Bulleit...Rye?

[libertybar]

Well. It looks like Bulleit is getting into the rye business with a tasty rye whiskey. This is a 95% rye mashbill (so I'm told) and is at 90proof.

And, it's tasty. It's what you'd expect from a rye, not as sharp/spicy as the Whistle Pig, a bit more rounded than Rittenhouse, and a more full and a touch more sweet than Templeton - each a rye that I really like in this class.

The measure for rye for me really is the Pappy 13yr or the Michter's 25yr (which is close to impossible to get anymore), so this will be a good rye at that price, for sure.

[DeanSheen]

Nice score.

Now we wait.

[OscarV]

Is this a "specialty" bottle?

Is it disributed nationality?

It does sound good.

[proof and age]

Can anyone decipher that code? Wonder what the L stands for??

[cowdery]

Can anyone decipher that code? Wonder what the L stands for??

It might be a serial number for the sample to discourage resale on eBay.

No surprise it tastes like Templeton. Best evidence we have says it's the same stuff from the same source, LDI.

I wonder which one of Tommy's ancestors this recipe came from?

[Brisko]

Can anyone decipher that code? Wonder what the L stands for??

Lawrenceburg, maybe?

[squire]

Rip van Winkle 13 yr rye and this new offering from Bullet is a 'good choice at that price'? I think not. Van Winkle has garnered accolades for generations now and this more recent stuff will have to earn it's own spurs.

[Stones]

Here's the trademark application for it: here

Would the 95 in the trademark application pertain to the proof?

[cowdery]

For the Trademark Office it's just a name. While 'proof' is a good guess, the sample Liberty has is 90 proof and who would have guessed what Maker's 46 meant?

[kickert]

You can look up any label approved by the TTB in their COLA process (Certification of Label Approval). https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/publicSearchColasBasic.do (Note: You have to click on the printable version to see the actual labels)

Here is the label for the Bulleit 95.

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=10281001000047

The 95 comes from the fact that it is 95% rye. The label lists it as a 90 proof spirit, just like the sample we saw before. Also of note is the fact that the spirit is listed as being distilled by LDI. Looks like they are releasing it as a 750 and 1L.

The COLA process is the best way to get "inside" information on what new might be coming out. Of course a lot of places may get label approval, but then not plan on releasing that product anytime soon (or at all).

[roostercogburn]

Thanks for the links, guys. Very interesting read (and resources I was unaware of). Cool to see this angle of whiskey before it reaches the shelves.

[cowdery]

What's curious about the COLA is that while it says "rye whiskey" the label says "straight 95% rye mash whiskey," which could mean used cooperage if "rye mash whiskey" is deemed to mean the same thing as "Whisky distilled from rye mash."

Also, fans of transparency will be glad to see Diageo has put the corporate name on the label in addition to the "Bulleit Distilling Company" DBA.

[dbk]

What's curious about the COLA is that while it says "rye whiskey" the label says "straight 95% rye mash whiskey," which could mean used cooperage if "rye mash whiskey" is deemed to mean the same thing as "Whisky distilled from rye mash."

The label also states "Straight American Rye Whiskey" and "This is a true American Rye Whiskey", which would have to mean new barrels, wouldn't it?

[cowdery]

The label also states "Straight American Rye Whiskey" and "This is a true American Rye Whiskey", which would have to mean new barrels, wouldn't it?

That's what's so curious. The line with the word "mash" in it appears to be the label's "official" type statement.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[IowaJeff]

Here's a link to a Men's Journal article about Dave Pickerell and Rye. Bulleit is on the slideshow of 'recommended ryes' and there is a pic of the bottle.

http://www.mensjournal.com/rescuing-rye

[White Dog]

I had it at the Distill America event in Madison last night. It was just okay. The Diageo rep said it was four years old.

The rep also claimed that Bulleit Bourbon was never the Four Roses high rye recipe. He swore it was a special Bulleit family recipe. I just smiled and backed away.

[OscarV]

What's curious about the COLA is that while it says "rye whiskey" the label says "straight 95% rye mash whiskey," which could mean used cooperage if "rye mash whiskey" is deemed to mean the same thing as "Whisky distilled from rye mash."

Also, fans of transparency will be glad to see Diageo has put the corporate name on the label in addition to the "Bulleit Distilling Company" DBA.

[birdman1099]

another 95% rye whiskey at 4 yrs old..... LDI has been very busy lately....:skep:

[barturtle]

That's what's so curious. The line with the word "mash" in it appears to be the label's "official" type statement.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Gillman]

I think it is a straight rye, therefore at least 2 years old, but apparently four, made from a mash which is 95% rye; that is how I read the label. The wording is a little unusual, but that is what is meant IMO.

Gary

[cowdery]

I have heard from people inside the industry who are scratching their heads about this too. They also suspect used barrels were involved.

On the one hand, the rules seem unambiguous. "Straight" precludes used cooperage (except for corn whiskey). However, there is ample evidence about that the TTB is having trouble interpreting its own rules.

[proof and age]

What's curious about the COLA is that while it says "rye whiskey" the label says "straight 95% rye mash whiskey," which could mean used cooperage if "rye mash whiskey" is deemed to mean the same thing as "Whisky distilled from rye mash."

This^^^^

There has been an influx (or an onslaught) of new label applications, it looks like there may indeed be some confusion as to what the US regs stipulate. I read this label as Mr. Cowdery, this does not appear to be a straight whiskey. It also looks like the words were carefully chosen to skate the edge, which is disappointing.

[kickert]

I think you all are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I see no reason to believe this is not a straight rye whiskey.

The TTB has been lax on its standards, but in general, they have erred towards the side of truth in advertising. In other words, as long as you are being honest in describing what's in the bottle, they are letting some specific classification regulations slide. All the expressions we get bent out of shape on (i.e. Red Stagg) may not fall within the official regs, but what is written on the bottle accurately describes it. I have yet to see an example where a product outside the official regs is approved but deceptive about its production/ingredients/etc.

Just my thoughts... they are worth what you paid for them.

[cowdery]

You're giving TTB a little too much credit. I'm not talking about tough calls, I'm talking about mistakes. I can name several but I won't because, ultimately, these determinations are TTB's job, not mine, but I know of several labels that I'm pretty sure are wrong, not because the producers played fast and loose and tried to slip something past, but because TTB just plain got it wrong. In this case, if there is any used cooperage involved the word "straight" should not be there, but based on things I've seen I'm not willing to take that as proof that there is no used cooperage involved. This is very different from Red Stag, where everything in fact complied with the law, just not with what some people think the law should be.

[Gillman]

On the sample bottle shown though, it reads "rye whiskey", not rye mash whiskey or whiskey from rye mash. This normally means whiskey aged in new charred barrels. Taken with the word straight, and unless an out and out error has been made somewhere, I can't see how this product can't likely be LDI straight rye at least 4 years old.

I think the word mash is being used for its marketing effect, not in any technical sense. It's like mash in "sour mash", a term used, often loosely, by many consumers. This term has or is perceived (I think again) to have marketing resonance.

I think the producer must be looking for an innovative way to describe the product, to give it some additional marketing appeal.

Gary