Jack Rye?

[callmeox]

Four Rose's 17 yo gift shop bottling is $57.Just sayin'.

17 year old uncut bourbon for not much more than an unaged gimmick?

I don't see Jack drinkers as big cocktail types which is where the white whiskey market is.

[Josh]

It's not neutral spirits, gang. Just confirmed the following with Jeff Arnett: 1: Rye-based mashbill (see my post above) distilled at 140 proof (70% abv). The spirit that's being laid down in casks is at traditional barrel strength 62.5% abv (125 proof), and both aged and unaged versions will be bottled at 40% abv (80 proof). As for not using the "whiskey" labeling, Jeff advises that they have TTB approval to call the unaged spirit "Tennessee Rye", but since they're not even putting into casks for a few minutes, they cannot use "whiskey" on the label. In Jeff's words, they're following the traditional Jack Daniel's whiskey-making process right up to the point where it goes into the barrel...and bottle it instead.

I really should hang out here more often...

It says neutral spirit on the label.

[Josh]

Also, in my experience, young ryes are usually more fruity than spicy, charcoal filtered or not. Ole George Rye from Grand Traverse, Koval's unaged rye and Pikesville exhibit those tropical fruit notes.

[cowdery]

I wrote the post over here first, then decided to turn it into a blog post. It was then that I noticed the word 'whiskey' appeared nowhere in the press materials nor on the label, and the class on the label is neutral spirit. Well, I don't know what Jeff is smoking, but 'neutral spirit' is not distilled at 85% ABV, not unless it's subsequently re-distilled to north of 95% ABV, because that's the definition of 'neutral spirit.'

According to the label, it's Jack Daniel's Tennessee Vodka.

The terms 'neutral spirit' and 'whiskey' are mutually exclusive. It can't be both. I shall not speculate further, but something is seriously hinky here.

[callmeox]

The COLA also shows a type of Neutral Spirits, so either the TTB has gone further off the rails or the fibbing is strong on this product from BF.

Also in the TTB registry for JD are label approvals for whiskey products called Before and After in 375ML sizes. Keep an eye out for a white whiskey/aged whiskey twin pack from the house of Daniel's.

[HighInTheMtns]

Calling a neutral spirit product "Tennessee Rye," if that's what's going on, is an example of exactly what the TTB should not allow. In the context of distilled spirits, "Rye" is a type of whiskey. This is analogous to making vodka from a bourbon mash, calling it "Kentucky Bourbon," and just omitting the word whiskey.

But why would JD be aging vodka in barrels? Like Chuck said in his blog post, aging vodka doesn't get you whiskey. Does the "After" label say neutral spirits? Does the "Before?" Could it be that they produced a neutral spirit to bottle as a white whiskey poseur in order to have a more drinkable product and that the stocks they're laying up are distilled to less than 160 proof?

[cowdery]

I don't want to speculate further but the only way everybody is telling the truth is if they made a rye whiskey distillate, put some of it into barrels, then subsequently redistilled some of it to above 95% ABV to qualify it as neutral.

The regs could not be more clear on what 'neutral' means.

The fact that the words 'rye mash' are there is significant, since the label for a neutral spirit has to disclose the material from which it distilled, at least by type (grain, fruit, cane, etc.).

But the bottom line is, it's not whiskey. A mod should probably move the thread.

Edited October 6, 2012 by cowdery

[callmeox]

As indicated above, Before and After are whiskey products.

[callmeox]

But the bottom line is, it's not whiskey. A mod should probably move the thread.

I was waiting on some other confirmation before relegating it to another forum.

[HighInTheMtns]

(At least) one further observation from me: seems a little silly, considering the price point, the lack of requirement that it's a new barrel, and the fact that BF owns a cooperage, that JD wouldn't go through with the 5 minutes in a barrel in order to gain the value of the word "whiskey" on the bottle, if there weren't another disqualifying factor.

[Gillman]

Why can't it be simply a rye-based cereal mash distilled to 190 proof? It's rye mash, but not whiskey from rye mash because i) never put in wood, ii) 190 proof or over as opposed to under 160 (would go the argument). What I'm wondering is if the stuff being aged in new charred oak is typical rye white dog but they chose to distill some of the same stuff higher for this limited release.

Or, maybe it is a mix of some rye-based GNS and some rye white dog.

190 proof spirit can be pretty impactful, it only acquires truly neutral character as vodka and that requires more than maple charcoal leaching.

Gary

Edited October 6, 2012 by Gillman

[HighInTheMtns]

As indicated above, Before and After are whiskey products.

Sorry, should have gotten that from your first post, particularly considering the first part of it. Thanks for clearing it up for me. :drinking:

[callmeox]

Sorry, should have gotten that from your first post, particularly considering the first part of it. Thanks for clearing it up for me. :drinking:

It's all good.

padpadpadpadpadpad

[callmeox]

It has been officially announced and Drink Spirits has a review: http://www.drinkspirits.com/whiskey/jack-daniels-unaged-rye-whiskey-review/

After skimming your review I need to ask a question. How exactly is this an exciting product?

[MyOldKyDram]

I for one hope and pray it tanks.

[Gillman]

Thinking further on this, and glancing also at Chuck's blog of last night on it, I think now, unless more info comes out, Chuck is probably right when he said above that it is likely a re-distillation of rye mash whiskey that was in wood for a time. That is not inconsistent with neutral spirit because if you take the spirit to 190, it loses the whiskey designation ("whiskey" has to be under 190 proof). That way too, you would get a little maturation from the time in wood, even if it was a few days. Any brown color could be eliminated by special filtering (like we talking about earlier viz. the new Beam white whiskey).

Viewed that way, it is rye mash neutral spirit, which is what the label says. Also, this would mean and I understood Mr. Arnett to say, that the rye mash went through the maple charcoal stack just like the regular Jack Daniel's mash does.

That is probably the answer. I still think it is possible they did two runs and the new Rye never saw the inside of a barrel, or that the spirit is a mix of rye mash white dog and GNS, but these seem less likely to me now.

Assuming, though, that what is in the bottle is a true rye white dog, the designation as neutral spirit seems clearly inapt, or IMO anyway.

Gary

[ebo]

At $50.00 a bottle, I'll just skip it.

[cowdery]

It can't be a mixture of anything and neutral spirit and still be called neutral spirit. Neutral spirit is neutral spirit. There is zero ambiguity in the definition. Neutral spirit is any distillate distilled above 95% ABV. That's what neutral spirit is and neutral spirit can't be anything else. No exceptions. No wiggle room. If it was distilled at 85% it's not neutral spirit and mislabeled, which is unlikely. Although we know of producers who have gotten inaccurate labels approved, Brown-Forman wouldn't submit an inaccurate label. They'd never get away with it, with the scrutiny Jack Daniel's gets.

So if it's not mislabeled then it has to be neutral spirit, but it sure doesn't taste like neutral spirit.

I've been thinking about it and there really isn't a legal name for whiskey white dog if it truly has no contact with wood, but if you do a touch-and-go with a used barrel, you can call it whiskey, which is what I assume BT did with its bottled white dog. It's inconceivable to me that Daniel's wouldn't call it whiskey if they could call it whiskey except for one thing. They couldn't call it rye whiskey. That's the gag here. "Rye" is a more important word than "whiskey." They're banking on the fact that most people will see "Jack Daniel's Rye" and think they're seeing "Jack Daniel's Rye Whiskey."

And if they truly distilled it to 85% ABV, then even after it's aged they won't be able to call it "rye whiskey" because rye whiskey has to be distilled below 80% ABV. But it won't matter, because the same logic will hold. That's the power of the Jack Daniel's brand. Jack Daniel's doesn't have to be bourbon, it doesn't even have to be whiskey.

None of which changes the fact that neutral spirit is any distillate distilled above 95% ABV.

Edited October 6, 2012 by cowdery

[cowdery]

The price is interesting and shows again what shrewd marketers the Brown-Forman folks are. The micro-producers have established $50 as a reasonable price point for white whiskey. If people will pay it for High West, why not for Jack Daniel's?

[callmeox]

Next question: Where is DSP-TN 1 located? The COLA lists DSP-TN 4 as the source, but the photo shows TN 1 on the bottle neck.

[GaryT]

Considering the proof and price point, I think I know all I need to know about this one PASS!

[Gillman]

I wouldn't prejudge the question viz. mixture of rye white dog and neutral spirit, if it states both rye mash and neutral spirit, why assume it is only the latter? It doesn't say 100% neutral spirit. It does say class, yes, and the rye mash part is under "type", but those aren't really defined terms anywhere I believe. Is a mixture of such elements required to be stated on the label as percentages? I don't think so but didn't look at the regs with that in mind to be sure.

In fact, since white dog is an acquired taste for many, it would make sense to cut it so to speak with GNS. Sort of like spirit whiskey under the regs, except there is no whiskey here.

However, I incline towards all-neutral spirit in this case.

I'm pretty sure I've seen "rye vodka" in the market, so this could be sort of like that, except "rye neutral spirit". Clearly it isn't flavorless, so it presumably was distilled in a way to skip some of the final rectification steps that make vodka, e.g. extractive distillation. It may be what is called in the vodka trade an "intermediate" product meaning it has noticeable odor and flavor. Maybe too they didn't do the "draws" vodka and some grain whisky undergoes, to remove e.g. certain fusels off the trays.

Anyway, given that this product would potentially interest the knowledgeable part of the bourbon and rye-buying public, I hope the company will explain in detail what the bottle contains and what it was trying to achieve. It is in its interest to do so, IMO. Today "people want to know", and I'd buy it (despite the price) if I understood fully what it is and what flavor profile they were going after.

Gary

Edited October 7, 2012 by Gillman

[Josh]

I wouldn't buy it or accept it as a gift. This American whiskey enthusiast is done defending B-F to its many haters. DONE.

[cowdery]

I was going to say, "not to belabor the point," but fuck it, I'm belaboring the point. Please consider the follow before spinning any silly theories about how a 70% ABV distillate can be labeled 'neutral spirit6'. While I suppose it's true that 'class' and 'type' are not explicitly defined, the intent of their use is pretty clear in context, and what do you know. "Class 1" is neutral spirits, aka alcohol.

Sec. 5.22 The standards of identity.

Standards of identity for the several classes and types of distilled spirits set forth in this section shall be as follows (see also Sec. 5.35, class and type):

(a) Class 1; neutral spirits or alcohol.

"Neutral spirits'' or "alcohol'' are distilled spirits produced from any material at or above 190[deg] proof, and, if bottled, bottled at not less than 80[deg] proof.

(1) "Vodka'' is neutral spirits so distilled, or so treated after distillation with charcoal or other materials, as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color.

(2) "Grain spirits'' are neutral spirits distilled from a fermented mash of grain and stored in oak containers.

( Class 2; whisky.

"Whisky'' is an alcoholic distillate from a fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190[deg] proof in such manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers (except that corn whisky need not be so stored), and bottled at not less than 80[deg] proof, and also includes mixtures of such distillates for which no specific standards of identity are prescribed.

(1)(i) "Bourbon whisky'', "rye whisky'', "wheat whisky'', "malt whisky'', or "rye malt whisky'' is whisky produced at not exceeding 160[deg] proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored at not more than 125[deg] proof in charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type.

(ii) "Corn whisky'' is whisky produced at not exceeding 160[deg] proof from a fermented mash of not less than 80 percent corn grain, and if stored in oak containers stored at not more than 125[deg] proof in used or uncharred new oak containers and not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood; and also includes mixtures of such whisky.

An interesting fact that was pointed out to me via email: after Daniel's resumed distilling in 1938, they made and sold corn whiskey. However, since the Jack Daniel's mash bill is 80 percent corn, it must have been the same mashbill, based on Jeff Arnett's claim that JD Rye is the first new grain recipe since Prohibition. They also made fruit spirits in those days, but Arnett was careful to say grain.

So everything they're saying is consistent. What's inconsistent is what the label says. I defy anyone to find any ambiguity in the regulation for "Class: Neutral Spirit," which is how the product is labeled.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cowdery

[cowdery]

And the words "rye mash" are on the label because Section 532 says that when a product contains neutral spirits, the "name of commodity from which distilled" must be disclosed on the label. The reg gives the examples of "grain," "cane," and "fruit," but since rye is a grain, there was probabably no objection to that being used as the commodity disclosure. That, of course, raises another question, since it wasn't 100% rye, although it was 100% grain.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cowdery