Jim Beam Devil's Cut

[cowdery]

I'll give a lawyerly answer: "It depends."

(Note what Brown-Forman is doing with Collingwood.)

Aside from making a case, Wade (or anyone), and playing devil's advocate for Devil's Cut, do you personally feel this is out-of-bounds? Does it, in fact, offend your standards of bourbon purity?

[SBOmarc]

I will leave it to others to take offense. I also have read that because it is Beam that there is less interest or excitement. Although I found that humorous it does make me wonder if the same reactions would have been voiced if other distillers were doing the same.

What happened to the term that there is no " better or worse"..just different. Well this is different to be sure. I will wait to taste it, which in the end is all that really concerns me.

[Gillman]

I would say not in this case (i.e., the practice is within the bounds of what I'd regard as reasonable from a "bourbon whiskey" standpoint). The bourbon is in the wood. It resulted from normal maturation. It has a value. Its seepage through vapour is at the very least, an unnecessary emission. The point made earlier about cycling is a good one. This practice is just an extension of that.

However, at some point, the line would have to be drawn. And really, this is no different than any other legal issue. In the 1950's, a legal philosopher, I think H.L.A Hart, stated that legislation had a penumbra of uncertainity. It was greater or lesser in each case, depending on the circumstances. I'd say here, the practice is okay, but Wade's example of grinding up probably would not be okay. It sounds to me too removed from the idea of maturation and extraction as envisaged by the regs and bourbon whiskey history. But still I'd like to see the full arguments on either side before deciding how I'd come out on it.

What I find interesting is this little area here, which has invited useful and indeed creative lawyerly-style comment by many, is just one of countless, millions, of issues of applying written language to a specific problem. People here are familiar with the regs and so can argue it in a knowledgeable or at least plausible way. All the law is like that though, from Constitution to state or provincial statute to local ordinance - not to mention the common law. Figuring out what the law means is a combination of trying to understand what was meant in circumstances often not envisaged (or expressly) when the law was passed. It is a process, a predictive one, not a foregone conclusion... Of course I am speaking of cases not crystal clear, but that is typical of many instances of applying written rules to particular facts.

Gary

[squire]

Gary one of my favorite appellate judges commented "The Law means what we say it means".

As for whisky I'll buy it however they make it and if I like it I'll buy it again.

[SBOmarc]

I'm more of a fan of Nigella's cut.

EDIT: Visual needed

[ATTACH]11899[/ATTACH]

[squire]

If Nigella makes it it's above reproach and I will even volunteer to sit, watch and sample the results.

[Gillman]

Well, that is one way to put it Squire (re the appeal judge's comment), he or she was exaggerating for effect, but there is a certain truth there. Still, it is all reined in, by the words, by the process including appeals, by reasonable expectations, by industry history and practice. It's all a process, is how I view, a way to achieve social goals and mediate social conflict. I hope this doesn't sound cynical to people, it's not meant to be. The alternatives are less appealing. This does not mean the codes can't be written better or worse, and I suspect if the whiskey standards were written today they would be longer. But too long is no good. We don't want them looking like the tax codes...

Gary

[squire]

God no, simpler is better but that approach is inimical to the bureaucratic rule making temperament.

[craigthom]

Gary one of my favorite appellate judges commented "The Law means what we say it means".

As for whisky I'll buy it however they make it and if I like it I'll buy it again.

In this case, the law means what the TTB says it means.

[ErichPryde]

Brad,

no slam against capitalism. I am a capitalist, through and through (truly). My comment was simply supposed to mean "if it makes them money and people like it, what's the big deal?" Didn't mean for it to be taken as more, but I should have thought about my words more carefully considering that I have participated in some of the muckery in other forums. :cool:

[PaulO]

As to Chuck's question, is this out of bounds? I'd probably say no, it's fine. Not knowing exactly what they are doing, my guess is add a little water to a just dumped barrel, warm it up, then use something like a shop vac to empty what is inside. They probably don't get much per barrel. It's only worth the trouble due to the sheer volume of barrels they have. I don't think it's like alchemy going on. In the end I'll wait to taste and see. This product is just a variation on regular JB. If they are wanting to expand some product lines, how about a bonded version of Old Overholt? :grin:

[cowdery]

One aspect of legal interpretation is purpose. What is the law's purpose? The purpose of the labeling rules we're discussing is to ensure that people get what they think they are getting.

[Gillman]

I agree, and if their expectation would not exclude bourbon with some extra squeezed out of the barrel, why should the law prevent that? It may even be win-win, the extra may have some extra wood/richness which can enhance the product. So I have no problem with this but recognize still that you can make different arguments plausibly without necessarily attaching myself to their conclusion.

By the way I agree with Paul that a barrel proof rye is in order from Beam, it's time guys!

Gary

[pepcycle]

Out of Bounds?

No.

I think the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

If it doesn't taste better than a similarly priced, aged, proof etc or does not provide some unique complexity or character, I will choose not to buy it.

Too many of us here believe the crap on labels about stills in the woods, streams of pristine waters and hundred year old recipes.

The product should stand on its own in some way to justify its existence.

If that's price, OK, but don't charge me more for Devil's Cut than Beam White if Beam White is better and cheaper.

[squire]

That's what I was saying Craig, the decision stands until greater authority orders otherwise.

[BMartin42]

The product should stand on its own in some way to justify its existence.

If that's price, OK, but don't charge me more for Devil's Cut than Beam White if Beam White is better and cheaper.

Exactly. Throw it out there and let the market decide. I love the new initiatives and seeing some go over extremely well, such as FR Mariage, and some flop (think Woodford MC).

There are bourbons on the market that I would pay twice the asking price. There are also bourbons that I wouldn't give 1/4 of what they want. I am excited to try this new Beam at about $25-30 and then I will decide from there. If I/we don't think it is worth it, then it will go bye-bye. If it is as good as Chuck indicated on his blog, and as I am anticipating, then it will be around a long time.

[squire]

More wood effect in a 6 yr old, yeah, I'd go for that if I don't have to pay too much for the ride.

[CorvallisCracker]

Nothing against it in principle. It's not like it's cherry extract or caramel coloring or honey or....

Comes down to taste. Some of these experiments don't work as well as hoped, MM 46 being a case in point.

[ILLfarmboy]

Nothing against it in principle. It's not like it's cherry extract or caramel coloring or honey or....

Comes down to taste. Some of these experiments don't work as well as hoped, MM 46 being a case in point.

Did I miss something. Are sales of Maker's 46 falling? I thought it was doing quite well.

I like maker's 46.

[smokinjoe]

Did I miss something. Are sales of Maker's 46 falling? I thought it was doing quite well.

I like maker's 46.

I must have missed it, too. Regardless, of sales, (and I don't know what they may be) I really like MM46. I think MM's new expression is terrific. I'm sure that Scott must be speaking of his own personal preference. But, as we always say, YMMV.

[CorvallisCracker]

I must have missed it, too. Regardless, of sales, (and I don't know what they may be) I really like MM46. I think MM's new expression is terrific. I'm sure that Scott must be speaking of his own personal preference. But, as we always say, YMMV.

[SBOmarc]

Of course I'm speaking of personal preference. After all, Red Stag is a great commercial success as well.

Great, now I've offended the Red Stag fans as well.

[Josh]

Ok Red Stag peeps. Now is the time to show your loyalty and individualism. Time to speak up!

Beam is paying Kid Rock for this, C'mon.

My wife likes it in coke. A lot. 'Nuff said.:bigeyes:

[squire]

I can just imagine the team sitting around a table tweaking the formula to blend with Coke classic rather than diet.

[Rotgut]

Wow, what a great thread.

To answer Chuck's question of whether it's out of bounds - it doesn't seem like it to me.

Will I try it? Yes. I want to love it. I'll buy the first bottle I see. I generally like Beam's products and I'm glad they're introducing more. Someone above said that introducing more lines could only be good and I agree. But I'm not counting on being blown away (I want to be, though). If it's just Beam selling a 6-year product for an 8-year price, good for them and I hope it sells well, but I may or may not buy it again.

Mike