What rye are you drinking Fall 2013/Winter 2014

[tanstaafl2]

Wikipedia references that same passage with the conclusion that the liquor MAY be called straight, but is not required to be. FWIW, since the internet never lies...

[squire]

In legal lexicology the word 'shall' belongs to that group we call 'words of limitation'. When expressed in law or regulation the word shall means strict compliance with the provisions of the specific law or reg.

Which means to label your product as a Straight it must meet all the legal requirements of a Straight. But you don't have to call your product straight even if it meets the requirements, that's just the highest designation. You can in fact use any of the lower descriptors such as whisky, American Whiskey, North American Whisky, Rye Mash Whisky, etc., if you so choose.

[tanstaafl2]

In legal lexicology the word 'shall' belongs to that group we call 'words of limitation'. When expressed in law or regulation the word shall means strict compliance with the provisions of the specific law or reg.

Which means to label your product as a Straight it must meet all the legal requirements of a Straight. But you don't have to call your product straight even if it meets the requirements, that's just the highest designation. You can in fact use any of the lower descriptors such as whisky, American Whiskey, North American Whisky, Rye Mash Whisky, etc., if you so choose.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Gillman]

Actually I think Bruce's doubts were justified. Look at the opening words:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.35

I take this to mean that where a spirit is of a defined class, the class must be stated. For example, if Jack Daniel is truly bourbon, you have to say so on the label. But the company presumably takes the view it is not bourbon, a view I share for what it is worth, and therefore the label reads "whiskey".

I have reason to believe that in practice, but we have seen apparent instances in numerous contexts, labeling doesn't always hew to this standard.

Gary

[Gillman]

See also Section 5.32(a)(2):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.32

Gary

[squire]

Gary my take on all this is simple:

a) You can make a straight whisky and label it 'Corn Likker' if you like.

You can't label what you make as 'Straight Whisky' unless it meets the requirements.

[Ravensfire]

Gary my take on all this is simple:

a) You can make a straight whisky and label it 'Corn Likker' if you like.

You can't label what you make as 'Straight Whisky' unless it meets the requirements.

But you can make a 70 proof root-beer flavored whiskey and label it Bottled in Bond!

[squire]

I'm saying that's what the law says. I didn't say TTB is infallible.

Some years back during tax season a Congressional Sub Committee had a group of staffers call the IRS 1-800 helpline posing as individual taxpayers with routine questions about filling a tax return. 55% of the answers given out by the IRS employees were wrong.

[Gillman]

Viz. your point A, I don't agree, due to the language I referred to in my last two posts. As to TTB, I cannot say how they interpret it, I'm just reading the language. I wonder what Chuck C thinks, not sure if he's reading this thread.

Gary

[squire]

Two lawyers disagreeing over the interpretation of a point of law . . . who would've thought.

[GaryT]

Enjoying a nice, unpretentious pour of Ritt BIB

[bingstein]

Thought about waiting to crack this one, but f*** it. Yummy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Dusty]

Thought about waiting to crack this one, but f*** it. Yummy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good man, any tasting notes appreciated. I have sampled the 24/110 (thanks to a certain SBer) and loved it. Have to say I prefer the full proof versions (Rathskeller, Doug Phillips etc) but the Japanese versions are stellar in their own right.

[theglobalguy]

Thought about waiting to crack this one, but f*** it. Yummy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk