Red Stag by Jim Beam.

[kickert]

So this all seems to revolve around TTB regs. So here is my question, how in the world is this not considered a FLAVORED WHISKY. It seems this category was designed for a product like Red Stag. Here are the regs for flavored whisky:

• Whisky flavored with natural flavoring materials, with or without the addition of sugar, bottled at not less than 30% alcohol by volume (60 proof)
• The name of the predominant flavor shall appear as part of the class and type designation, e.g., “Cherry Flavored Whisky”
• Wine may be added but if the addition exceeds 21⁄2% by volume of the finished product, the classes and/or types and percentages (by volume) of wine must be stated as part of the class and type designation

As opposed to bourbon which is:
Whisky* produced in the U.S. at not exceeding 80% alcohol by volume (160 proof) from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn and stored at not more than 62.5% alcohol by volume (125 proof) in charred new oak containers

*Whisky being: Spirits distilled from a fermented mash of grain at less than 95% alcohol by volume (190 proof) having the taste, aroma and characteristics generally attributed to whisky and bottled at not less than 40% alcohol by volume (80 proof)

[ILLfarmboy]

So this all seems to revolve around TTB regs. So here is my question, how in the world is this not considered a FLAVORED WHISKY. It seems this category was designed for a product like Red Stag. Here are the regs for flavored whisky:

• Whisky flavored with natural flavoring materials, with or without the addition of sugar, bottled at not less than 30% alcohol by volume (60 proof)
• The name of the predominant flavor shall appear as part of the class and type designation, e.g., “Cherry Flavored Whisky”
• Wine may be added but if the addition exceeds 21⁄2% by volume of the finished product, the classes and/or types and percentages (by volume) of wine must be stated as part of the class and type designation

As opposed to bourbon which is:
Whisky* produced in the U.S. at not exceeding 80% alcohol by volume (160 proof) from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn and stored at not more than 62.5% alcohol by volume (125 proof) in charred new oak containers

*Whisky being: Spirits distilled from a fermented mash of grain at less than 95% alcohol by volume (190 proof) having the taste, aroma and characteristics generally attributed to whisky and bottled at not less than 40% alcohol by volume (80 proof)

keeping your question in mind, and setting aside the issue of bottling proof, could Phillips Union call their infusions, "Bourbon". Could it be that Beam has more pull than Phillips Union? Could we, under the current interpretation of the regs, see bourbon with undisclosed additives?
I fear this fast and loose "interpretation" is a slippery slope.

[AVB]

I can't even agree that it is an interpretation of the regs. They seem to have flat out ignored them.

[smokinjoe]

Yeah, I dumped $18 on a gamble. Didn't pay off. If you're thinking (like I was), "Yeah, I like bourbon. And, I like cherry. A little cherry in my bourbon might be something I'd like...." Well, you'll be disappointed. I was. Way too sweet. Way too much like cough syrup. Way overdone. I hear Kid Rock is promoting this for Beam? Well, if that's the case then I think less of him now, than I already did. And, that's despite the fact that I'm diggin' on that take-off on the Lynyrd Skynyrd song he does, and that any man who can go a round or two with Pamela Anderson, has to have something going for him. I think a better choice for Beam would have been Randy Watson, from the group "Sexual Chocolate", in the movie "Coming to America". This stuff smells, like I would expect that guy to smell. But, like Chuck said very early on, this stuff ain't for everybody. The best I could do with it, was to pour a fair amount of San Pellegrino sodey water in with it. And, fill the rest up with ice.

[BourbonJoe]

Thanks Joe. You saved me some money.
Joe

[AVB]

I tried it with a 3:1 cut of regular bourbon over ice to Red Gag and it had an after-taste that would not go away. I then tried that same ratio for a Manhattan and while it was an improvement it isn't something I would want to try again.

[p_elliott]

Just sounds nasty to me but to be fair so do these little bottles of WT Honey that came with my WT 101 that are in my cabinet that will probably go in the trash. Or at best get poured out so I can save the little bottles.

[cowdery]

They could have called it flavored whiskey. They didn't want to. Nor are they calling it bourbon (why is that so hard to understand?). They're calling it "bourbon with ..."

[kickert]

They could have called it flavored whiskey. They didn't want to. Nor are they calling it bourbon (why is that so hard to understand?). They're calling it "bourbon with ..."

So which TTB class is this falling into?

[AVB]

Chuck, you are only looking at the label and it is true that they only call it "bourbon infused..." there. However, look at the advertising, the shelf talkers and the website (www.theredstag.com) and you will see they ARE calling it. "A Different Breed of BOURBON" That is my major complaint. They are calling it bourbon and that is plainly not true.

They could have called it flavored whiskey. They didn't want to. Nor are they calling it bourbon (why is that so hard to understand?). They're calling it "bourbon with ..."