Is Red Gag dying?

[cowdery]

Where I'm agreeing with you is that it is very hard to reconcile many of TTB's recent decisions with the plain wording of the regs, and what they are doing and approving seems very inconsistent. I can see the rationale for Red Stag, Woodford Reserve Master's Collection and the new Maker's Mark expression better than I can some of these other things, although none are really consistent with a plain reading of the regs and I am at a loss to explain the TTB's actions.

I also refuse to take this so damn seriously. I'm trying to agree with you if you'd just let me.

All of the various Jeremiah Weed expressions are on the web, but no where are they all together. thebar.com is Diageo's web site for the products they're promoting, so you'll find Seamgram's 7 Crown Dark Honey but not regular Seagram's 7 Crown. Ditto with the new Weeds.

[callmeox]

The PDF is locked down so I can't copy/paste into the thread but check out the last paragraph on the second page as that's where I believe Red Stag fits.

It starts with:

"A distilled spirits product may not fit into any of the classes or types of spirits found in the regulations..."

http://www.ttb.gov/pdf/brochures/p51902.pdf

[cowdery]

So, blame it on Captain Morgan.

"A distilled spirits product may not fit into any of the classes or types of spirits found in the regulations, usually because of the addition of flavoring materials or because it was made with a non-standard blending or treating material. When this is the case, the product must be labeled with a truthful and adequate statement of composition such as 'rum with natural flavors.' These products will also bear a mandatory fanciful name, such as 'spiced rum.'"

[AVB]

Could be..... but it also say that they have to have a mandatory fanciful name. Red Gag probably doesn't count

[cowdery]

You're not even trying. The 'fanciful name' equivalent to 'spiced rum' is 'Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey infused with natural flavors.'

[ILLfarmboy]

You can't "unring a bell". True enough, but Beam is trying to get oak from ash. I'm with AVB, once you add something you shouldn't call it bourbon-anything.

To get my meaning, indulge me for a minute.

Is there an upper limit to the amount of GNS in blended whiskey? If there is, let's say it is 80%. Could a company then produce a label that says: Blended Whiskey With additional Spirit if its GNS content was 90%. Would anyone argue that since everything in the bottle that isn't "additional spirit" falls under the reg for "blended whiskey", the label is legal?

[thanis]

Went to two stores today, and both were sold out. Not a big issue, and I'm sure I could find it if I wanted (it was just chance that both were sold out). At both locations, they stated it is selling well, but they were only stocking one size.

... Chuck is wrong in saying that the whiskey in the bottle is bourbon, it WAS bourbon...

[AVB]

Moot point since other whiskies are not limited by purity as bourbon is. As stated above, and as the regulations say, no additives are allowed in bourbon. You add cherry to bourbon and it becomes flavored whiskey. Still whiskey but not bourbon any longer.

I think that is an interesting take, and can't fault you for it. However the same logic holds that when you add something to whiskey, it WAS whiskey.

If I order a bourbon & coke and get a scotch & coke, I'm not getting what I asked for.

[thanis]

I don't want to troll, so I'll respond one last time, understand if you don't see it the same as me, and hope you can always find something good to sip.

Some of you want to be purist, and that is fine. However your defination reveres bourbon so much, not allowing it to be adulterated or diluted after bottled in a mix, that it begs to know by what form of transubstantiation does the bourbon remain bourbon when it mixes with saliva? That is say without some miracle, no one has ever tasted bourbon.

Moot point since other whiskies are not limited by purity as bourbon is. As stated above, and as the regulations say, no additives are allowed in bourbon. You add cherry to bourbon and it becomes flavored whiskey. Still whiskey but not bourbon any longer.

[cowdery]

Moot point since other whiskies are not limited by purity as bourbon is. As stated above, and as the regulations say, no additives are allowed in bourbon. You add cherry to bourbon and it becomes flavored whiskey. Still whiskey but not bourbon any longer.

Now I understand. You have it exactly backwards. The purpose of the regulation you hang your hat on is to prevent the addition of additives on the way to becoming bourbon, which would keep it from earning that status. Once it is bourbon, additives are just that, additional ingredients that must be disclosed, but which do not effect the bourbon-ness of the underlying spirit, any more than the bourbon in Jim Beam and Cola isn't bourbon any more. That is the accepted interpretation of the rule. You can say it shouldn't be interpreted that way if you want. I think both positions are reasonable, but the other one has the advantage of also being accepted.

You never seem to have an answer for the Jim Beam and Cola analogy, or for the fact that the purpose of the rule is to prevent the production of faux bourbon, not to prevent bourbon from being declared as an ingredient in bourbon-based drinks, as you want it to do.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Where do you get this "other whiskies are not limited by purity as bourbon is"? There is not a single regulation that applies to bourbon that doesn't apply to all of the other named types like rye, malt, rye malt, wheat, etc.

The reg you seem to be basing all this on is hardly exclusive. It applies to "any class and type of distilled spirits, except as otherwise provided in this section."

You are talking about Sec. 5.23 Alteration of class and type, right?

5.23(a) Additions. (1) The addition of any coloring, flavoring, or

blending materials to any class and type of distilled spirits, except as

otherwise provided in this section, alters the class and type thereof

and the product shall be appropriately redesignated.

[kickert]

I still like my analogy from a few pages back...

If I describe Kool-Aid as "Water infused with sugar and flavoring" I am being technically correct. But, if I then advertised that Kool-Aid as "The most enjoyable glass of water you will ever drink" then I am being a bit too loose with the truth.

[cowdery]

That may be an unfortunate analogy when you look at what is being sold as 'water' these days.

[kickert]

That may be an unfortunate analogy when you look at what is being sold as 'water' these days.

You know that's a good point... I hadn't thought about things like "Fitness Water" and such.

If the shoe fits...

[AVB]

I have answered the Beam and Cola previously but here it is again. They don't advertise it as bourbon. Pre-made or home made cocktails and mixed drinks are not saying they are new versions of the underlying base spirit. You keep going back to the label which is not the point of contention, it is the advertising.

You never seem to have an answer for the Jim Beam and Cola analogy, or for the fact that the purpose of the rule is to prevent the production of faux bourbon, not to prevent bourbon from being declared as an ingredient in bourbon-based drinks, as you want it to do.

I think that your quoted part of Title 23 pertains although there are other parts that are relevant too.

Part 5.22 (i) Class 9; flavored brandy, flavored gin, flavored rum, flavored vodka, and flavored whisky. “Flavored brandy, “flavored gin,” “flavored rum,” “flavored vodka,” and “flavored whisky,” are brandy, gin, rum vodka, and whisky, respectively, to which have been added natural flavoring materials, with or without the addition of sugar, and bottled at not less than 60° proof. The name of the predominant flavor shall appear as a part of the designation.

In any case the above is all about the labeling which which you already know I have a problem with but can accept. The advertising is the point of contention. If I peed in your glass and said it was a new type of naturally flavored bourbon would you agree?

[p_elliott]

You can't "unring a bell". True enough, but Beam is trying to get oak from ash. I'm with AVB, once you add something you shouldn't call it bourbon-anything.

To get my meaning, indulge me for a minute.

Is there an upper limit to the amount of GNS in blended whiskey? If there is, let's say it is 80%. Could a company then produce a label that says: Blended Whiskey With additional Spirit if its GNS content was 90%. Would anyone argue that since everything in the bottle that isn't "additional spirit" falls under the reg for "blended whiskey", the label is legal?

I think Brad started on something here But I would have gone another dirrection. By your guys deffinition companies no longer have to declare their whiskeys to be blends, they are just GNS infused bourbon.

[cowdery]

There will be no peeing in anyone's glasses, thank you very much.

[ILLfarmboy]

....Some of you want to be purist, and that is fine. However your defination reveres bourbon so much, not allowing it to be adulterated or diluted after bottled in a mix, that it begs to know by what form of transubstantiation does the bourbon remain bourbon when it mixes with saliva? That is say without some miracle, no one has ever tasted bourbon.

:confused:

When I bought the pork loin chops and the fresh pineapple, I got just that. Last night, just before I ate them, it was grilled pineapple and seasoned and grilled chops. This morning it was something else entirely.

Point being, both the chops and the pineapple was what they purported to be be when I bought them. That is, after all, the whole point of much consumer protection legislation, not what happens to it afterwards.

[ILLfarmboy]

According to the bartender at Jigg's in Alexis, Red Gag doesn't sell very well, in fact it hardly sells at all.

I was glad to hear that.

[ThomasH]

Whatever you want to call it and whether or not you like it, it seems to be selling well in some areas of the country. Ohio started sending handles of it to some local stores last week. 41.00 and Change!

Thomas

[Special Reserve]

The sales volume of this product will vary greatly with the milieu. In a bar that attracts a twenty something crowd it will sell. I a bar full of bikers my guess is that there is no need for it, the same for a neighborhood shot and beer bar.

[jburlowski]

And don't forget IHOP.:cool:

[thanis]

:confused:

When I bought the pork loin chops and the fresh pineapple, I got just that. Last night, just before I ate them, it was grilled pineapple and seasoned and grilled chops. This morning it was something else entirely.

Point being, both the chops and the pineapple was what they purported to be be when I bought them. That is, after all, the whole point of much consumer protection legislation, not what happens to it afterwards.

So, when you ask for a bourbon and coke but get a whiskey and coke, you are not getting what you asked for. Just because something is mixed with bourbon does not prevent it from being bourbon mixed with something.

"That is, after all, the whole point of much consumer protection legislation, not what happens to it afterwards."

Bourbon does not stop being bourbon after it is mixed, it is no longer "straight" bourbon.

[AVB]

It does however, prevent it from being called bourbon which is exactly what gag is doing.

Just because something is mixed with bourbon does not prevent it from being bourbon mixed with something.

[callmeox]

:deadhorse:

[kickert]