Is Red Gag dying?

[cowdery]

Beam Global reports that Red Stag has been the most successful new product launch in the whiskey category in the past five years. More here.

[Cmurfs73]

Beam Global reports that Red Stag has been the most successful new product launch in the whiskey category in the past five years. More here.

Sir Yes Sir! The beam line is hurting in alot of markets and Red Stag has certainly helped them stop the "bleeding". In alot of markets it has been pricing strategies that has hurt Beam. I know in Virginia a 1.75 of Beam White label is 32.95. In non-Control states they are giving it away for 19.95...They have priced Red Stag 2-3.00 more than the white label and as i said earlier its 4yr white label with Black Cherry Juice added. I asked the question of why is it priced this way and they responded its the cost of the juice. You know darn well it doesnt cost that much for the juice, let alone the "Stuff Inside".

[shoshani]

Well I can tell you I had a guy in the bourbon aisle tell me he loved bourbon, and needed to get some more Stagg. I was headed down to the vault for a GTS for him when he said, never mind I found it. He held up a bottle of red stagg.

THAT brings up an interesting point: Is "Red Stag" close enough to "George T. Stagg" to cause trademark confusion, being that both names are for distilled spirits?

[shoshani]

Beam Global reports that Red Stag has been the most successful new product launch in the whiskey category in the past five years. More here.

"In the whiskey category"....technically, Red Stag is a liqueur, isn't it? (Southern Comfort is, and yet it is 'mistaken' for whiskey all the time.)

[callmeox]

No, it is a whiskey with cherry essence/extract/whatever. There are separate rules for liqueurs and the percentage of sugar or sweeteners that they contain.

Apparently, the sweetness in RS is "natural" or under the liqueur threshold.

[ILLfarmboy]

"In the whiskey category"....technically, Red Stag is a liqueur, isn't it? (Southern Comfort is, and yet it is 'mistaken' for whiskey all the time.)

Think of it this way:

Red Stag is as much whiskey as some Russian female athletes in the 60's and 70's were woman.

In other words, it meets criteria set forth in the legal standards, but would fail a DNA test.

[kickert]

Think of it this way:

Red Stag is as much whiskey as some Russian female athletes in the 60's and 70's were woman.

In other words, it meets criteria set forth in the legal standards, but would fail a DNA test.

Well played Brad.

[callmeox]

So, what did the TTB have to say about Red Stag?

[AVB]

Basically, they said that the labeling as presented is legal and that they don't have control over advertising.

The question was never about the legality of the swill, it was that Beam advertises it as "A New Breed of Bourbon" when it isn't bourbon. Bourbon infused is not bourbon, it is flavored whiskey.

[callmeox]

What we know:

The label states that it is Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Infused with natural flavors

The label is legal per the TTB

Your conclusion that it isn't bourbon conflicts with the facts as presented.

[kickert]

What we know:

The label states that it is Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Infused with natural flavors

The label is legal per the TTB

Your conclusion that it isn't bourbon conflicts with the facts as presented.

[AVB]

The advertising isn't saying "A New Breed of Infused Bourbon" it is saying it is Bourbon. There is a difference between how they label the product and how they advertise the product. I have a problem with the advertising.

[ILLfarmboy]

A few people around here have been drinking the Beam Kool-Aid.

[Josh]

A few people around here have been drinking the Beam Kool-Aid.

You know me, I'm a weak-minded sheep. I'll fall for anything.

[ILLfarmboy]

You know me, I'm a weak-minded sheep. I'll fall for anything.

I didn't remember where you came down on the Red Gag question.

Ben and I rarely agree, so.... there's hope for you yet.....:70358-devil:

[callmeox]

You know me, I'm a weak-minded sheep. I'll fall for anything.

I'd rather you be a weak minded sheep than a one trick pony, Josh.

[ebo]

I finally broke down and tried this stuff at a bar... no way I would buy a bottle just to try it. YUCK!!! It tastes like cough syrup.

[thanis]

I need to give it a try.

...The label may be legal but the ads are designed to fool the consumer into thinking it is something its not.

I don't think it is fooling anyone who cares to notice the difference. More likely, it will increase knowledge of the differences of not just bourbon vs bourbon mixes, but bourbon vs scotch vs whiskey.

What's not bourbon? Every drop of whiskey in the Red Stag bottle is Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey. There just happens to be something else in the bottle with it, as the label discloses, but the whiskey in the bottle is bourbon.

+1

...I would rather see someone support a brand that is made with bourbon and flavored than one that is made with vodka and flavored....

Agree. Why hold back a good American made bourbon, it is clearly labled. If it helps them sell more bourbon, good for them.

[AVB]

First, American honey doesn't say it is a new kind of bourbon. The label says "Exceptionally smooth liqueur blended with pure honey and bourbon whiskey" Notice it says liqueur. Gag on the other hand is saying it is a "New Breed of Bourbon" which by any way you want to read the regs, it is not. Bourbon, in order to stay bourbon can not have flavors added to it infused or otherwise. Once that is done it is flavored whiskey and no longer bourbon. Chuck is wrong in saying that the whiskey in the bottle is bourbon, it WAS bourbon.

It is the continued dumbing down of the public. The same ones that think JD is bourbon and the ones who don't know the difference. It's not the product, it is the false way they are advertising it. I don't think we'll ever know if it ever increased sales of actual bourbon.

[callmeox]

Referencing phantom TTB rules as though they are fact while ignoring rules that *are* stated in the TTB regs is disingenuous.

Liqueurs are clearly defined in the regs, so if Red Stag was a liqueur it would be labeled as such.

[Josh]

First, American honey doesn't say it is a new kind of bourbon. The label says "Exceptionally smooth liqueur blended with pure honey and bourbon whiskey" Notice it says liqueur. Gag on the other hand is saying it is a "New Breed of Bourbon" which by any way you want to read the regs, it is not. Bourbon, in order to stay bourbon can not have flavors added to it infused or otherwise. Once that is done it is flavored whiskey and no longer bourbon. Chuck is wrong in saying that the whiskey in the bottle is bourbon, it WAS bourbon.

It is the continued dumbing down of the public. The same ones that think JD is bourbon and the ones who don't know the difference. It's not the product, it is the false way they are advertising it. I don't think we'll ever know if it ever increased sales of actual bourbon.

Here's something I don't get.

You have said that Maker's Mark suing to protect their trademark is catering to the dumbest elements of society. If those elements can't read what's on the bottle, and confuse MM for something else, then they get what they deserve for their stupidity.

But when Beam (with the same parent company) calls Red Stag "A New Breed of Bourbon" when the label clearly states that it is cherry-infused bourbon, you upbraid them for deceiving the dumb public.

Why don't you think people who are "too dumb" to read the Red Stag label are getting what they deserve too? Or why aren't the liquor companies that attempted to use red wax drips guilty of deceiving the "dumb" public? Your criticisms of Beam and MM seem to be incompatible.

[AVB]

I said it should be called flavored whiskey and NOT bourbon. I was pointing out that American Honey IS calling itself a Liqueur and not "New Honey Bourbon!"

Referencing phantom TTB rules as though they are fact while ignoring rules that *are* stated in the TTB regs is disingenuous.

Liqueurs are clearly defined in the regs, so if Red Stag was a liqueur it would be labeled as such.

[Josh]

I said it should be called flavored whiskey and NOT bourbon. I was pointing out that American Honey IS calling itself a Liqueur and not "New Honey Bourbon!"

I'll stand corrected, I forgot all about the "White and Proud of it" thread. Still it is protecting the most stupid elements of society only this time it is protecting them from fake bourbon which they are too stupid to know the difference about. Just like wax dripings.

Sorry Josh I haven't said anything about Makers Mark you have me confused with someone else.

[cowdery]

AVB,

I've been looking into this and it is so much worse than you think.

First, people reading this should understand that AVB has set himself up as an alternative TTB and is countermanding rulings the TTB has already made. Among the people who don't agree with him are the TTB. That said, on some levels he's right.

Seagram's 7 Dark Honey (Diageo) is clearly flavored whiskey, as evidenced by the fact that is is less than 40% ABV (35.5%). Flavored whiskey may contain sugar but flavored whiskey is supposed to be all whiskey, meaning every drop of it aged at least a little, and none of it is GNS, yet the label for Dark Honey calls it a blended whiskey, and regular Seagram's 7 is 75% grain spirits (GNS that's seen a little wood). A product that contains whiskey, GNS, flavoring and sugar should be labeled a whiskey liqueur, but it's not. (It also sure tastes like a liqueur, it's very sweet, and has virtually no whiskey taste.)

Diageo's Jeremiah Weed is another category blaster, with products in the liqueur, blended bourbon and flavored vodka segments.

There is no standard of identity for flavored blended whiskey, including blended bourbon, just for flavored whiskey. Yet Dark Honey is apparently a flavored blended whiskey and Jeremiah Weed Cherry Mash is apparently a flavored bourbon blend.

Blended whiskeys, and any other products that contain GNS, are supposed to be labeled with the source of the GNS (grain, grapes, sugar, etc.) and the GNS content. Regular Seagram's 7 Crown has such a disclosure, Dark Honey does not.

Heritage Blended Whiskey, a store brand at Jewel-Osco, is clearly labeled 'blended whiskey' yet it discloses no GNS content. Is it an all-whiskey blend, unlike every other blended whiskey in America, or is it mislabeled? Store brands aren't exempt from the labeling requirements.

What I also know is that when producers, especially major producers, say "this is what we want the label to say" and "this is why our army of lawyers says it's right," it's hard for the TTB to say no. AVB isn't there to give them an atta boy.

On the related subject of advertising claims, in advertising (as opposed to on the label) Diageo calls Jeremiah Weed bourbon and calls Dark Honey whiskey (omitting both 'flavored' and 'blended'). The TTB used to police advertising too, but apparently they no longer do. All advertising materials of any kind used to require what was called a mandatory statement, which consisted of the brand name, its official category designation, the producer's name, and the proof. They stipulated type size and everything else. Apparently, with all the new media, they just can't keep up.

Sazerac now sells Ten High as both a straight bourbon and a bourbon blend. Luxco does the same thing with, of all things, Bourbon Supreme. Bourbon is, after all, just part of the name, but there is a Bourbon Supreme Blended Whiskey along with a Bourbon Supreme KSBW. The same is true of Yellowstone and several other Luxco brands.

So, Red Stag starts to look pretty straightforward. At least the label says exactly what it is.

Red Stag is no different from Jim Beam and Cola. In both cases, the official product description is bourbon and something else.

You can't unring a bell. Once bourbon, always bourbon. If you add certain specific things to it -- such as GNS -- it becomes something else, blended bourbon or blended whiskey, depending on how much GNS you add. But if you add sugar and flavoring, and it's merely whiskey, you have to call it flavored whiskey, but if it's bourbon (since there is no flavored bourbon designation) it's bourbon with...

So maybe somebody will blow the lid off TTB, which is clearly screwing the pooch, or is it?

[AVB]

Having multiple products across types of liquor is no part of this argument and so is a straw man at best. Besides Weed says it is a liqueur on their website. I can't speak of the other products as they are not available to me so I'll just believe you on those.

My complaint is with the advertising as mentioned quite a few times in this and the other thread and you yourself admit the TTB isn't (or hasn't been) regulating that if I am there to cheer them on or not. The label doesn't say "New Breed of Bourbon" the advertising does.

Since we differ in the interpretation of bourbon with me saying any additive makes it not bourbon and you saying it is.

This is what the TTB says as I mentioned more than once, Title 27, Part 5, subpart ca3 says: “Harmless coloring, flavoring, and blending materials†shall not include (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."

So to me that says it can't be bourbon any longer no matter what it was to start with. The advertising doesn't say "bourbon with..." it says bourbon.

It is flavored whiskey the definition I found. Whether it HAS to be called that has obviously been decided.

Whiskey 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. (Cherry Flavored Whiskey for example)

Wine may be added but if the addition exceeds 2.5% 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.

That sounds like Gag to me.