Jump to content

"Straight" vs. "Bonded"


cowdery
This topic has been inactive for at least 365 days, and is now closed. Please feel free to start a new thread on the subject! 

Recommended Posts

A correspondent from the Netherlands wrote me about a statement I made in an article, that "straight whiskey is the product of one distillation at one distillery and is fully aged." He had read in an article that Four Roses is "a blend of 11 different bourbons" and that "straight whiskey means that there aren't any non-bourbons or neutral grain spirits." He noted that one of us must be wrong. I confessed that it is me. Today the rule is "'Straight whisky' includes mixtures of straight whiskies of the same type produced in the same State." That is taken right from the ATF regs. What I don't know is: when did that change? Or did it? I know the requirement for "bottled in bond" is that "the whiskey must be produced in the same distilling season by the same distiller at the same distillery." That too is verbatim from the regs. Maybe that was always the rule for "bond" but never for "straight" and I had the two confused. Does anybody know?

--Chuck Cowdery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

I'm pretty sure that was always the case, and that was also the basis of our discussion some time ago, relative to whether Distiller's Masterpiece should be called bourbon. Let me get my finger out of this dike and I'll continue...

Actually, I believe the "bottled in bond" definitions pre-date the "straight whiskey" ones. The former were compiled in 1897 and were very restrictive, as they were oriented toward the quality of the liquor that was being guaranteed. The idea was to create a set of criteria that only the most upstanding, highest-quality distillers could meet. The latter definition, dating from after prohibition, is from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (at that time a part of the Internal Revenue Service), and is mostly oriented at defining liquor classes (of all kinds) for taxibility and marketing purposes.

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A straight whiskey is one that is at least 51% of a particular grain (a straight rye must include at least 51% rye in the mashbill). It must also be aged for at least 2 years (for it to be a Kentucky Straight Whiskey, it must be aged in Kentucky at least 1 year before it completes its maturation of another year somewhere else). In addition, any combination of straight rye whiskies can be mingled (The use of the term "blended" is confusing) resulting in a straight rye whiskey, however, if one of the mingled whiskies is anything other than a straight rye, the resulting product becomes a blend.

Blends may include up to 80% grain neutral spirits (Crown Royal), plus coloring and taste additives. A straight bourbon whiskey can only have water added. It gets further complicated by us marketing people. We often use terms out of context or that are just plain wrong. And I suppose this practice will continue until someone points out the error and then takes legal action for them to cease and desist.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake. What is interesting about this is that, in a way, bonds are more closely akin to single barrel bourbons than they are to other straights. A bond must still be the product of one season and one distiller at one distillery. A single barrel is that by definition. Most bourbons probably are that by default, but the law allows bourbons from many distilleries, makers and seasons to be mingled together and still called "straight bourbon."

The other interesting thing about bonds is that because they are uniform as to age and proof, they are a great way of comparing one distillery to another. Like a limited class in auto racing, the range of variation is narrowed.

--Chuck Cowdery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

It does kind of make you wonder why distilleries today are marketing straight bourbon, at 100 proof, aged within the 2-20 year range allowed for bonded whiskey, and they're *NOT* bonded. Even brands that once WERE bonded. For example, why is Knob Creek not bonded? Supposedly there is a financial benefit for complying with the bonded whiskey laws; you'd think Beam would want to take advantage of that - is it not qualified because it's produced in two distilleries (Boston and Clermont) even though both are owned by the same company? What about Old Grand Dad? I think that's also distilled at both locations. And Heaven Hill is keeping all the bottlings of Old Fitzgerald except one... the classic green label 100-proof botted-in-bond. Oh, I think they ARE continuing to bottle it at 100 proof; just not BIB any longer. Why is that? It's not as though they don't already have several other brands aging in bonded warehouses (Heaven Hill, Dant, Dowling, etc). I think one explanation might be that there is more mixing and mingling going on now than used to be. To tell the truth, with only a handful of bourbon distillers in existance, and all of them first-rate quality, and little chance of anyone starting up a cheap fly-by-night company anymore, I don't think it matters so much if they trade off stock amongst themselves (thus disqualifying them for bonded status). If the likes of Jimmy, Elmer, Gary, Parker, Steve, Julian, Even, or whoever's at David Sherman these days offers me their latest product, I don't care if it's taken from ALL of their warehouses, I know it's going to be special and I know it's going to be good. Well, at least if they don't go flavoring it with mesquite!

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

John,

The main reason they are not marketing Bonded Bourbons anymore is that the marketing people think we don't want bonded bourbon. It sounds too old fashioned and is not "hip". I think they are stupid, but that is their thinking.

Mike Veach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John,

The Old Fitzgerald green label 100 proof is still Bottled in Bond.

Bettye Jo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

Actually, I think the SMARTEST way to make and market fine bourbon is to emphasize tradition, distinctive flavor, history, and the lasting values of generations of distillers. Quit trying to appeal to folks who've grown up looking for beverages that taste like fruit juice and concentrate on a small core of enthusiasts (not unlike ourselves, as a matter of fact).

So where does the money come from in order to pay for all this, you ask?

Well, how about fine china or leather bags and briefcases? Fruity premixed cocktails and coolers made with Tennessee whiskey? Why, you could even support restoring a dilapidated but historically important and beloved distillery to pristine condition, outfit it with custom-designed copper pot stills and then use it to make VERY small batches of highly experimental craft bourbon that will probably never pay for itself. You do this, of course, by not mentioning it to your stockholders. Take a look at the July 2000 CEO report for Brown-Forman. See their record earnings? See how Jack Daniel's, Southern Comfort, and Lenox all had their best year ever? See all their wines and champagnes, Irish and Scotch? Now run a search on "Labrot". Find anything? Nope. Something like six million dollars to restore the distillery and six years worth of distilling experimental whiskeys and not a single word. Why? Because the investors would probably lynch poor Owsley Brown if they knew he was making all that money to pay for saving a historical landmark from the scrap heap (without even building a profitable theme park next door to it) and making what could be the finest whiskey made in America since the Civil War. For the head of a multinational corporation (even if his family does hold controlling interest in it), that takes real courage, and a real love of bourbon's heritage. Using Creggor's rating phrase system, I'll certainly give a tip of my hat to Owsley Brown II for upholding his own family tradition of dedication to the world of Kentucky bourbon.

Oh, and by the way, Old Forester is still bonded. And old fashioned. And not hip. And one of the best-kept bourbon secrets out there.

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

Hi Bettye Jo,

When we were at the Bernheim plant we asked Jim Land, the production manager there, why there wasn't a sample bottle of the green-label 100 BIB in the display case with the other bottles and he told us that it was because it wasn't being made anymore. We asked him if he was sure and he said yes. Are you sure? I guess you'd certainly know it if new green label 100 BIB were being bottled (different label; different setup; Hey! Where's that mechanic? BETTYE JO!!). Are you just using up current stock, though? Is any Old Fitzgerald bourbon going INTO bonded warehouses now?

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always make sure that I know that the answer is correct before I post. I pulled the new label with the DSP 31. It is Bottled in Bond green label Old Fitzgerald.

Hope to see you next week. Trying to work out my schedule. I am training on day shift with the "PRO" mechanic's right now. They are all so very patient and very supportive. The entire plant is cheering me on right now.

Bettye Jo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUCH! Mike, I can tell you that during market visits to Louisiana, I have seen bottles of Bonded Old Charter that are at least 5-10 years old. We still produce some bonded whiskey, however, consumers have voted with their pocketbooks and they have migrated away from those 100 proof offerings.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

Ken,

Using Old Charter as an example is not a very good way to go. I worked for U.D. during the period that you are talking about (5-10 years ago) and I know that they put little or no money into advertising the brand as a whole. They were letting the brand die a slow death so of course Charter Bond from that era is still going to be on the shelf. What are your figures for AA Bonded? that would be a better example unless yor company was also failing to support the brand. I have heard marketing people at U.D. and B.F. say that "Bonded whiskey is too old Fashioned to sell. It needs to be modern and hip to sell." In my opinion these marketing people were just plain wrong (and some of them at U.D. were Bozos as well).

Mike Veach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings here, but folks, it's just plain old Machiavellian economics...

Y'see, it costs more to produce Bonded bourbon than it does to produce regular 100-proof and people will buy it anyway. So why bother? In fact, if you dilute it down to 90 proof, you'll save more money than what you'll lose from disgusted soon-to-be-ex-customers. Most won't even know the difference. So let's do that. Of course, there are limits; our marketing experts found that taking it down to 86-proof will lose you more revenue than what you'll save, so you'd better just stop at 90. What a shame we have to deal with a nosy, intrusive federal government that forces us to actually change the labels each time we lower the proof. Life was better in the good old days of freedom from gov'mint oppression.

Is that what people mean when they talk about consumers voting with their pocketbooks?

By the way, does anyone remember what was being said about Sazerac 18yr Rye when it first came out at 90 proof? That would have been AFTER all the reviewers had sampled the original 110-proof version they were expected to write about? That's the version that won all those medals and honors. Search through these very forum pages, folks (that'll be a lot easier now that Jim has redesigned the search defaults. Thanks Jim!)

Dangerous place, the internet; it never forgets.

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

John,

I agree that economics play a large part in this decision. I still say that Bonded Bourbon can be economically feasable. I would pay extra for a good 8 year old bonded Very Old Fitzgerald and I am sure others would too.

Mike Veach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

Don't be so sure Mike. I just picked up two bottles of the 12YO Very Special Old Fitzgerald 90 proof for 19 bucks a pop on sale. Why would I want to pay more?

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

Linn,

You are comparing oranges and apples. What is the cost of an Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond? That is what I was talking about. I would pay $15.00 or $20.00 for a good 8 year old bonded Old Fitzgerald compared to the $10.00 or so for a regular bonded Old Fitzgerald which is about 4 or 5 years old.

Mike Veach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I am confused, which occurs all too often. However, I have handled the Sazerac Rye from the beginning and as far as I know, it was never 110 proof. Please point me in the right direction among the threads so I can see what you are referring to. I know that the samples sent to John Hansel (Malt Advocate), Paul Pacult, and Wine Enthusiast were all 90 proof.

I agree that our old Elmer T. Lee 110 proof and current Weller Antique (107) have a taste that true bourbon lovers hold dear, unfortunately, the masses have been moving away from high proof spirits. I know that Bookers is barrel strength, but products of this type, though very good, don't sell enough to make them viable in the long run.

If economics determined what we produce, we would not have developed our current 17,18, and 19 year old offerings. In addition, with a shelf price of under $40, obviously making a killing did not enter into the equation. We wanted to present the market with fine old whiskies that we knew the masses would not like, rather, we were simply catering to those who have a great love for whiskey.

Ken

PS. No feelings hurt here. And I do understand where you are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

Mike,

If Linn is comparing oranges with apples, you are comparing them with grapefruit. The question isn't whether 8-year-old bonded bourbon is better than 4-year-old -- of course it is. But just how much more would an 8-year-old 100-proof BONDED bourbon cost than an 8-year-old 100 proof not-bonded one? On the surface, nothing. In fact, there's a tax-deferment on the bonded product. But since the unbonded one doesn't need to meet the more stringent requirements of bonding, they can get away with using CHEAPER WHISKEY. That's the only real difference, and that's what seems to be happening more and more.

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

So Ken if I read you right what you are saying here is that businessmen do on occasion act in ethical ways to build their businesses, are not purely diven by greed and do so of their own volition and not by government edict? Do you realize that you're setting a *GOOD* example? Egads man! You tear the heart and soul out of the "Bigger government is better government" argument! GOOD WORK SIR!

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

How can it be cheaper John? The whiskey in a bottle of Blanton's comes off the same stills at the same rate of labor as does Benchmark. Ken Weber stated that it costs "a few dollars a liter" to produce. Your argument is empty.

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

Linn,

(1) Single barrels, by definition, exceed the requirements for bonded whiskey. No fair using Blanton's as an example.

(2) Bonded whiskey has to be from a single distiller and produced in a single year (actually a single half-year). Non-bonded whiskey can be from different years, and even from different distillers. What do you think happens to all these barrels of product that are bought and sold among the distilleries? Is there a new label created for every small sale? No, of course not. They're all dumped together and bottled. That can't happen in a bonded warehouse. *ONLY* with bonded whiskey (and single barrels, of course) can you be assured of where the whiskey came from.

(3) My argument is solid as a rock. It doesn't take a saint to make or sell really great bourbon, and in many cases those who have done so weren't.

=John=

http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

Well San Jaun you do got that right! So what if other investors did know about L&G? What are they going to do? Sell their shares in a first rate profitable company? A company that makes money no matter what the market as a whole is doing? Those that really understand what makes America great would only buy more while the price was down. Can we invite Owsley Brown II to our fun raiser?

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest **DONOTDELETE**

No I'm not Mike! I'm comparing the same damn bourbon to each other! Why in hell would I want to pay more for an an 8 year old when I can get a 12 year old for less????? I tired the OF BIB last year in Kentucky. Good but not great. The 12 YO VSOF is a great bourbon. Why in the world would you think that I or anyone would pay more for a lesser product?

Linn Spencer

Have Shotglass. Will Travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came back here to the top of the page to reiterate why I started this thread. What I find really interesting about this is that there are only two ways to get a bourbon that you know was "produced in the same distilling season by the same distiller at the same distillery." One is to buy a single barrel bourbon, the other is to buy a bonded bourbon.

Bonds, per se, have not been an enthusiast product but by that argument, they should be.

--Chuck Cowdery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.