kaiserhog Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Anybody heard of the battle in the Tennessee Legislature over a bill to permit the use of refill casks to age Tennessee Whiskey. Diageo for it, B-F against. I'm squarely with B-F on this one, even though I prefer George to Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucker Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/14/tennessee-whiskey-barrels-liquor-giants-fight/6409747/Edit to add: I'm not picking sides, I'm just for truth in labeling. I like to know what I'm buying. Edited March 15, 2014 by Tucker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 That is interesting, wonder how this one will play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portwood Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) Makes no sense for Diageo to push for re-use of barrels as they are probably they world's LARGEST user of ex-bourbon barrels. I've been saying over on the Scotch forums that the world producers of whisky better hope demand for American straight whisky continues to RISE (mainly due to the new wood requirement). If demand drops and/or Americans start to re-use barrels: a) quality of all other whisky will suffer (supply of fresh ex-bourbon barrels will drop and they will be forced to use more and more tired casks to age their own whisky), and/or they will be forced to use more new wood which will impact costs AND taste. SO, why Diageo would argue for change in American whisky law, is beyond me. Edited March 15, 2014 by portwood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Apparently Diageo feels it has a plethora of fresh used barrels and as you note new oak increases cost. Unfortunately Diageo it seems is all about 1) making it as cheap as possible, 2) hiding the truth of what they are doing and 3) selling it for as much as possible, often by bending the truth in marketing the product as much as possible (and sometimes more than just bending it I suspect). I am all for capitalism in the marketplace but in my opinion in the long run capitalism will only truly succeed with a dash of ethics sprinkled in. Otherwise eventually the consumer base is going to wake up and vote with their wallets. It seems to be a component of capitalism some companies either aren't aware of or choose to ignore in search of the short term gain. Makes no sense for Diageo to push for re-use of barrels as they are probably they world's LARGEST user of ex-bourbon barrels.I've been saying over on the Scotch forums that the world producers of whisky better hope demand for American straight whisky continues to RISE (mainly due to the new wood requirement). If demand drops and/or Americans start to re-use barrels: a) quality of all other whisky will suffer (supply of fresh ex-bourbon barrels will drop and they will be forced to use more and more tired casks to age their own whisky), and/or they will be forced to use more new wood which will impact costs AND taste. SO, why Diageo would argue for change in American whisky law, is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sku Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 That is interesting, wonder how this one will play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Will be interesting if the bill isn't changed. After all, it was Brown-Forman who started aging Bourbon in used barrels and got it approved as "Old Style Kentucky Whisky". Prior to the recent Tenn law was there any actual legal requirement that would not have allowed Dickel to use refill barrels and still call it's product "Old Style Tennessee Whisky"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sku Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Will be interesting if the bill isn't changed. After all, it was Brown-Forman who started aging Bourbon in used barrels and got it approved as "Old Style Kentucky Whisky". Prior to the recent Tenn law was there any actual legal requirement that would not have allowed Dickel to use refill barrels and still call it's product "Old Style Tennessee Whisky"?No, prior to that law, nothing would have kept them from using reused cooperage. Even with the current law, they could age in reused cooperage and just change the name to "Old Style Whisky Distilled in Tennessee." Would anyone really notice the difference? Given that, it seems silly to pursue legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Considering the number of dry counties in Tennessee who send Representatives to the State House it's a bit surprising the Legislature passes any pro liquor laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry in WashDC Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Considering the number of dry counties in Tennessee who send Representatives to the State House it's a bit surprising the Legislature passes any pro liquor laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 My favorite lobbyist was wont to say, "All you need is money and me". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p_elliott Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 If it passes it will kill for all time the argument is Tennessee whiskey bourbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 If it passes it will kill for all time the argument is Tennessee whiskey bourbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TunnelTiger Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Article in this mornings Chatt Times Free Press indicates that this is going to pass to help the "little guys". Qouted a few of them saying numerous whiskeys are agde in used barrels and that JD shouldn't have a lock on the term "Tennesee Whiskey".I infer they want to use it on moonshine and anything else they distill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Shoot! Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 In both my online and on-site communication with them, the people at George Dickel deny any intention to change the way they make their whisky; they just don't want Jack Daniel's telling them how to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Sounds like an old fashioned feud in the making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I think B-F has the better argument, though. But for Jack Daniels, the concept of Tennessee Whiskey, as a thing, wouldn't (likely) exist. They basically created it. Therefore, if the type will be enshrined in the law, it should be the style they created. It's like saying in France, we will amend the Champagne compositional law. I don't know if one exists, let's assume it does, to leave out the part about secondary fermentation in the bottle because it is not the only way to make Champagne. And so I, a sparkling wine maker in [name other place], should be able to set up a business in Champagne and call it that even though my product is only fermented in bulk.How is this different?Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Early Times . . . . . . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docbible Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Looks like the legislation to rewrite the definition of Tennessee Whiskey has been withdrawn as reported by tennessean.com. tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Round two. On Friday, Diageo filed suit against the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) to overturn a 77-year-old law that says any distilled spirit manufactured in Tennessee must be stored (i.e., aged) in Tennessee. Diageo got cited for violating it because Diageo has moved some products to Stitzel-Weller in Louisville.Diageo goes to great pains to assure everyone that it is not aging any George Dickel Tennessee Whiskey in Kentucky, just other products it makes at the George Dickel Distillery. It doesn't say what those are, and in the past Dickel master distillers have claimed that Dickel doesn't make anything except George Dickel there. This has gotten mixed up with the whole standards thing, but it's a completely different issue. For more go here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 As I said there in the comments (Chuck's always-excellent blog), Diageo argued the matter well in its complaint. However, the state may have a trump: the nature of whiskey-making, in which distillation is just a first step. For products like whiskey which require maturation (not just the more neutral-sounding "storage" in the well-worded language of the complaint), the product isn't finished until the aging is finished. And so, if you can license distillers, why should you not require aging in the jurisdiction, so you can monitor what is being made? Let's say the stuff is trucked over to a place where the air is heavily polluted, or something is added to the barrels. The state of licensing naturally has an interest to monitor the product until it is ready for sale; and it might pull the license or warn the license-holder if it is not satisfied the licensee is exercising its privilege properly. But it can't do that, or as well, when the product is being aged in another state. So if I was Tennessee, I'd argue this in addition to the apparent 21st Amendment arguments Chuck adverted to in his informative article.Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Gary I should think the State is in a rather awkward position to argue that because they allow Prichard to make and market a Tennessee Whisky that doesn't follow the JD derived requirements.I also think the selective enforcement of this law against Diageo (only one complaint filed in the 77 years the law has been in place) is problematic. Edited March 31, 2014 by squire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Squire this is a different issue, there are 2 issues which Diageo has with Tennessee, Chuck explains it all in his blog. Or if you are still referring indeed to issue no. 2, I see what you are saying, but I don't think the State can be defeated by that kind of argument. Surely whether it enforces any particular law at a particular time is in its discretion, otherwize you could tie government's hands interminably with this kind of argument, on any issue... It is a good political argument though, i.e., viz whether it should have issued the citation. But once having done that... Gary Edited March 31, 2014 by Gillman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 As I said there in the comments . . . . Diageo argued the matter well in its complaint. However, the state may have a trump: the nature of whiskey-making, in which distillation is just a first step. Gary I was referring to the single issue of the State of Tennessee singling out Diageo for selective enforcement of an archaic law that hasn't been used against anyone else in the 77 years it has been on the books. Isn't that what your post was about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Thanks for clarifying, but I still think Tennessee has a good argument in response, for the reasons I stated.Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts