Maker’s Mark answers label question

On the label of Maker’s Mark bourbon you will find “Maker’s Mark is America’s only handmade bourbon whisky – never mass produced”.   Looking through the COLA database, this statement goes back for at least 14 years.  I visited my local store and it was on every bottle I saw in both 750ml and 1.75liter.

Maker's Mary Never massed produced

I have visited close to 100 distilleries located all over the world.  Some have been very technologically advanced with computer screens and automation performing some of the work while others have been at the opposite end with every valve hand turned by a person.  I would say every distillery I have visited could make a valid claim of being handmade. At some point in the process hands are involved. For instance barrels are all rolled by hand. You will not find any definition of handmade in the TTB’s CFRs.  Maker’s Mark hand dips all of their bottles. So, I have no issue with Maker’s use of handmade on the label. They also claim never mass produced. Again, there is no legal definition for mass produced in the CFRs, so it is just a marketing statement.

What I found perplexing was their use of the word ‘only’.  With the boom of new craft distilleries in the US in the last 10 years certainly there are plenty of whisky distilleries operating on a smaller scale than Maker’s Mark with more hands-on involvement.  Frankly I was flabbergasted they would dare to make this statement.

When I started writing this blog post, the first thing I did was reach out Maker’s Mark to see if they would like to comment on this.  I received a response back the very next day. Here is the message:

“As the category has evolved, we have made updates to the label, including removing the word ‘only.’  Sometimes inventory takes a while to clear off the shelves, so it’s entirely possible that you’ve seen or even purchased bottles recently that still have this language (as noted in your picture). However, new bottles coming out of the Maker’s Mark Distillery today no longer include the word ‘only’.

I was expecting to post a hard take on this issue and see if it would convince them to change.  Looks like they outdid me; good for them for making this change. At least Bourbon geeks in the future will be able to quickly glance at a Maker’s Mark bottle and proclaim that’s a pre or post 2018 label change bottle.


Let me know in comments if you see a bottle with a label that reflects this new change.

 

Did my bourbon change in the bottle? 1 year test

Time for another round of “Did My Bourbon Change in the Bottle?”.  My previous post, Did My Bourbon Change in the bottle? discussed 2 prior tests done at 37 and 52 days.  For this test, I extended the time to one full year.

Before I get to that, I want to be clear that I’m testing if changes are perceivable to a group of testers.  This is different than saying the whiskey did not change at all. Also, my tests have been of modern bourbons and not of bourbon from a dusty bottle that has been sitting for 30 years in a sealed glass bottle.  Many critics of this will try to point to changes that occur while sitting in an open glass. That is a different case than opening and closing a sealed bottle. I’ve tried to test what I consider a real-world situation – open a new bottle, have a pour, reseal the bottle.  If you then sit that bottle aside and come back to it in 1 month, or 2 months or even a year, was there a noticeable change in taste?

For this test, I went back to Old Weller Antique (OWA) at 107 proof.  This OWA was a store private barrel pick and NCF (non-chill filtered).  The 1st bottle, 1 liter in size, was opened and over the course of 30 days I had approximate a ½ oz pour each day.  After each pour, the bottle was resealed tightly. At the end of 30 days bottle was about half full. At this point I put it inside a dark closet at normal room temperature for 11 months.

I invited my group of 10 testers to my house for a triangle blind tasting.  An unopened 2nd bottle from this same OWA barrel was opened right before the test.  Testers would taste 3 samples; 2 from the bottle that was open for 1 year and 1 from the just opened bottle, or vice versa.  Either way, one of the 3 samples is the odd sample and if change was perceptible enough then it should be identifiable. As before, I did not ask which tasted better, I only asked if they could identify the odd sample.

Out of 10 testers if they randomly guessed, one would expect 3.33 to correctly identify the odd sample.  So, when I scored up the results, I was surprised that 0 out of 10 correctly identified the odd sample.

One option I gave testers was to state no differences, but none elected this option.  They all believed they could tell a difference and they were all incorrect. One of the comments/questions I see posted on my tests is what was the experience level of my testers?  It has not been the same group each time, but for the most part it is folks I would consider whiskey geeks like myself. A few of the testers work in the industry. So, it’s an above average whiskey consumer group.

The conclusion is this whiskey did not change in the bottle enough to be identifiable to testers.  But did it change at all? To understand why the testers could not tell a difference we turn to GC/MS – Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry.  I shipped sample bottles to a distillery with GC/MS equipment and they tested both samples at 12 different chemical points.  This tests measures levels in PPM.  The result showed these samples were virtually identical. 

OWA no ethano or PG chart

At this point, I’m done with testing “Did My Bourbon Change in the Bottle?”.  The power of the mind is strong; I’ll never convince all no matter how many tests I run.  If you still disagree on this based on your opinion, I would encourage you to perform your own blind triangle test.  I do intend to test “Does My Whiskey Change if Poured into a Glass and Allowed to Sit”; stay tuned in for those results.

BTAC fact sheets into spreadsheet

Just a quick blog post on BTAC info.  I took all the data from the fact sheets and put into a spreadsheet.  There are tabs at bottom for the 5 BTAC brands. You can quickly see how proof, ages, angel’s share, etc changed over time.  There are a few early years fact sheets missing on the Buffalo Trace website; if anybody has those, please let me know.

BTAC spreadsheet

 

 

Is it bourbon and can you trust review websites?

Let’s say you have a bottle Corn Whiskey, Wheat Whiskey, Rye Whiskey and Malt Whiskey and you blend those together with the Corn Whiskey being 51% of the total blend.  What have you just made? What if you are a licensed DSP and replaced bottles with barrels?

I hope my readers would know this product would be “Whiskey”.    If all the above were Straight, then it could even be “Straight Whiskey”.  What it is not and could never be is Bourbon Whiskey. Bourbon must be made from a grain mixture that is at least 51% corn with other grains that can be added for the remaining balance.  This must be done at the time of mashing/fermenting/distilling. It’s silly to think otherwise.

Yet that is exactly what a craft distillery in Florida did in creating the first Florida ‘Bourbon’.  Timber Creek Distillery separately distilled and aged these types of whiskies then blended them together to create their ‘Bourbon’.   They have a kit of these separate whiskies and encourage you to create your own ‘bourbon’ at home. They even trademarked this process at ‘Pureblend’.  

From their website:

Individual grain spirits are barreled individually after distillation.  Timber Creek individually barrels and ages each of their 100% whiskeys. Corn, Rye, Barley, Wheat and Oat corn whiskey’s are first given time to age before the distilling team selects the individual barrels. In order to blend bourbon whiskeys, specific barrels are hand selected since they have multiple grains. The hand selected barrels allow the individual flavors to blend to creating Timber Creeks Bourbon Blends.

As many distilleries do, Timber Creek hired a PR firm to send out samples to whiskey review sites. Note, my policy is this blog never accepts samples and if I ever do a whiskey review here, it will be of a bottle that was purchased at retail.  If you run a whiskey review site, you should know the definition of bourbon and at least question this process. That did not happen. The following ran articles on Timber Creek ‘Bourbon’.

Whiskey Wash – https://thewhiskeywash.com/reviews/whiskey-review-round-timber-creek-florida-bourbons

Bourbon Guy – http://www.bourbonguy.com/blog/2017/5/18/3-whiskeys-from-timber-creek-distillery3-whiskeys-from-timber-creek-distillery

-The Bourbon Guy updated his blog with some 2nd grade name calling but then states “…. blog is correct. I did make a mistake when I wrote this post. Though I know better, I didn’t call BS on the process that the distiller is using explicitly enough.”

Southern Living – https://www.southernliving.com/travel/travel/timber-creek-whiskey-distillery

Bourbon Sippers – http://bourbonsippers.com/timber-creek-distillery/

The Whiskey Reviewer – http://whiskeyreviewer.com/2017/01/timber-creek-florida-bourbon-review-011017/

Taste the Dram – https://www.tastethedram.com/single-post/2017/02/03/in-depth-whiskey-making-guide-by-camden-ford-of-the-timber-creek-distillery/

Timber Creek even managed to ‘win’ a few gold medals for their ‘bourbon’.  Of note, on their website they have now updated their product name and now properly call this Florida Whiskey.  Timber Creek is a 100% grain to glass distillery, so they earn my respect for that. I’ve reached out via email to the owner Camden Ford for comment about the change. He responded very quickly with a detailed response.  He felt no category in the TTB definitions accurately described their process. He stated “I have come to the conclusion that the goal of the descriptions were to attempt to describe common characteristics of each product and give them distinctive names that will let consumers understand that what they are tasting has a common set of flavor characteristics across brands and manufacturers in the same category.  With this view, I believe that what we make is, in fact Bourbon, in taste, profile, and chemical make up and follows the intent of the law.”

My reply was when you start trying to infer the intent of the law, you are going to have a 100 companies with 100 different interpretations and most of these are going to be wrong.

Please read the comments.  Camden has made several comments and received some good responses.

Yes, I do want a plastic straw with my cocktail

The number one google link about plastic straws in oceans says we use over 500 million straws a day and most of these end up in our oceans.  Another site says, ‘nearly every plastic straw winds up in the ocean’. I’ve seen alcohol industry groups such as USBG chapters and Tales of the Cocktail as well as some cities take this information and propose bans on plastic straws.  As Penn and Teller would say, bullshit.

By using some basic common sense, one would realize most straws wind up in garbage landfills and not the ocean.  Do folks think waste management companies specifically sort out plastic straws, load them on a boat and then dump them in the ocean? It’s complete and utter nonsense.   

Where did this oft cited 500 million straws a day number originate from?  From a 9-year-old boy who did a phone survey of straw manufacturers in 2011.  I swear I’m not making this up.  https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/25/california-bill-would-criminalize-restau

The more realistic number from market analysts puts the actual number at 1/3 of this kid’s “study”.  That’s still a lot of plastic straws, but that’s nowhere near as impressive as 500 million. How do plastic straws end up in the ocean?  Generally, they are blown there. So, it makes sense to look at eliminating plastic straws from places right next to waterways – ferries, boats, beach bars, etc.  If you live in a typical USA city, your waste straw is going into a landfill and not the ocean.

Plastic straws make up a very tiny percentage of the total plastic in a landfill.  Plastic straws are generally made from polypropylene, which is a highly recyclable plastic resin.  If one wants to reduce plastic going into landfills, it’s easy enough to ask for no straw or to carry one’s own reusable straw.  If you are a restaurant or bar owner and are considering going ‘strawless’ to save the ocean, your heart might be in the right place but the logic is flawed.

 

House Brands

The big liquor stores love their ‘house’ brands and will push them hard to customers. Why? It’s all about the money. Here is a bourbon brand found pretty much only at Total Wine – 2 Stars. It’s KY Straight Bourbon Whiskey at least 4 years old at 86 proof – really some fairly decent bourbon at a cost of $39.99 for a 1.75 liter handle. It’s produced by Sazerac from Bourbon made at their Barton 1792 distillery. Or you can buy practically the same KY Straight Bourbon Whiskey at least 4 years old at 86 proof under the Barton brand, which is not a house brand, for $19.99 for the same size.

As Richard Seale of Foursquare Rum once said ‘drink what you like, be careful what you pay for’

2 StarsVery Old barton

Bourbon with flavor packets?

Most whiskey aficionadas know that Bourbon can’t have any added flavors or coloring.  This is true regardless if the Bourbon is labeled Straight or not. If you question this, it can be verified by reviewing Ch. 7 of the TTB BAM.  This contains a chart of all spirit types and if HCFBM (harmless coloring flavoring blending material) can be added. Both Bourbon and Straight Bourbon are checked as not allowed.  For other types of whiskey, such as Rye or Wheat, which are labeled as Straight, HFCBMs are not allowed. However HFCBMs are allowed in these other whiskey types if not labeled as Straight.

HFC edited
I was surprised when I reviewed the COLA label approval for the newest Blood Oath Pact 4 Bourbon and found a formula.  
27 CFR 5.26 (a) states ‘an approved formula is required to blend, mix, purify, refine, compound, or treat spirits in a manner which results in a change of character, composition, class or type of the spirits’.  TTB regulations commonly require formulas when HCFBM are added to spirits.  

Blood Oath Flavor Packets


This brings us to when is a Bourbon not really a Bourbon?  Spirits have dedicated class types by the TTB. Straight Bourbon is class type 101; Bourbon is 141.   When you start messing with bourbon by adding flavor packets or secondary cask finishes, these products are no longer legally bourbon.  They become class type 641, which is a catch all for ‘Whisky Specialties’. Blood Oath Pact 4 is not a bourbon; it was approved as a Whisky Specialties.  Formulas are proprietary information so who knows what they might have or have not added to this. For these products, the TTB allows Bourbon to still be used on the front label, but the extra process must be listed.  They give an example in the BAM of adding coloring to bourbon. The example specifically states that the product is no longer Bourbon, but the label can state “Straight Bourbon Whisky with Yellow #5 added”.  

If someone put me in charge of the TTB, this would be the first thing I would change.  I would not allow these products to be called Bourbon and would make the front label say what they are – Whisky Specialty.   For my money, I will stick with Straight Whiskies.


Age statements on straight whiskies are now meaningless

Many American whiskey brands have been dropping age statements as the bourbon boom continues to erode stocks of aged whiskey.  As a consumer, I have always appreciated age statements. If an American whiskey has an age statement on the bottle, I have accepted that information as fact.  This blog post will touch on US federal laws regarding spirits labeling which some might find boring. Our laws on spirits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations – CFR’s.  Specifically, laws regarding alcohol are found in CFR Title 27. The CFR’s can be confusing so the TTB developed the Beverage Alcohol Manual – BAM. The BAM is an attempt to take language from the CFR’s and make it more approachable.  In addition, the TTB from time to time will issue additional guidance through ruling’s, industry circulars and other publications including TTB FAQ’s.

27 CFR 5.40 (a) addresses statements of age for American whiskey.  This regulation can be found at:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.40

The law states that for straight whiskies over 4 years old, statements of age are optional.  If an optional age statement is included it shall appear in the same form as a whiskey that requires an age statement.  That form shall be the age of the youngest whiskey in “____years old”. The law does allow for straight whiskies of multiple years to be stated if the percent of each whiskey is disclosed.

This information is also covered in Ch. 8 of the BAM.  https://www.ttb.gov/spirits/bam/chapter8.pdf

The BAM points out age may be understated but not overstated.  This means it is fine to bottle 8 year straight whiskey in a product that has a 6 year age statement.

The TTB also has a FAQ on spirits that addresses age statements:  https://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml

This FAQ has the specific question of:

How should age be stated if the whisky consists of a mixture or blend of whiskies with different ages?

If the whisky contains no neutral spirits, the age must be stated either as the age of the youngest whisky, or as a statement that includes the age of each whisky in the mixture or blend, and the percentage of that whisky in the mixture or blend. If percentages are listed, they must be based on the percentage of the finished product, by a proof gallon basis, contributed by each listed whisky, and the percentages listed must add up to 100%.

This FAQ also gives acceptable formats for age statements:

What are examples of acceptable formats for age statements?

The following formats are acceptable:

  • _____ years old.
  • ____ months old.
  • Aged _____ years.
  • Aged at least ____ years.
  • Aged a minimum of ____ months.
  • Over ____ years old.
  • Aged not less than ____ years.
  • ___% whisky aged __ years; __% whisky aged ___ years.

If you read the above and followed the links, you should now be well versed an age statements on labels.  I was recently made aware of an interesting statement of age found of the back label of current Wild Turkey 101.   I love WT 101 and I think it is an incredible value for an everyday bourbon.  The label can be found here:

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=16006001000132

This label was approved on January 28, 2016. The back-label states ‘bourbon is perfectly aged for up to six to eight years’.   Obviously, this does not comply with the TTB acceptable age statements.  It would be fine to state Aged 6 years. Or they could state __% aged 6 years; __% aged 8 years.    Stating ‘up to’ does not meet the acceptable formats.  Stating a range of ages does not meet the acceptable format.

When labels are submitted for TTB approval the contact person who submitted label is listed.  I took this name and discovered it was a regulatory compliance director for Campari. I found email contact info and emailed asking about the discrepancies pointing out the same laws I noted above.   After 2 weeks I had received zero response.

I still wanted to find out why this label with an age statement such as this was approved, so I emailed the TTB.  In past blog posts I have complained about some of the labels that the TTB has approved, but I will give them credit in that anytime I have contacted them, I have always received some type of response.  In this case it was a phone call from Marsha Heath, a 20+ year veteran of the TTB. Marsha directed me to 27 CFR 5.40 (e) (2) regarding Miscellaneous Age Representations and pointed out the sections that have been bolded:

If any age, maturity, or similar representation is made relative to any distilled spirits (such representations for products enumerated in paragraph (d) of this section are prohibited), the age shall also be stated on all labels where such representation appears, and in a manner substantially as conspicuous as such representation: Provided. That the use of the word “old” or other word denoting age, as part of the brand name, shall not be deemed to be an age representation: And provided further, That the labels of whiskies and brandies (except immature brandies) not required to bear a statement of age, and rum and Tequila aged for not less than 4 years, may contain general inconspicuous age, maturity or similar representations without the label bearing an age statement.

The labels of whiskies not required to bear a statement of age – This would apply to straight whiskies over 4 years, which includes WT 101

may contain general inconspicuous age, maturity or similar representations without the label bearing an age statement 

Marsha declared the WT 101 back label statement of ‘bourbon is perfectly aged for up to six to eight years’ is ‘general in nature and inconspicuous located’ and therefore allowed by this section.  A few days after this phone call, I received an email response back from Campari that provided the exact same response. Enough so I would be very surprised if there was not some type coordinated response to my inquiry behind the scenes.

Stating 6 to 8 years old is not general, it’s specific and noticeable.  6 to 8 years is not a wide range and I suspect WT includes a good percentage of the 8 year old whiskey.  For me, the issue is not about this Wild Turkey label, the danger is that now a precedent has been set. If the TTB enforces this interpretation consistently to all brands, then there is nothing to stop the next brand from stating 4 to 25 years on the back label of a straight bourbon when just a very small fraction of the whiskey is 25 years old.  This would effectively render age statements meaningless to consumers.

Spirit award shows are all crap

A local craft distiller told me they get at least one phone call or letter every week asking them to participate in a spirit award show.  They all function about the same.  Send them a check for $500 per spirit entered along with 2 bottles. Practically all spirits entered will ‘win’ some type of award.  One show mentioned was the Beverly Hills Award show.  This is promoted as an “elite competition recognizing the very best”; winners could promote they ‘won’ an award from a prestigious address – Beverly Hills.  I did a little research and discovered their prestigious address was a rental post office in Beverly Hills. This rental post office advertised they specialized in folks wanting a Beverly Hills address and would forward mail/packages to wherever needed.  This is a complete pay to play sham.

Uneducated spirit buyers (i.e. whiskey taters) do like to see ‘awards’ on retail shelf talkers. It makes them feel good about their purchase. Most also have no clue there is more than 1 award show or anything about how they work.

A huge flaw in every award show is that they depend on the producers to select send in bottles for award consideration vs the award show buying the bottles.  Lots of whiskies are single barrel products that have variation between barrels. It’s very easy for a producer to pick a honey barrel to be judged.  That barrel might not taste anything like the rest of the barrels bottled. Even if it’s not a single barrel whiskey, there is nothing stopping a less scrupulous producer from gaming any bottle submitted.

Another way these shows are flawed are by the categories they purposely create.  How about Single Barrel Wheated Whiskey from 2 to 4 years old? If the field is limited to just a few possible entries, every whiskey will ‘win’ an award.  I’ve never seen a shelf talker that states the category the spirit won an award in. Since not all spirits are entered in every award show there is never a true best of award; it’s only best of what was entered.

The largest award show is the annual San Francisco World Spirits Competition.  In 2017 2,253 spirits entered this competition and 2,083 of those ‘won’ a medal.  That’s a 92.4% win rate; guess the judges are not very strict.  That year the winner of best whiskey went to an unreleased to retail honey barrel product.  I know a judge, Fred Minnick, in this competition. I do give them credit that spirits are truly blind tasted, but judges do talk to each other and try to sway influence.  The founder was recently interviewed by Kenny Coleman on his Bourbon Pursuit podcast show;  Kenny’s Interview  Kenny did ask about producers entering honey barrels bottles and the founder sidestepped the question and does not think it happens with spirits.  In 2017, Ben Milam won a double gold, SFWSC’s highest medal, for their Single Barrel Bourbon. Ben Milam sourced this whiskey from MGPi. I don’t know what they turned in to be judged but I bought a bottle at retail. I put in a blind tasting of 15 participants with a total of 20 whiskies, all blind to participants.  It finished 12th; hardly worthy of a double gold award. So who are you going to trust? The 2018 award winner was again another producer submitted single barrel product.

How long should these awards last?  Producers change production methods over time and NDP’s switch sources which means the whiskey changes as well.  Tito’s entered the San Francisco World Spirits in the second year of the competition, 2001.  Tito’s did ‘win’ a double gold medal. They never entered again and yet to this day still brag about that gold medal and the other Vodkas they beat in their advertising.  What they don’t say is 2 other Vodkas also ‘won’ double gold. The top winner also is stated as Best Vodka and that year it was not Tito’s; it was Wodka Wyborowa Vodka from Poland.

The only award the really matters is the one you give a whiskey. Tasting whiskey is very subjective; you may or may not agree with any so called expert panel.  That leads to the question of how to know if you like a whiskey before purchasing it? I have a goto bar that always brings in new whiskies and generally will give me a small taste to sample.  In my market there are several whiskey shows which is a great way to try new products. Another option is to have whiskey get togethers in your local town where everyone brings a bottle to share. I’ll repeat the only award the really matters is the one you give a whiskey.

This leads us to whiskey tater reason #6. Purchase a bottle of whiskey because a shelf talker mentioned it ‘won’ an award

So, you want to give a whiskey drinker a gift of a bottle of bourbon?

If you start doing a lot of tater things in whiskey, your normal friends will eventually have an occasion to buy you a gift and they will decide another bottle of bourbon would be perfect.  They will then try to find that ‘perfect’ bottle.  In the past, I’ve often been gifted either Basil Hayden’s or Blanton’s.  Basil Hayden’s has very elaborate bottle packaging and Blanton’s has very pretty bottle.  I’m pretty sure those shopping for me bought based on packaging.  I prefer Blanton’s of the two, but I’m not going to complain about free Straight Bourbon.

Sometimes the person will turn to online bourbon groups for a bottle suggestion.  This is a huge mistake.  The online tater groups will likely suggest all kinds of bottles that are rarely available at retail.  The gifter will venture to their local liquor store where they will become frustrated because nothing on their list is available.  I witnessed this plenty of times in the bourbon aisle of my local store.  Yes, the store salesman will take and place their name on the list for that bottle of Pappy Van Winkle 23.  The Blanton’s I was gifted before is now on this hard to find list.  Or the taters will suggest expensive shelf turds like Whistlepig Boss Hogg if the gifter’s budget allows it.

I recall the days 12 years ago where I could ask for BTAC bottles from relatives as Christmas presents and they could easily go buy these.  Sadly, those days are long gone.  The $100 price point is one that is often given as the gift amount.  The $100 price point of bottles that are likely to still be on the shelf is also the home of some biggest tater bottles out there like Blood Oath or several of the Jefferson’s.  I suspect those producers pick that price point for this reason.

I think it’s unrealistic to expect the occasional gift giver to venture into secondary markets.  So, I’ll make some basic suggestions of good solid Straight Bourbons that are easy to find in most markets as of 2018.

$30 – Elijah Craig
$45 – Wild Turkey Rare Breed
$65 – Booker’s

There is really no need to spend any more than this.  I know if I were gifted any of these bottles and I would be very happy.  Now to post this to Facebook so all my friends see it.

Did my bourbon change in the bottle?

I often see posted in bourbon social media sites people comment that the initial first taste from a new bottle of bourbon was not good but after letting it ‘open up’ a few weeks later it was completely different and so much better.  Bourbon ages for years in permeable oak barrels, so this theory that it changes after opening a bottle made little sense to me. What I have always suspected is that this difference is due to changes in your palate. Your palate, or how you perceive taste, changes constantly.   

I wanted to test this and it’s an easy enough test to perform by purchasing 2 identical bottles of bourbon.  Open one up and drink from it.  Keep the other one sealed.  At some point in time later, have a drink from both bottles side by side and see if there is a difference.  I did this myself a few times and could never tell any difference, but I’m only one person, so it was a very limited dataset for proof. In 2017 I decided to test this with a larger group.   I also introduced a triangle test to this.  Testers would taste 3 samples; 2 from the previous opened bottle and 1 sample from the just opened, or vice versa.  Either way, one of the 3 samples is the odd sample and if change was perceptible enough then it should be identified.  This test is objective in that it is designed to test if any change has occurred.  It does not test if that change is better or worse which is much more subjective.

My first test of this was with Old Weller Antique which is 107 proof.  The timeframe from the bottle being opened to test was 37 days.  The result was that there was no discernible difference.  I posted more details on this here OWA change test

I shared that result in several bourbon groups.  Many were convinced that my study was flawed.  They commented that a wheated bourbon would not change much, or my timeframe was too short or it needs to be a barrel proof bourbon.  I listened and setup up another round of testing.  This time it was with bottles of a barrel proof Four Roses Single barrel pick.  Picked by a bar in Houston named Little Dipper.    One bottle I opened and took small pours of about every other day until the bottle was half empty.  The time frame was increased to 52 days.

Little dipper bottles a

We had 12 testers.  4 said they could not tell any differences.  6 testers thought they perceived a difference but their pick was 1 of 2 identical samples in the triangle test.  2 testers correctly identified the odd sample.  Since odds of random guessing would be 4 correct answers in this test, the conclusion is no discernable difference found.

Stay tuned as I have another test and that timeframe will be 1 year.  The results will be posted around June.  I suspect this one will have a noticeable change, but I won’t know for sure until tested.  As far as short term, under a month or two, I will call this myth busted.

 

Basics American Whiskey Types

The TTB with its Beverage Alcohol Manual, BAM, defines 35 different types of American whiskies. Before the whiskey boom of the past 10 years only a handful of these were actively produced. Between all of the craft distilleries and NDP’s, Non Distilling Producers, introducing new brands we are now seeing many more of these 35 types being introduced. An example is class type ‘Whisky distilled from Bourbon Mash’. Whenever you see a ‘distilled from XYZ mash’ statement on a label, you know the whiskey has been aged in a used barrel. For my money, I want the genuine article so therefore I purchase Straight Whiskey. The word ‘Straight’ carries much legal meaning; it means the whiskey has been aged at least 2 years in a new charred oak container, with an exception for only Straight Corn Whiskey. It also means no flavors or coloring has been added and that it is the product of only one state. A few years back, I put together this spreadsheet based on the CFR’s and the BAM showing the differences between the most common whiskey types.

basic whiskey types

link to google sheet – Basic American Whiskey Types
A side note about our spirits labeling laws. The BAM is the TTB’s simplified interpretation of the actual labeling laws found in the CFR’s. If you want to read the BAM here is the link BAM. The TTB also writes regulatory rulings and other guidance such as FAQ’s.

Want to buy an allocated bottle of whiskey?

How should retailers approach sales of limited/allocated whiskey?  And I’m speaking of truly limited bottles where demand far outpaces supply; not the stuff that Casker’s hypes like limited Whistlepig releases. Here are the 5 most common scenarios:

1. Just put it on the shelf at SRP and sell to some lucky bastard that just happens to walk in at the right time.  This is the tater’s dream and it does happen on a rare occasion.  The reality is this does not help the store to build long term profitable relationships with their customers.

2. Conduct some type of raffle/lottery system at SRP. Everybody that participates has equal shot. This does build some good will; even if you lose you at least had a chance. But taters know even these stores hold back a few bottles for their best customers.

3. Announce the release date and sell the bottles, generally 1 per person, to those who line up first.  This is the black Friday sales approach with overnight camping and it seems popular with a few big KY retailers.  Taters have taken to paying folks to line stand.

4. Stores only receive very small amounts of these allocated bottles.  It’s often based on their sales of that brand’s complete portfolio.  This may include cases of vodka or cinnamon whiskey brands they have a hard time moving.  So, they decide to make the most money they can on these allocated bottles. Stores have an idea of secondary prices and will set price even above this.  They know someone is likely to pay it; they usually do.  This approach infuriates taters.  Many seem to think this is price gouging. Whiskey is hardly a life necessity so price gouging laws do not apply.  Taters see the bottle and think they have come so close.  Of course, the only reason the bottle is still on shelf is because the price is so high. It’s capitalism, and consumers are free to take all their business elsewhere.

5.  Reserve these bottles at SRP for the best/most profitable customers. This could be a guy that buys $20,000 of wine a year but wants his bottle of Pappy once a year. Or in some states like Texas where bars/restaurants buy from retailers, this means taking care of these large volume accounts first.  Some stores a use point system that track your purchases.  In smaller stores owners are often working the floor and they know who their regular profitable customers are.

In my opinion, option 5 is by far the best approach for a store owner.   The tricky part is taters often think they are great customers of every store in town.

This covers tater reason 15.  Camp out overnight for Pappiez

Diageo responds

From my last blog post, I noted I had sent an email to Diageo’s compliance officer.  My email was forwarded to their Director of Consumer Affairs.  I received a message from him explaining the surrendered COLA.  Although the TTB initially approved the COLA, they later asked Diageo to surrender it.  Because Diageo already had product ready to go with launch events, packaging and promotional material, they came to agreement with TTB so they could use this label for period of 1 year.  They are required to be clear in any promotions or marketing material that this is not a bourbon.  After the 1-year period if they continue to sell this product, it must be under a different label and name.

So that’s the story.  I’m disappointed that the TTB approved this label to begin with.  Are they overworked or just staffed with some employees that don’t understand our laws?  I’ve seen TTB COLA label approval for low proof fruit flavor liquor that had Bottled in Bond on the label. Another time they approved a ‘whiskey’ that was distilled from potatoes.  Both of those support they don’t understand our laws.  What I suspect happened is when another big bourbon producer like Sazerac or Heaven Hill found out about this label, they contacted the TTB and pointed out why it broke our law.

This leads us to tater reason:

  1.  You purchase a crappy Canadian whiskey because you found out from Tater-Talk that it is now a limited-edition whiskey

Diageo done screwed up

In this industry one of the things I am known for is pointing out producers when they violate TTB federal labeling laws on spirits.  I do so as a consumer advocate.  Prior to 2007 there were about a dozen companies producing whiskey in the US.  Per the American Craft Spirits association as of 2017 there are now 1589 craft distillers in the US.  When a distiller wants to create a new label, they submit a COLA application for approval to the TTB.  Under penalty of perjury, they swear that the label meets all US labeling laws.  Now one might think that the TTB would know all these laws and only approve labels that met them, but that have proven time and time again that don’t.  I however have studied our labeling laws extensively and know them inside out.

Almost all of the labeling mistakes I see are from these newer small craft producers.  Often it is an honest mistake in that they were not aware of a particular portion of the law.  I have pointed out mistakes and had many appreciate it and update their label accordingly.  Others violate label law on purpose because to follow them would mean telling their potential customers more than they want to and potentially hurt their sales.  I rarely see mistakes from the big producers because I suspect they have teams of lawyers that review these labels and know the laws. So that brings us to Diageo, the world’s largest spirit company.

One of Diageo’s brands is Crown Royal.  Crown is introducing a new product in the US called Crown Royal Bourbon Mash Blended Canadian Whiskey.  It’s imported from Canada.  Bourbon is red hot these days so I can see why Crown Royal wants to jump on the Bourbon bandwagon.  The problem is they broke the law in doing so.  Bourbon is distinctive product of the US as declared by the US congress in 1964 and signed by President Lyndon B Johnson.  NAFTA contains a section where Canada agreed to recognize Bourbon Whiskey as a distinctive product of the US.  American law is found in 27 CFR 5.22 (b) (2) – ‘Whiskey distilled from bourbon mash produced in the United States’.

27 CFR 5.22 (l) (1) is the smoking gun.  It states That the word “bourbon” shall not be used to describe any whisky or whisky-based distilled spirits not produced in the United States.  This is exactly what Diageo did.  They used Bourbon to describe a product that was produced in Canada.

Here is their COLA approval – CR Bourbon Mash Label  In my state Texas, it is required to have state approval as well.  Here is their Texas approval – CR Bourbon Mash TX approval PDF  If you notice the Texas approval was approved Jan 04, 2018 and is based off the Federal COLA approval #17206001000359.

This label should have never been approved by the TTB. It should have never even been submitted by Diageo.  And now it gets even more interesting.  This label status is now ‘surrendered’, which means it is no longer valid – picture of this CR label surrendered

When the label was surrendered is unknown.  I have searched the TTB database extensively and I have not found any replacement COLA approval.  Yet, Diageo is continuing to sell this product.  There is even a launch party for it tonight in Houston.

Diageo is the 900 lb gorilla in the room in the spirits business.  Maybe they think they are too big for the law to apply to them.  I for one will call them out on their shenanigans when appropriate.

Update – Diageo’s compliance officer name was on the original COLA label application, so I sent her an email asking about this.  Screenshot of email here email to Diageo