E.H Taylor Bourbons

[dbk]

My initial thought on this was that some marketer was perhaps intentionally obscuring the press release. One could read "the Tornado Surviving Bourbon is 'Bottled in Bond' at 100 proof" as "like a 'Bottled in Bond' whiskey, the Tornado Surviving Bourbon is bottled at 100 proof." It would then lead to the association between BIB and this whiskey, without the label having to specify it outright. This is obviously a big stretch, but we've seen this sort of thing (and worse) happen plenty in press releases.

Unfortunately, my hypothesis fell hard. The label (attached) makes no bones about calling it a BIB.

[dbk]

Quick follow-up: inspection of the labels of future Colonel E. H. Taylor whiskies shows that there's no way the marketers at BT can plead ignorance about the BIB regulations.

Future releases of the Colonel E. H. Taylor line include small batch, straight rye, and barrel proof whiskies (all very exciting to me). The small batch could turn out to also violate the BIB regs (though we won't know until we hear more about it), but I suspect the straight rye won't, because the label on that one actually states "'Bottled-in-Bond' mandates that such whiskey must be from the same distillery, made in the same season, aged no less than four years and bottled at 100 proof."

The barrel proof release, on the other hand, makes no mention of BIB whatsoever, showing that the marketing team is perfectly capable of modifying the label accordingly, while still keeping a similar appearance to the other releases.

[bourbonv]

This is just another example of the government regulators not doing their jobs. There are too many micro products that are under 4 years old without a proper age statement for one thing. For another the bourbon regs say you can not add flavorings to bourbon so as soon as you do it quits being bourbon, yet Red Stagg and others have bourbon on the label. The consumer is getting ripped off by lazy regulators.

Mike Veach

[bad_scientist]

Regulators aren't doing their jobs, but Sazerac and Beam and probably lots of others are skirting the rules because they know they can. That's deliberate deception. It's tough to swallow, knowing my favorite companies have made a conscious decision to lie to us.

[dbk]

For another the bourbon regs say you can not add flavorings to bourbon so as soon as you do it quits being bourbon, yet Red Stagg and others have bourbon on the label.

Mike, you know a hell of a lot more about bourbon than I ever will, but I'm pretty certain that adding flavoring to what already qualifies as a bourbon does not change its legal identity as a "bourbon," at least not by conventional interpretation. Rather, it must be labeled as "Bourbon with..." or something like that. Three posts by Chuck (1, 2, and 3) in this thread spell it out more clearly.

[bourbonv]

Yes I have seen the legal sophism that the distilleries are using to justify their corruption of bourbon, but it does not change the fact that the legal definition states that nothing but water can be added to bourbon whiskey. As soon as you add something else it is no longer bourbon - it is a blended whiskey.

Mike Veach

[StraightNoChaser]

This is just another example of the government regulators not doing their jobs. There are too many micro products that are under 4 years old without a proper age statement for one thing. For another the bourbon regs say you can not add flavorings to bourbon so as soon as you do it quits being bourbon, yet Red Stagg and others have bourbon on the label. The consumer is getting ripped off by lazy regulators.

Mike Veach

To be fair, Red Stag is labeled as "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Infused with Natural Flavors" which is an accurate statement

Not too different from Angel's Envy being labeled as "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey... Finished in Port Barrels"

But I guess I see and agree now that it is a tad bit deceptive. From their stance, obviously, playing around with the wording allows them to avoid less attractive names such as "Flavored Kentucky Whiskey"

[bourbonv]

I admit that I am a purist when it comes to these matters, but I have read a lot of material that was involved in the fight to get those stricter rules. John Atherton made the argument in the 1890s that adding grain neutral spirits was a way to adjust the proof just as adding water was a way to adjust the proof. If his argument had won out in 1909 we would not have straight whiskey. I just hope the industry is not shooting itself in the foot with these products.

Red Stagg's "cherry infusion" comes in liquid form. How is that any different from adding a flavoring agent to a blended whiskey? And I can assure you that Wes Henderson knows my opinion about Angel's Envy being labeled a bourbon.

Mike Veach

[dbk]

I'm going to bring this back to the earlier problem of the BIB designation, because (prompted by SNC), I took another look at the COLAs for the other Colonel E.H. Taylor releases, and the story just got weirder.

I had previously mentioned that the label for the straight rye release gave an explicit statement about what it meant for a whiskey to be BIB, and so it would likely be a "proper" BIB. But when I originally checked the COLA, I used the following search term to track it down: "E.H. Taylor". Note that there is no space between the "E." and the "H." I searched again, accidentally using "E. H. Taylor" (note the space) this time, only to discover a different label for the straight rye release. This one makes no mention of the regulations for a whiskey to be classified as BIB! (Compare the attached labels.)

Now, of course, the labels could simply have been changed for marketing purposes—the font on the second one is larger, and so would have less content, for instance—rather than for the sake of concealment per se. But I now have no confidence that the BIB designation will be appropriate even for the rye release.

[StraightNoChaser]

I just want to know how old this rye is going to be :bigeyes:

[cowdery]

Get a grip, people. Nothing in the press release precludes these barrels all being from the same batch. Typically BT puts a 'lot' of barrels together in the warehouse. If a day's production is 500 barrels, they might put 50 here, 70 there, etc. They spread it around because they don't want to lose a whole season of production in a warehouse fire. But a given 'lot' will all be together in the same part of the warehouse so it's completely feasible that all of the barrels being used are from the same season. For BIB, they have to have been distilled in the same season. They may have been dumped at different times and, of course, a season is 6 months long, accounting for age differences.

Think of the E. H. Taylor brand as Van Winkle for BT's rye recipe bourbon. Is there another 11-year-old that fits that description? That's what this is in pure whiskey terms. Obviously, the tornado has nothing to do with it, that's a marketing hook, but it is a unique whiskey.

I wonder if they'll continue to have EHT always be BIB? That would be appropriate since EHT was instrumental in getting BIB passed.

[StraightNoChaser]

Whatever the truth may be, I've contacted BT via email to get some more information on the BiB matter. Hopefully they have good answers for us.

[jburlowski]

Get a grip, people. Nothing in the press release precludes these barrels all being from the same batch. Typically BT puts a 'lot' of barrels together in the warehouse. If a day's production is 500 barrels, they might put 50 here, 70 there, etc. They spread it around because they don't want to lose a whole season of production in a warehouse fire. But a given 'lot' will all be together in the same part of the warehouse so it's completely feasible that all of the barrels being used are from the same season. For BIB, they have to have been distilled in the same season. They may have been dumped at different times and, of course, a season is 6 months long, accounting for age differences.

Think of the E. H. Taylor brand as Van Winkle for BT's rye recipe bourbon. Is there another 11-year-old that fits that description? That's what this is in pure whiskey terms. Obviously, the tornado has nothing to do with it, that's a marketing hook, but it is a unique whiskey.

I wonder if they'll continue to have EHT always be BIB? That would be appropriate since EHT was instrumental in getting BIB passed.

"All of the 93 Tornado Surviving Bourbon barrels were located on the top two floors of Warehouse C, and were at least 9 years, 8 months old when dumped; many of them were as old as 11 years, 11 months old. Like the previous two E. H. Taylor, Jr. releases, the Tornado Surviving Bourbon is “Bottled in Bond†at 100 proof."

Doesn't the barrels coming from different years preclude them from being the same season?

[bourbonv]

If they dumped the barrels together - yes. If they did individual dumps for the years - No.

Mike Veach

[jburlowski]

You're right Mike; if they do it that way. I doubt that they will ---- I can't imagine that they want multiple taste expressions of the same labeling / bottling on the market. But if they do I hope they let us know which is which.

[Old Lamplighter]

I just want to know how old this rye is going to be :bigeyes:

[cowdery]

As long as each bottling is of whiskey from the same season, they can do multiple bottlings to accommodate different ages, and label everything BIB.

I'm confident we will determine it's legitimately BIB. The TTB may not be paying attention, but folks like BT are. They know the rules and they having nothing to gain by breaking them.

BIB is "single batch whiskey." That's worth a premium. BIB is a good thing, and not just for the proof.

[cowdery]

I admit that I am a purist when it comes to these matters, but I have read a lot of material that was involved in the fight to get those stricter rules. John Atherton made the argument in the 1890s that adding grain neutral spirits was a way to adjust the proof just as adding water was a way to adjust the proof. If his argument had won out in 1909 we would not have straight whiskey. I just hope the industry is not shooting itself in the foot with these products.

Red Stagg's "cherry infusion" comes in liquid form. How is that any different from adding a flavoring agent to a blended whiskey? And I can assure you that Wes Henderson knows my opinion about Angel's Envy being labeled a bourbon.

Mike Veach

First of all, where's the "beating a dead horse" icon?

Second, It's not labeled bourbon. It's labeled "bourbon and..." The label is accurate, no one is being deceived, and continuing to bitch about it at this late date is juvenile. Stare Decisis

[silverfish]

First of all, where's the "beating a dead horse" icon?

Here you go - :deadhorse:

(to the right of the reply box in the smiles section

at the bottom - under the red flaming one - in faint

letters is "More" - click that)

[cowdery]

Thanks. What I meant to say was:

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :shithappens:

[JohnHansell]

Getting back to the whiskey in discussion, I've tasted the new third release (Warehouse C Tornado Surviving) and compared it to the prior two and it's my favorite of the bunch. Much more rounded and even-keeled.

[p_elliott]

When is the third release due out?

[StraightNoChaser]

Here's the word back from BT....

Hello

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding our Col. E.H. Taylor Tornado Surviving Bourbon. I referred to our expert brand manager who said we bottled more than one batch. Some bottles are Bottled IN Bond from one distilling season, but not all. Sorry if there was some confusion. I hope this is helpful and thank you for contacting us.

Sincerely,

Nan Harnice

Consumer Affairs Associate

Buffalo Trace Distillery

[p_elliott]

That just is clear as mud

[sku]

Here's the word back from BT....

Kudos to them for a prompt and straight forward response.

Get ready for the discussion of which is better, the BIB or the non-BIB, once this comes out.