore.

Some like it Hot, a HBS Elite tasting

Time for another drinking for science post. This time it’s a blind tasting conducted with members in the Houston Bourbon Society, HBS, with 15 tasters of 16 high proof American whiskies. While I previously led 5 blind tastings in this group, this time I was a participant. Kevin Wyze organized this blind tasting and ran it well. It was a blast being a participant and sometimes very humbling when you see the reveals . Are these folks expert tasters? Well they do all have their HBS elite cards.

The scoring system was on a 0-5 scale, with 5 points being the best whiskey possible and 0 points being the worst. 2.5 points would be the middle of the road. Tasters turned in scores of 3 whiskies each week, so this tasting lasted 6 weeks. Tasters scored each whiskey on its own, preferably tasted on different nights.

The theme of this tasting was high proof American whiskies which ranged from 108.4 to 136.8 proof, with an average of 118.4 proof. Does proof cover up flaws in young whiskey? Which whiskey would blind tasters think tasted ‘hot’ or above their proof and which went down easy and tasted below their proof? Kevin did sneak in a poor man’s high proof whiskey concoction – 100 proof proof Very Old Barton which was kicked up with some Everclear to 115 proof.

The results:

On all my blind tastings, there were always a few surprises. Wild Turkey Rare Breed Bourbon scoring so low was shocking. The lowest score was Willett Rye, which was their own distilled rye, which did not surprise me. I scored it 0.5.

Lead in Dusty Decanters? A study.

This is a guest post written by a local bourbon enthusiast friend Kevin Wyss. It also draws on some earlier research done by Mike Jasinski.

(If you’re just here for the results and not a history and science lesson, scroll to the bottom)

The allure of “dusty” bourbon is seemingly universal in the current whiskey landscape, and while there’s no definition for what makes a true “dusty” bottle, many would argue that to qualify, the bottle must be at least 25 years old. Indeed this liquid from another century is held in such high regard that bottles which retailed for $10 in 1990 can now fetch well above $500 on the internet in backwater Facebook groups. Many purveyors of dusty bourbons argue that the flavors in these bottles simply cannot be matched by bourbon currently on the market, hence the hype and demand surrounding these bottles.

The history
In many cases, current production methods of bourbons have drastically changed in the new century. For example, a massive bourbon-fueled fire at the Heaven Hill distillery destroyed their entire production facility in 1996, sparking the transition to a more automated and modern distillation and barreling system. Now bottles of Pre-Fire Heaven Hill bourbon can fetch obscene amounts on the secondary black market. Whether this hype surrounding old Wild Turkey, Heaven Hill, Old Grand-Dad, Old Forester, Old Crow, Stitzel-Weller or Jim Beam dusties are worth the chase and cost is a discussion for a more experienced bourbon drinker, and not the topic of today’s article.

One of the cheapest and most common current forms of dusty bourbon is ceramic or porcelain decanters. These decanters were produced regularly starting sometime around the 70s, when the “bourbon glut” was just beginning. The “bourbon glut” resulted from a shift in Americans taste towards vodka, resulting in a drop in bourbon sales. Producers, which require 4-12 years to make their product, predicted that the drop in consumption would be temporary, and did not decrease production. Thus, a few years later, producers were sitting on thousands of gallons of well aged stock, with no demand for it. In a marketing ploy, many producers started releasing their bourbon not in standard glass bottles, but collectible and limited edition ceramic decanters. These decanters ranged from serious to downright goofy, taking the form of college mascots, animals, cars, guns, couch sized chess sets, spark plugs, wizards, clowns, states, and truly anything you can imagine. Importantly however, the bourbon inside these decanters were generally well aged stock, provided at rock bottom costs.

The science

To circumvent these shortcomings, I decided it would be best to use a machine called an ICP-MS: an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer. These machines, used by the EPA and FDA to study the content of heavy metals in water, food, food containers, and soil, are incredibly sensitive – able to detect less than 1 ppb of lead (or 0.0000001%) in water. Basically an ICP-MS works by injecting the liquid sample into a super-hot flame (17,500 °F). This basically strips everything down the bare atoms (ions) present in the sample. The different atoms (ions) such as lead, are then sorted by weight and measured with very high precision. One slight complication here is that the tannins, ethanol, and other organic compounds which make bourbon taste so good, will make soot upon injection, which can complicate the readings. So, to overcome this, I added an acid and peroxide digestion to break those compounds down. Then, I could centrifuge the samples to remove the tannins and flavor molecules that had settled out after digestion – with all the lead remaining in the solution. I then removed the ethanol using rotary evaporation, so all I was left with is a solution of acid and water, with all the lead still dissolved in the samples. I used an internal standard during the test to make sure that the testing of the samples was consistent and reproducible. To figure out the unknown concentration of lead in the samples, it was compared to a calibration curve – where you make solutions of a known lead concentration and extrapolate those results to the bourbon samples. The results of the bourbon samples will only be as accurate as the calibration curve is – the calibration curve I made had an accuracy of 0.996, so I stand by the results.

The results

So, using the ICP-MS I have access to, I ran some samples of dusty decanter bourbon to screen for lead content. Many, many thanks my fellow bourbon friends for providing the dusty samples – I know how valuable and sentimental they are to be simply given away for free.

I also found one other bourbon-loving chemist that had done a very similar study in 2013 – Mike Jasinski who under user name michaelturtle1 had posted data on the straightbourbon.com message boards. So, here is the data table combining all of the samples we tested, with the samples I tested highlighted. These show the amount of lead in one 50 mL pour. The amount of lead in one pour of bourbon is compared to the amount of lead in 1 gallon of bottled water, Houston tap water, and tap water from Flint, MI during the ongoing lead pipe crisis in the bottom of the right table.

The average pour of the 33 dusty decanters tested contains 4.9 μg of lead. However, the deviation from decanter to decanter is huge – ranging from 41.3 μg/pour to 0.3 μg/pour.

Modern Wild Turkey Rare Breed from a glass bottle was used as a control – showing a lead content of 0.03 μg/pour. Some notes on two of the samples: the Old Overholt 1915 was a glass bottle, not a decanter. This was included to see if significant amounts of lead were in distillers pipes, solder, stills, or tanks, which might carry over to the final product. The Ezra Brooks 1971 sample is not the original juice: I got that decanter as a gift, empty and have turned it in to an infinity bottle. I’m not sure how fast the leaching of lead happens, or how much lead was in the original bourbon, but from a sample size of 1, it seems like using old ceramic decanters as an infinity bottle may be a safe practice.

Here is a plot showing the lead content versus the year of the sample. Keep in mind that US lead laws changed a lot in the 20^th century – lead solder for pipes was used well into the 1970’s, lead paint was outlawed in 1978. Lead in cookware and ceramics was a problem well into the 1980’s.

The biggest outliers with the most lead, all came before 1974, but besides that I was really surprised to see that there wasn’t a strong correlation between the year the decanter was produced with lead content. Large differences between decanters produced in the same year and by the same company was also interesting to me, but may result from storage conditions or differences in the decanter production process. I was intrigued to see the massive difference in lead content between a glass bottle of modern bourbon (containing barely more lead than bottled water) and the 1915 glass bottle of Old Overholt BIB. Despite the bottled-in-bond distinction and lauded history of the distillery, significant amounts of lead were present in the whiskey. This speaks to the lack of laws and checks in place in the early 20^th century regarding lead, which I find interesting historically.

The takeaway

My main take home message here is that if consumed in small amounts, all decanters I tested are safe. Drinking 1 gallon of Houston tap water, you ingest ~15 μg of lead. A 50 mL pour from a decanter I tested will give you 0.3-41.3 μg of lead, at an average of 4.9 μg of lead. The CDC says to safely stay below 250 μg of lead ingested per day. Typical developed countries usually ingest less than 50 μg/day. So even drinking a pour of the highest lead containing decanters isn’t going to get you close to CDC daily limits, assuming you have a normal diet and life. Lead is purged from the body with a half-life of about 3 weeks. So, if someone did multiple decanter pours per day, every day for two weeks, you might encounter some issues. But even that I’d say is unlikely – so hunt on and enjoy those dusty decanters.

Drinking for Science Twofer

Today’s post is a drinking for science twofer. First, I’ve added to my testing projects on “Do spirits change in the bottle once opened?”, but this time with rum. Second, is a blind tasting of modern era Wild Turkey with bottles from 2010, 2015 and 2020.

I’ve tackled the question of “Does bourbon change once the bottle is opened?” 3 different times. My conclusions are that it does not change enough to be perceivable when stored up to 1 year with a good seal, out of bright light, normal room temp, and a fill level at around 50%. You can read about this info here – https://tater-talk.com/2018/08/30/did-my-bourbon-change-in-the-bottle-1-year-test/

Given my past conclusions, I have wondered if heavily peated scotch or higher ester rums would result the same. Are these esters more volatile? One way to find out is to test it. I purchased 3 bottles of Stolen Overproof Rum 375ml from the same store on the same day. On Jan 1, 2021, I poured one of these into a 750 ml bottle. Over the next 12 months, I opened that bottle 28 times and swirled it around exposing it to fresh air. The bottle was well sealed each time and stored in a dark cabinet at normal room temperature. On Jan 20, 2022, I had 11 tasters over for a triangle blind tasting. The other 2 bottles of Stolen were opened right prior to the test. Each taster had 3 Glencairn glasses without knowing which glass had which sample. The objective was to see if they could identify the odd sample. I also gave them a choice of saying no difference, though none elected that option.

If the testers randomly guessed 33.3% would luckily identify the odd sample. In my test 6 of the 11, 54.5%, were able to correctly identify the odd sample which is roughly 1.6 times the random guess odds. My group of tasters are all folks who routinely drink spirits neat and would be considered above the average consumer in a test like this. Still, 45.5% were not able to identify the odd sample. Of the 6 that identified the odd sample, most thought it was the worst of the three, but all commented the differences were subtle. Unlike my bourbon tests, I think the results here indicate that some type of small changes likely occurred. I think storing the bottle half full and opening it a total of 28 times is well above normal and makes for a good test. I still think spirits are remarkably stable once opened if you follow best practices of storing bottles upright, tightly sealed, out of any bright lights, and in normal room temps. If you get down to the last few pours in a bottle, either finish it off or, if you want to hold on to some, transfer to a 50ml glass sample bottle and properly label it.

For you stat nerds and other trolls, I’m well aware I didn’t have a N number of 15. Take what you want from the data given, but no need to give your opinion until you have ran similar tests, which are easy enough to do, and published it.

For my fellow Wild Turkey 101 fans, I put together a blind tasting of modern era WT 101 with bottles from 2010, 2015 and 2020. This was the same group of 11 tasters. I provided a score sheet and asked the tasters to rank in their order of 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. I will say I learned my lesson and never again will I attempt a twofer test in one night, some of my tasters left indecipherable markings instead. Perhaps vanity was the cause, as maybe they did not want to be perceived as having scored this wrong? The scores of the 8 tasters that correctly followed instructions are as follows:

WT 101	2010	2015	2020
1st place	5	2	1
2nd	2	5	1
3rd	1	1	6

I’ve since had a chance to sit down with these 3 multiple times, although not blind. Honestly, I go back and forth between favoring 2010 and 2015. Both are better to me than the 2020. This is not knocking current WT 101 as I still think it’s one of the best values currently in bourbon.

How to stop FOMO and enjoy bourbon again

During this ongoing bourbon boom, somehow retail prices of $80 to $200 per bottle of bourbon became normalized. The masses that jumped into Bourbon over the past 3 to 4 years have bought into the fallacy that price equates to quality or rarity. This is a result of masterful manipulation by spirits companies. The chairman of Diageo, Javier Ferrán, said it best, “A key driver of perception of quality is price”.

One factor driving this is the influence from online whiskey reviews via bloggers, youtubers, tik tok, instagrammers, etc. Those new to the game errantly give these folks credibility. Their motivation to review these overpriced whiskeys is largely that they are given free media kits and want to continue to receive free whiskey samples from them. It wouldn’t matter if they bought these bottles from a retailer as there is only one opinion in the world that is important, you and your palate! Seriously, go right now and unsubscribe from any site/person that reviews whiskey online, and indefinitely delete your patreon account. Once that is done, come back to continue reading.

Here’s the deal. Most of those $80-$200 bottles are put out by NDPs, non distilling producers, who sourced overpriced whiskey through a broker. 99% of the time this whiskey is distilled by one of the major US whiskey distilleries. So, until you know the profile of what the major distillers put out and which bourbons align with your palate, you are chasing waterfalls. Just stop! The great news is that these major producers put out plenty of bourbon that is affordable and widely available for the most part. Below is a list from the majors to buy next if you haven’t tried them.

Some of the majors have multiple mashbills so some of them have 2 suggestions. With a few possible exceptions, these should be easy to find at any decent liquor store in the US and for under $30 a bottle.

-Barton – Very Old Barton 100 proof

-Buffalo Trace – Buffalo Trace. Wheated mashbill – Weller Special Reserve

-Four Roses – Four Roses yellow label (now a tan label)

-George Dickel – Dickel 12

-Heaven Hill – Evan Williams or Elijah Craig. Wheated mashbill – Larceny

-Jack Daniels – Jack Daniels black label

-Jim Beam – Beam Black or Knob Creek. High rye mashbill – Old Grand Dad 100 proof

-Maker’s Mark – Maker’s Mark

-MGPi – they have just started selling their own brands in certain states so if it’s available in your area then look for George Remus Bourbon; this will be the exception on price and more like $38. If George Remus is not available, then look for any Straight Bourbon which the back label states “Distilled in IN”.

-Old Forester – Old Forester Signature 100 proof

-Wild Turkey – Wild Turkey 101

-Willett – Old Bardstown 90 proof square bottle – The square bottle is their own distillate

-Woodford Reserve – Woodford Reserve

These are all the real deal Straight Bourbon Whiskey with no flavoring or extra barrel finishing/staves added. They are all aged at least 4 years. Try all these either by buying a bottle or by buying a pour at your local watering hole. Narrow down your preferences to figure out your favorite. I could tell you my favorite, but this ain’t a whiskey review site. Once you have a favorite, explore other options from the same distillery. The next time you buy a more expensive hyped up bottle, because I know you taters still will, compare them to each other. If your favorite from the list costs $25 and the new hyped bottle was 4 times the cost, ask yourself if the new one is 4 times as good. Is it even better?

I know if you truly take this approach, you will splurge way less often on these hyped bottles and you will begin to enjoy bourbon again.

George Dickel is Bourbon

George Dickel, which is owned by Diageo, recently cleared a new label for George Dickel and for the first time called the product Bourbon instead of TN Whisky. Both Jack Daniels and George Dickel have always met the legal requirements to be called Bourbon although they elected to designate themselves as TN Whisk(e)y. Nothing about the Lincoln County Process prevents a whiskey from being bourbon.

Now what surprised me was that George Dickel used a Diageo address in New York in the Produced By statement on the back label.

But since this was now labeled as Bourbon and not TN Whiskey, this label failed to meet 27 CFR 5.36 (d). My readers likely know this code requires the actual state of distillation to be on the label on certain types of American whiskey if the Produced by or Bottled by statement is different than the actual state of distillation.

I contacted Diageo and the TTB about this clear label code violation. The TTB gave me their typical line; we will investigate it and take action as appropriate. Diageo did get back to me and after a week later they responded back that a new COLA label submission had been filed which now says distilled and produced at Cascade Hollow in Tennessee. I also checked on the old label with New York and it has now been surrendered.

The new label:

I would hope this puts an end to the false argument that Jack and George aren’t bourbons. But since many uneducated fools still think Bourbon can only be made in KY, I doubt it does. In the meantime, I’m looking forward to this release of 8-year Dickel Bourbon.

5 Blind Whiskey Tastings Results

In my local bourbon group, Houston Bourbon Society, I have run 5 group blind tastings. Each time it has included between 18 to 21 whiskies with 15 tasters. Why 15? Because a 750ml bottle breaks down neatly into 15 samples of 50ml each. Each taster paid the actual cost for the samples. Most of the bottles were obtained at a store for normal SRP. I sometimes included a dusty bottle from my bunker. Each tasting had a loose theme as described below. Beyond the theme, the tastings were completely blind, meaning the tasters had no clue which bottles were included the lot. The tasters picked up the samples and turned in notes on a few each week until it was completed.

The graphs below show the averages, the median, and the ranges. Thanks to Sergo Garcia for putting these together. Of note, after the second blind, I changed my scoring scale. I had used a 0 to 100 point scale, but realistically folks scored in the 60 -100 range. I decided, after consulting with a NASA scientist, that a 0 to 5 scale with 2.5 representing an average whiskey was a better system.

Blind 1 was themed Only Bourbon.

Blind 2 was themed as Any American Whiskey.

Blind 3 was themed as ‘If it’s not Straight, You must Abate’

Blind 4 was themed as ‘The best of Gulf Coast Barrel picks’ with only local area barrel picks included.

Blind 5 was themed as ‘This Isn’t Fair’ as I included some finished whiskies as well as some finished whiskies I made myself. Yes, you can do this at home without overpaying some NDP for young whiskey with additives. See my blog post on this – https://tater-talk.com/2019/03/19/make-your-own-finished-bourbon-at-home-in-the-bottle/. Note that all American finished whiskies are class type 641, whiskey specialties, and as such are allowed to add up to 2.5% by volume HCFBM, Harmless Coloring/Flavoring/Blending Material, with no disclosure required. So making these at home with bitters or other elements is no different than what can be done commercially.

If you have not tasted completely blind, I will ensure you it can be a very humbling experience. My experience has shown that price does not equate to quality. In none of these blinds did the most expensive whiskey finish on top. Drink what you like and be careful of what you pay for.

Link to view/download graphs – https://photos.app.goo.gl/eBSxUWKo1CacEX4MA

Fanciful Name Fallacy

Brown Sugar Bourbon? We all know that Bourbon by code can’t have any coloring or flavorings, so how does this grotesque whiskey exist? The answer is ‘Brown Sugar Bourbon’ is not Bourbon but a Whiskey Specialty; it’s listed in this product’s COLA application as a fanciful name.

When a spirit type does not fall under any one clear class/type designation, the TTB encourages the producer to use a fanciful name to describe it. Most products marketed as ‘Moonshine’ use that word on their label as a fanciful name; it does not exist anywhere in federal code as a class/type. It’s all marketing trend words.

‘American Single Malt’ does not exist as a class type yet plenty of producers have this listed on their label. If you check the COLA label on these, you will see they are using this as a fanciful name. The brand name is Westland and the class/type is the general category of Whiskey. This is simply Westland Whiskey with American Single Malt squeezed in between.

The TTB describes a fanciful name as “a term used in addition to the brand name for the purposes of further identifying a product”. The TTB also states that product labels should not be misleading. In the case of American Single Malt, I think it’s fair to say it correctly identifies the whiskey and provides a consumer with a better understanding of the product in the bottle, which is a whiskey derived from malted barley produced at a single distillery in the USA.

But what about Brown Sugar Bourbon? First they are using an actual class/type whiskey, Bourbon, in their fanciful name. That does not help a consumer further identify the product, it does the opposite and creates consumer confusion – is this a Bourbon distilled from brown sugar?

They use the term not once but twice and in a much larger font than the actual statement of composition which is ‘Bourbon whiskey with natural brown sugar & cinnamon flavors & caramel color’. I asked the TTB about this and their response was “they look at labels in their entirety when determining whether a label is compliant (including whether it may be misleading to the consumer).” This is also bottled at 60 proof. Bourbon by code has to be bottled at 80 proof. So the statement of composition should also include diluted with water. How far can a spirit go away from being Bourbon and the TTB allow a statement of composition to cover all? My fanciful name in large type will be Marzipan Bourbon. In the small print statement of composition it will be listed as Bourbon with 60% GNS added with coconut nibs, marzipan and caramel coloring diluted with water to 40 proof. We will see if Fred Minnick will include this in one of his tastings.

Label artwork courtesy of Todd Grube.

The Scotch Whiskey Association would never allow whiskey with these types of flavors added to be marketed as Scotch. In the USA we have the TTB that enforces what defines Bourbon. By allowing products like this into the market they are lowering the bar for what consumers think of bourbon and long term my opinion is that will have detrimental effects.