Red Stag by Jim Beam.

[ILLfarmboy]

The fact that it is bourbon and does not mean it's not bourbon. The bourbon is still bourbon. You may feel that's not what the regs mean, or that's not what they mean to you, but that's how the TTB is interpreting them these days and that's all that matters. (Another example of Obama ruining America, no doubt.)

Gee, where did that come from?

I understand where everyone is coming from. If Beam is saying it is a different breed of bourbon, beam is saying it is bourbon but yet how can that be since bourbon cannot have any flavor modification. Is the TTB allowing the phrase "new breed" to provide an out or a loophole? Grammatically does it?

Maybe we need someone who cares about original intent interpreting the regs.

Or, perhaps a Whiskey Czar who is a de facto cabinet member but sidesteps that whole very unesessary Constitution/ confirmation thing.

[callmeox]

As sweet and syrupy as it is, I can't believe that the only additive is black cherry "essence". There's no straight bourbon that I've ever seen with that much actual (and not perceived) viscosity so I am skeptical that the sweetness isn't due to some sort of sugar. When I dumped it into the sink, it looked like I was rinsing down thin pancake syrup.

My guess is that they added sugar or some other sweetener just below the 2.5% by weight level that would make it a liqueur.

Also, I think that you can debourbonize bourbon my mixing it with a sufficient volume of GNS.

[booniesville]

As a drinker, I would not consider Red Stag a bourbon but I imagine other companies are watching this debate closely. I don't want to see another flavor war like vodka and rum.

[AVB]

I'd have to agree, it is far to sweet to be just due to the whiskey and cherry. I find it hard to believe that only 2.5% by weight of sugar of some type would make it this sweet. Remember that "natural flavor" could be shit. That's natural too.

[cowdery]

Agencies interpret rules. Somebody has to. Lately (and I mean during the previous administration too) the TTB has shown a willingness to accept legal descriptions such as this, e.g., "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey finished in Chardonnay casks" (Woodford Sonoma-Cutrer) and "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey finished in Cognac Casks" (Jim Beam Distiller's Masterpiece).

If you look at the mandatory statement on a pre-mixed cocktail, it doesn't just say "pre-mixed cocktail." Pre-mixed cocktail is not a category. It lists the categorized spirit and other ingredients.

A couple of people have speculated that it could or should be categorized as a liqueur. I believe it more likely could be called a flavored whiskey. Flavored whiskey is a category. That's a choice. Beam chose to use this definition and the TTB said okay. I don't think the TTB was wrong.

Here's why.

The object of the regulations is truth in labeling and here truth in labeling has been served. I repeat, the fact that there is something else in the bottle with the bourbon does not make the bourbon no longer bourbon. The rule has never meant that. The rule means that you can not use flavorings and colorings to make something that is not bourbon resemble bourbon. Some of you are trying to make the rule apply the opposite way. to prevent something that is bourbon from being flavored in a way that no one would ever mistake for bourbon. That has never been the rule's meaning.

The product contains bourbon. It is, in fact, mostly bourbon. The label says that in a way that hurts no one.

Bourbon and GNS is different, because that is itself a category called blended whiskey. But, in fact, for a product to be called 'blended whiskey' it must contain what? It must be at least 20 percent 100 proof straight whiskey.

[booniesville]

I just tried a little from a mini I picked up a while ago. Wow. I forgot how syrupy sweet it is. Even more so then the WT American Honey which is labeled a liqueur.

[cowdery]

I'd have to agree, it is far to sweet to be just due to the whiskey and cherry. I find it hard to believe that only 2.5% by weight of sugar of some type would make it this sweet. Remember that "natural flavor" could be shit. That's natural too.

They are using a natural cherry essence, which is another way of saying a concentrate, which concentrates the natural sugars in the fruit. They may also have added some sugar but as I read the regs, if the added sugar is less than 2.5% of the total by weight, it's not a liqueur.

I've talked to the Beam R&D people about how they do it. They won't give me an exact recipe but did say the essence is "mostly cherry." By inference, they told me that the liquid volume of the essence is the equivalent of the water needed to reduce an 82 proof bourbon to 80 proof, because that's essentially how they do it. Actually, they blend the essence with some regular 80 proof white label to get the blend stable, then they mix that with 82 proof white label, which results in 80 proof Red Stag.

The target is males, 22-34. Apparently, young adults were already drinking Jim Beam and Cherry Coke.

[BourbonJoe]

Thank God I'm beyond their target age range. Sounds like crap to me. Beam White is bad enough and now this. :hot:

Joe :usflag:

[OscarV]

Beam White is bad enough and now this. :hot:

Joe :usflag:

[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Actually the black cherry kills that funky yeast taste of the Beam White, it is an improvement.

[AVB]

I disagree on a number of points. First, The Distiller's Masterpiece was never advertised as "A new Bourbon" or "A different Breed of Bourbon" I can't recall it even being called bourbon then or now. Second, Title 27, Part 5, subpart ca3 says:

"(3) “Harmless coloring, flavoring, and blending materials†shall not include (i) any material which would render the product to which it is added an imitation, or (ii) any material, other than caramel, infusion of oak chips, and sugar, in the case of Cognac brandy; or (iii) any material whatsoever in the case of neutral spirits or straight whiskey, except that vodka may be treated with sugar in an amount not to exceed 2 grams per liter and a trace amount of citric acid." The bolding is mine.

To me this means you can't put cherry crap in it and call it straight bourbon, new breed or otherwise. How do you read it?

Agencies interpret rules. Somebody has to. Lately (and I mean during the previous administration too) the TTB has shown a willingness to accept legal descriptions such as this, e.g., "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey finished in Chardonnay casks" (Woodford Sonoma-Cutrer) and "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey finished in Cognac Casks" (Jim Beam Distiller's Masterpiece).

If you look at the mandatory statement on a pre-mixed cocktail, it doesn't just say "pre-mixed cocktail." Pre-mixed cocktail is not a category. It lists the categorized spirit and other ingredients.

A couple of people have speculated that it could or should be categorized as a liqueur. I believe it more likely could be called a flavored whiskey. Flavored whiskey is a category. That's a choice. Beam chose to use this definition and the TTB said okay. I don't think the TTB was wrong.

Here's why.

The object of the regulations is truth in labeling and here truth in labeling has been served. I repeat, the fact that there is something else in the bottle with the bourbon does not make the bourbon no longer bourbon. The rule has never meant that. The rule means that you can not use flavorings and colorings to make something that is not bourbon resemble bourbon. Some of you are trying to make the rule apply the opposite way. to prevent something that is bourbon from being flavored in a way that no one would ever mistake for bourbon. That has never been the rule's meaning.

The product contains bourbon. It is, in fact, mostly bourbon. The label says that in a way that hurts no one.

Bourbon and GNS is different, because that is itself a category called blended whiskey. But, in fact, for a product to be called 'blended whiskey' it must contain what? It must be at least 20 percent 100 proof straight whiskey.

[cowdery]

Easy. If the TTB says it is legal and within the rules, then it is legal and within the rules. End of discussion.

Maybe you should appeal to the newly-formed Congressional Bourbon Caucus.

[AVB]

I did ask how YOU read it, not the interpretation of the TTB.

Easy. If the TTB says it is legal and within the rules, then it is legal and within the rules. End of discussion.

[ThomasH]

We were drinking mixed drinks made with Red Stag last weekend. We used a variety of mixers including Diet Pepsi and Sprite Zero. I have to say that the Red Stag/Sprite Zero mixture was quite tasty. It was not too sweet like regular Sprite would tend to make it. My brother in law liked the Diet pepsi version. We also tried soe with Diet Pepsi vanilla and wasn't all that bad either!

Thomas

[kickert]

It is obviously MADE with bourbon and I can even go it IS bourbon INFUSED with something. But it is not BOURBON as presented.

[Josh]

My question is, if it's legally bourbon, then why was the thread posted in the non-whiskey alcohol section of the forum?

[pepcycle]

I just bought a lobster at Shop-Rite in North Vale NJ. They have a liquor store attached.

Jim Beam Red Stag on the bottom shelf with a handwritten shelf tag.

NEW!!!

Blackberry Bourbon

Just Arrived

[callmeox]

I thought you were going to say that they had 50ml bottles of Red Gag attached to the lobsters. :skep:

[cowdery]

I agree with TTB. I don't have a problem with the way Red Stag is being presented.

[callmeox]

I agree as well...it's a tweener. It has to fit into a category and apparently there's not enough sweetener to be considered a liqueur, so it's a bourbon with "essence".

Doesn't mean that I can't have fun with the name.

[cowdery]

Here's the story they're selling about the name. Win Wilkins was a long-time R&D guy at Beam in Kentucky and a deer hunter. He used to make up a drink of Jim Beam infused with black cherry to put in his flask when he went deer hunting and he called it Red Stag. He retired about 2 1/2 years ago, but the idea was on the shelf in R&D and last fall somebody picked it up, scaled it up, and Red Stag was born as a product.

Bow hunting for deer is big in Kentucky and there's a brief bow-hunting season right before regular deer hunting season. Apparently Win was both a bow and gun hunter, so he went through a lot of his Beam and cherry concoction.

[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 Whiskyâ€
  
• 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 Whiskyâ€
  
• 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 :usflag: