High West Double Rye!

[Josh]

What you are saying seems the change every time you reply. There is a specific legal definition of what a blend is under U.S. law. The fact that you only used examples from the world of Scotch/Irish to define a blend doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your understanding of American Whiskey.

[SMOWK]

I thought it was called mingling when the bourbon guys did it.

[jmpyle]

Josh, let's not going to argue the point any further. I don't agree with what you are saying and I think the post is starting to take belabored turn for everyone. My thoughts on the subject have remained consistent.

Also, any lack of understanding you feel I have is not hidden to anyone. There's even a website (below) where you can go there and comment away.

Beyond that I'd prefer to discuss the whiskeys vs. get into these discussions.

[Josh]

Josh, let's not going to argue the point any further. I don't agree with what you are saying and I think the post is starting to take belabored turn for everyone. My thoughts on the subject have remained consistent.

What exactly don't you agree with? The fact that Blended Whiskey is a legally defined term? It is. That's a fact, not a matter of opinion.

Also, any lack of understanding you feel I have is not hidden to anyone. There's even a website (below) where you can go there and comment away.

The problem is not that you have a lack of understanding, the problem is that you have a lack of understanding and you are lecturing people on the very topic of which you have a lack of understanding.

Beyond that I'd prefer to discuss the whiskeys vs. get into these discussions.

Then don't start them.

[jmpyle]

What exactly don't you agree with? The fact that Blended Whiskey is a legally defined term? It is. That's a fact, not a matter of opinion.

Josh, I'm not arguing that no legal definition exists. I'm arguing the definition is so loose that it allows including a high percentage of GNS...........

.......But it it does not have to have GNS to be a blended whiskey!!!

So my argument here is that Four Roses, which has 10 different bourbon recipes yielding 10 "different" products, could legally (if they chose to), call SOME of their products that Blend/Vat/Mingle these different barrels, a blended whiskey. That is my argument.

There is no part of the definition saying the same distillery couldn't do that. It may not be prudent for them to do that because of the negative connotation that many have of "Blended". Plus FR have fought hard to come back from that negative period in their history. But they could, within the definitions of American Blended Whiskey, call some of their products a blend.

You're saying they can't. You're wrong. That's my argument.

I made that point to illustrate that Blends CAN be premium and great.

[cowdery]

"But blended whiskey does not have a firm, standard definition."

Maybe not on your planet, but it does here. Very firm. Very standard. So firm and so standard it's federal law. So firm and so standard it was fought over and settled more than 100 years ago.

And Jim Rutledge cringes visibly if anyone refers to what Four Roses does as blending.

Give it up, man. Give it up.

[sailor22]

BTW - the Double Rye is a good pour.

[Guest wripvanwrinkle]

It is madness for a newbie to chime in on such a question, though my 2 cents follows.

I don't intrepet that Jason is arguing whether or not the word "blend" is defined legally. I see him arguing that in comparison with the colloquial usage that the legal term is at once overly specific and overly broad. To me there is a missing term (or perhaps I'm searching for the term) for a mixture of quality whiskeys. To me there is a big difference between mixing 2 different aged ryes versus mixing Rye and GNS.

My distate with this terminology is amplified by the contradiction between the commonly used verb and the noun. I think that distilleries employee Master Blenders, who take 2 straight whiskeys and manage to produce a 3rd straight whiskey. I think that this 3rd straight whiskey still qualifies as a blend. To me, the output of a blending process performed by someone called a Master Blender is a blend. This result, the blend, should be considered a quality thing and is not necessarily on par with the mixing of bourbon and GNS.

But even when it comes to whiskey insiders, there is evidence towards the colloquial. In Sally Van Winkle's book "But Always Fine Bourbon", she describes an exhange between Pappy Van Winkle and a House Judiciary Subcomittee. A member of the committee employs the word "blend" and Pappy takes him to task by saying:

"I want to put you straight on that 'blend' and 'straight' business...When you mix whiskeys together, similar whiskeys - say one barrel might be made at one distillery and another barrel at another, and another at another, and so on, but it is still whiskey. You put those together and that makes a blend of whiskeys. They are similiar substances... But if you mix whiskey and so-called neutral spirits, which is nothing more or less than alcohol, then you create a 'compound'. The name should be 'compound' and not 'a blend'."

Although I'm (perhaps naively) confident that Pappy was aware of the legal defnitions, he chose to not use them during a legal proceeding. He chose to use the word blend in a much more wholesome and positive manner.

I would love to see more of these quality American blends. I think that it is great that High West (and others) are producing such a product. Furthermore, I think that it is fantastic that they are advertising the product as such. It is a shame though that if the word "blend" becomes a positive one within the American vocabulary, that it will quickly be debased by a rash of Vodka-Whiskeys.

Now, back to lurking...

[sailor22]

Now THAT qualifies as a grand entrance. Great post and welcome aboard.

[Gillman]

There's some complicated things being discussed here and I've come late to the discussion.

As I understand it, a blend of straight rye whiskeys would be the term to use under the standards of identity for a mixture of straight ryes not all from one State. If from one state, you would call them straight rye whiskey because the definition of straight rye includes a mixture of whiskeys of the same type, but again they have to come from the same State, otherwise you use the term first mentioned, a blend of straight rye whiskeys.

Rendezvous Rye states it is a blend of straight rye whiskeys. Is it known if the whiskeys are from one State? The website doesn't say (that I saw) other than that the whiskeys are from back east. If from different states, that explains the term on the label. If from the same state, clearly the company chose to and was allowed to use the term blend of straight rye whiskeys notwithstanding. If the latter is the case, could a producer who mixes two bourbons made in-house or in the same state, aged > 2 years, call it on the label a blend of straight bourbon whiskeys? That term would generally mean I believe a mixture of bourbons from different states but could one elect to use that term for bourbons from one state or even one distillery (two different bourbons say)? I don't think the answer is 100% clear.

Anyway these are some technical points but I certainly agree that generally speaking the term blend has had negative connotations in the American whiskey scene. But that may be changing and internationally too since I understand in Scotland today you can call a combination of malts - what were traditionally known as vatted malts or pure malt - blended malt Scotch whisky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_whisky

Gary

[jmpyle]

Great info Gary and wripvanwrinkle. Thanks.

[DeanSheen]

Chuck Wrote:

Give it up, man. Give it up.

[Josh]

It is madness for a newbie to chime in on such a question, though my 2 cents follows.

My distate with this terminology is amplified by the contradiction between the commonly used verb and the noun. I think that distilleries employee Master Blenders, who take 2 straight whiskeys and manage to produce a 3rd straight whiskey. I think that this 3rd straight whiskey still qualifies as a blend. To me, the output of a blending process performed by someone called a Master Blender is a blend. This result, the blend, should be considered a quality thing and is not necessarily on par with the mixing of bourbon and GNS.

Helluva post! And I mean that in a good way.

I could be wrong (and it wouldn't be the first time) but I don't think "master blender" is a term used in American Whiskey circles, probably because of the aforementioned stigma. If I understand you correctly, under your proposed definition of a blend, every non-single barrel whiskey would qualify as a blend, since all distilleries mix (or blend in your example) various barrels together.

The problem, as I see it, here is that the legal, technical meaning of "blend" is different than the common meaning of "blend".

"I want to put you straight on that 'blend' and 'straight' business...When you mix whiskeys together, similar whiskeys - say one barrel might be made at one distillery and another barrel at another, and another at another, and so on, but it is still whiskey. You put those together and that makes a blend of whiskeys. They are similiar substances... But if you mix whiskey and so-called neutral spirits, which is nothing more or less than alcohol, then you create a 'compound'. The name should be 'compound' and not 'a blend'."

Although I'm (perhaps naively) confident that Pappy was aware of the legal defnitions, he chose to not use them during a legal proceeding. He chose to use the word blend in a much more wholesome and positive manner.

I read that passage differently. It seems to me that Van Winkle is expressing dissatisfaction with the law as it stands. He thinks the law should be changed so that there is a seperation between the GNS blends and the non GNS blends. He thinks the GNS blends should be called compound spirit not blended whiskey. I think he's right.

Now, back to lurking...

Don't go back to lurking!

[Gillman]

I wonder if the term blend may in the liquor world be acquiring a new cachet as a spin-off from the premium coffee business. The blends popularized by Starbucks and similar businesses, with the interesting names and associated imagery on the packages, may be raising in the public mind the perception of quality for blends.

Gary

[Josh]

Chuck Wrote: :pope:

Look I know it runs contrary to the spirit of this place but this entire thread is loaded with Shill like posts.

[insert ad here]

Why yes, I am PWD!

Reminds me a bit of this blog post from Hansell: http://www.whatdoesjohnknow.com/2010/09/28/whisky-producers-be-honest-with-your-social-media-marketing/

"

I wonder if the term blend may in the liquor world be acquiring a new cachet as a spin-off from the premium coffee business. The blends popularized by Starbucks and similar businesses, with the interesting names and associated imagery on the packages, may be raising in the public mind the perception of quality for blends.

Gary

Interesting idea! I definately think there is a lot of overlap and back a forth between coffee, tea, wine, beer, whiskey and spirit enthusiasts.

[jmpyle]

wripvanwrinkle, as Josh mentions, don't go back to lurking. Clearly you are a lover of the brown stuff so keep em coming.

Gary, you are likely correct in that the association of the word "blend" in other things is helping to lift the opinion of that term as it relates to whiskey. I also think consumers are getting more educated as to what a great blend can be. Some of the Scotch and Irish whiskey producers have taken a stand to turn the perception around. Look at a boutique brand like Compass Box. They jump out front, pop a flag in the ground proudly displaying "Blend", and have a sort of secondary purpose to change consumers thoughts.

Also there are guys like John Hansell, WhiskyMag, and other publications and online presences that are talking highly of a number of blended whiskeys. That I also feel has a lot to do with the shift.

Finally, I think it just comes down to taste. I've read comments in this forum where folks may prefer a small batch product over a distillers single barrel. The melding of batches of barrels can almost complete the whole and *can* fill in any gaps. I think good blended whiskey can do the same if done well. That can certainly be identified in the sip.

[Josh]

Gary, you are likely correct in that the association of the word "blend" in other things is helping to lift the opinion of that term as it relates to whiskey. I also think consumers are getting more educated as to what a great blend can be. Some of the Scotch and Irish whiskey producers have taken a stand to turn the perception around. Look at a boutique brand like Compass Box. They jump out front, pop a flag in the ground proudly displaying "Blend", and have a sort of secondary purpose to change consumers thoughts.

Again, you're using Scotch and Irish examples, which are irrelvent because Scotch and Irish blends are made under different laws and have never had the stigma that American blends have had. Let's go apples to apples. Besides anything from High West, name some quality American blended whiskeys. And I mean whiskeys that are labeled as blends. Four Roses doesn't count.

[jmpyle]

Gillman's post was discussing what might be elevating the perception that blends are "cooler" and carry more cachet now than they did. In that case Scotch and Irish examples are very relevant. I brought them up as examples of those making good blends and one of the reasons why people are beginning to associate the term "blend" in a better light. It wasn't brought up in the context of a definition Josh, only to suggest why people are changing their minds about the term itself.

As for your second question, there are very few great American Blends. Very few indeed. In fact I cannot even think of any beyond High West right now. I'm sure there are others, but you are 100% right that there are few. So your point is good.

I attribute that predominantly to the fact that there are fewer distillers putting out a lot of product that might allow an independent company to source/procure them and then blend. There are 105+ distilleries in Scotland allowing for a much easier accessibility to blended products. There I am talking about Scotch again but that's only to illustrate why I think we aren't seeing as many blends here.

I may be wrong, but I think we're going to see more and more labeled blended whiskey in this country. And I think it could start out of necessity. Perhaps a small operation distilling their own new make whiskey, sources some other good product to add depth and richness to their younger product. In that way they may not need to purchase as much but will also be coming up with some unique products (I hope) in the process.

All hypothetical I realize, but that's my opinion that it's coming.

[T Comp]

My suggestion is that we all start calling, writing, e-mailing or just plain harass our congressman, senators and Federal Treasury to mandate the labelling of any whiskey with GNS to the Chuck Cowdery term "whiskey-flavored vodka".

[jmpyle]

My suggestion is that we all start calling, writing, e-mailing or just plain harass our congressman, senators and Federal Treasury to mandate the labelling of any whiskey with GNS to the Chuck Cowdery term "whiskey-flavored vodka".

T Comp I can get behind that!

[Josh]

Gillman's post was discussing what might be elevating the perception that blends are "cooler" and carry more cachet now than they did. In that case Scotch and Irish examples are very relevant. I brought them up as examples of those making good blends and one of the reasons why people are beginning to associate the term "blend" in a better light. It wasn't brought up in the context of a definition Josh, only to suggest why people are changing their minds about the term itself.

As for your second question, there are very few great American Blends. Very few indeed. In fact I cannot even think of any beyond High West right now. I'm sure there are others, but you are 100% right that there are few. So your point is good.

Wow, that was a substantive exchange we just had, Jason. I think we're making progress here. Only a few more sessions and our marriage may be saved!

My suggestion is that we all start calling, writing, e-mailing or just plain harass our congressman, senators and Federal Treasury to mandate the labelling of any whiskey with GNS to the Chuck Cowdery term "whiskey-flavored vodka".

T Comp I can get behind that!

I think all of us, including the ghost of Pappy Van Winkle, agree that something like that needs to happen! I think there are two ways this can be fixed.

As Chuck (and the mouse in his pocket) wrote,

In some cases the rules allow a product to use the class designation -- "whiskey" in this case -- without a type designation. Right now that's not permitted for any blended whiskey. We believe it should be for all blends that contain only whiskey. If everything in the blend is whiskey, no GNS, it could just be labeled "whiskey" and wouldn't have to be labeled "blended whiskey."

As I read it this would mean blended whiskey would still be allowed to use GNS, but blends that are free from GNS would be allowed to simply call themselves "whiskey".

Another option, the one I think I'm leaning toward at the moment (although it's perhaps less likely to happen), is similar to what Pappy seemed to be saying in wripvanwinkle's quotation. Take all the GNS "blends" and force them to be labeled Compound Spirits or Compound Whiskeys (or Whiskey-flavored Vodka!) and reserve the Blended Whiskey designation for all-whiskey blends. They wouldn't have to be all straight whiskey, just all whiskey.

[jmpyle]

Wow, that was a substantive exchange we just had, Jason. I think we're making progress here. Only a few more sessions and our marriage may be saved!

[unclebunk]

I'm getting a headache.:coffeedrinker:

[cowdery]

I can feel the love.

The whole area of "blends" is not without its complications. We've touched on many of them here.

I have seen Jim Rutledge and others struggle to describe a process that is blending according to the ordinary meaning of that word without actually using that word because of its negative connotations. The fudge of choice is usually "mingling."

But people who are brand new to the subject don't know about the negative connotations so they don't consider them, which is fine except you do have to deal with the law, which says any mixture of two or more different types of whiskey must be labeled as 'blended whiskey.' Before anyone starts to use their own interpretation for the word types, you should know that has a specific legal meaning too.

I have my disagreements with the legal definitions as written but you can't just disregard them and decide to use definitions of your own creation. I mean, you can, but it's not fair to then expect other people to know what you're talking about. And it's always galling when someone goes to the wall to defend their ignorance against people who are properly informed. Galling, but pretty easy to see through too.

I spoke to David Perkins about why he chose to describe his product as "a blend of straight rye whiskeys." He was wholly ignorant of the negative connotations already discussed. He didn't know he was going out on a limb by using that word. He did not use it because the two spirits were made in different states. He didn't know about that rule either. He did it because he wanted people to know about the two different whiskeys he brought together because he thought that was interesting and would be a good selling point. He looked at the rules enough to find the designation "a blend of straight rye whiskeys" and thought that communicated what he wanted to say.

I don't want to praise ignorance but it can sometimes be a blessing. People steeped in the American industry are conditioned to regard the word 'blend' as the kiss of death, but the people buying and praising Rendezvous Rye are as ignorant of that fact as Perkins was, so it hurt that product not at all and may, as Perkins anticipated, have helped him tell its story in a way that is understandable and compelling. It also didn't hurt it with retailers, who certainly didn't stick it down on the bottom shelf with the other blends.

That is, in fact, a hallmark of successful entrepreneurs, to realize when something that has always been a 'rule' in a particular industry suddenly changes.

Thirty years ago it was a 'rule' in the booze biz that bottles could be no taller than the standard eleven inches because anything taller wouldn't fit on a standard shelf. The rationale was that retailers hated non-standard bottles so they wouldn't buy the product and it would fail. Short, fat bottles were similarly suspect because they crowded the shelf horizontally. The result was that all bottles looked pretty much the same.

At that point the industry was in a rough patch and timidity ruled. Today, virtually every Tequila and Vokda on the shelves breaks that former 'rule' and somehow retailers have adapted.

It's not just about breaking the rules, of course, the real trick is being the first one to realize the time is right to break a particular rule.

You can stumble into that through ignorance but I don't think you want to put "knows nuthin' 'bout nuthin'" on your resume just yet. But it's why even when somebody seems really, really ignorant you have to let at least 5% of your brain remember that they might actually be brilliant, if only by accident.

[notamormon]

Sure looks like an interesting and provocative thread. I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in just for fun. There was a question about High West's new Double Rye! and why I did it. It will not replace Rendezvous, it is an addition and a complement. Why? Because it has such a uniquely different taste profile. I have been experimenting with the "blend" for about a year [note to SKU: this is the same as "Western Rye", I liked the name Double Rye better because that was a simple way to explain what it is: a combination of two different Ryes]. Being a blend of two ryes, its similar to Rendezvous, but the base rye is 2 years old vs. 6. The "flavoring" rye's in both are 16 years old. However, the 16yo in Rendezvous has 80% rye in the mashbill. The other is 53% rye/37% corn which provides a bit more sweetness to balance out the youth of the 2 year old.

Chuck, thanks for the kind words and for kind of softening your "dig" at me. I do have to set the record straight on my supposed "ignorance". I actually DID understand the negative connotations of the word "blend." I actually read the standards of identity thoroughly and knew I HAD to use the word "blend" as its the law. However you are correct on one point, I did kind of feel like I was kind of going out on a limb but I also knew the way for me to overcome the issue was education. So I spend LOTS of time with people discussing the term, all its uses, why I blend, what words other distillers use for blend (vatt, mingle, marry, etc.). Like whiskey flavored vodka, I often call Canadian whiskey (and other GNS blends) the "cafe americano's" of the whiskey world, whereas Bourye and Rendezvous and Double Rye are blends of 2 espresso's. Most people get that. Its rare when I meet someone that understands the government's definition of the term "blend". In fact, I've found most people don't really care because its very confusing. But I find they "care" a little more when they understand - education is appreciation. The issue for me is the consumer confusion. Obviously many people are going to have practical and operational definitions of the word "blend" that are different than the "firm" government standards of identity and the government could certainly create a clearer definition of "blend" to help consumers make more informed choices. I think its a good thing for the consumer to understand that a product is a combination of different "ingredients".

Gary, to your question and hunch, both Rendezvous and Bourye are called "Blend of Straight Whiskies" because they come from different distilleries and different states so I have to call them that.

As to my "blends" I actually got my inspiration from 4 places and want to make the "case" that the US actually does have some pockets of tradition for "blending" other than mixing straight whiskey with GNS. My inspirations? Four Roses, Woodford Reserve, John Glaser, and Cognac. As mentioned in earlier posts, Jim Rutledge detests the word blend and he "mingles" 10 different bourbons that he makes to create different expressions. He has created some masterful expressions that could have only been created by mingling or "blending". I understand this came out of the Seagram's tradition and history of creating different flavors that could be mixed for a better product. However, since the eventual mingled product comes from one distillery, Jim does not have to use the word "blend" but its still a tradition of "mixing" to me. Woodford Reserve as we all know "mixes" column still whiskey from Old Forrester and pot still whiskey from Labrot and Graham. Again, since they are one company, they don't have to call Woodford a "blend". I know many people who don't like the heavier "pure" pot still whiskey from Woodford so "mingling" no matter the rationale, made it a more approachable product. I love what John Glaser is doing and thought someone really ought to do that here in the US - hence Bourye which uses the Islay of american whiskey (Rye) as the backbone note to the product. I like older cognacs and as I learned more about them, I picked up the idea of "mingling" a younger spirit with an older one, hence Rendezvous and Double Rye! The latter going even younger and providing a wildly different taste profile.

So "blending" provided an opportunity for me to differentiate High West and kind of create my own unique product when all I was doing was selling someone else's whiskey while I wait for mine to age.

Hope that addresses a couple of the questions.

David Perkinshttp://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif