Four Kings Whiskey

[smokinjoe]

And stop croaking dammit!

From the Whiskey Reviewer "Some questions have been raised in the internet forums whether a blend with wheat whiskey content should be labeled “bourbon,†but the bottom line on that is the product and its labeling was approved by the TTB. This being America, a handful of croakers think they always know better than the professional regulators or pontificate while misunderstanding the approval process."

:grin:

[callmeox]

So, that's what Whiskey Reviewer brings to the party? Brilliant writing, ace. I'm sure if they had called it cognac, he would have had the same response...What a Hack...Go blog about chocolate bars...

Remove the negative tone and it sounds a lot like the spin that Corsair offered. Ultimately the review is the product of someone who likes getting free booze samples to write about and doesn't want to jeopardize that.

[Quantum]

I get the idea of "stop bitching about the label and just focus on the product!", but, dammit, words need to mean something!

I continue to buy Garrison Brothers bourbon, because Dan has been very passionate and open about what he is doing. Do I cry a little but on the inside every time I overpay for a bottle? Yes, but the fact I can go watch every step of the process takes away a little bit of the sting. It is sure as hell not because Dan is a nice and humble guy, but he has been honest as far as I can tell. Without the passion and honesty, its just another bottle of overpriced booze with a Texas label.

If an outfit like Four Roses will tell you which corner of which warehouse your bottle came from, I am a little curious why Corsair is having trouble explaining something like this. I wonder if some of it has to do with avoiding any sort of legal blow back from admitting a mistake, but the radio silence is a little odd.

[squire]

It's not legal it's marketing, sales, promotion and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

[Josh]

Andrew could have addressed this whole thing very easily by simply saying something like, "Thanks for the questions about the labeling. We'll look into it." instead of trying to convince us that the regs say something they don't, changing that subject (the whole topping off thing) and then telling us we shouldn't be concerned because Corsair and their collaborators on this project are on an ethics committee. It's a classic case of a botched response making a situation worse rather than better. If he had not tried all that other stuff this would have blown over by now. When treated with respect, people on this forum can be great friends and evangelists for products like this. When they aren't, stuff like this thread happens.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Josh

[Quantum]

I guess they would have had to "accidentally" add a "lost" barrel of wheat whiskey to be able to use it for positive marketing spin.

[MyOldKyDram]

That comment section is getting gold, Jerry.

Hey there ya lurking losers! Love, the circle jerkers.

[squire]

Yeah, those lying computers keep losing track of stuff.

[cowdery]

An aside wrt Forgiven, talking to Eddie Russell and Jimmy Russell at length about it last week, I believe it actually was an accident. That said, they're now talking seriously about repeating that accident, because the product has been very successful. Eddie doesn't want to because he'd rather build up their rye stocks.

As for Four Kings, I've been trying without success to get a straight answer from the principals (all of whom I know) and am starting to lean in the direction of "it's not a bourbon." Anyone who is well-informed knows that, unfortunately, TTB is not very reliable. They essentially rely on an honor system. Wade's effort to get them to enforce the 'state of distillation' rule is a perfect example. My guess is that half of the violators don't even know they're in violation while the other half know and know they probably can get away with it. Since it's a sin of omission, it's pretty easy to claim it was an oversight.

So it's legalistically correct to say, "it's bourbon if TTB allows it to be labeled bourbon," but we know the rules even if TTB does not, and unless the wheat component is wheated bourbon, then it's not bourbon regardless of what the label says. There is no 'aggregate contents rule' or anything of the kind. At best it might be 'blended bourbon,' but it's not bourbon if any component is not bourbon. Yes, it is that cut and dried.

[cowdery]

I've heard from them since the previous post went up but they're still dissembling, standing by what they are calling the "quick, definitive, and informed response" Andrew posted here on 4/2. I've told them they're not doing themselves any favors and I've explained that if it is at least 51% straight bourbon, then it's 'blended bourbon.' If an insufficient amount of the bourbon is straight then maybe it's 'bourbon with ...' the 'with' being the wheat whiskey or whatever the non-bourbon actually is. I've also explained that labeling is one thing, telling the actual truth is something else. If they are really committed to transparency then they won't hide behind the flawed TTB process. They'll just tell the simple truth.

The email exchange had been between myself, Andrew Weber (Corsair) and Ryan Burchett (Mississippi River), but I included Bill Welter (Journeyman) and Paul Hletko (Few) in my reply. I think this is important as these are genuinely four of the 'good guys.' If they go the bullshit route, it sets a terrible precedent for the whole industry.

[MyOldKyDram]

Well at least they're doing it the right way.

[BAO]

http://whiskyadvocate.com/whisky/2014/04/23/four-kings-collaboration-whiskey/

[BAO]

I will say, though, that you are off on expecting a bourbon to be the final recipe pre-barrel. I expect you've had a healthy number of bourbons cross your lips that were high-corn bourbons mixed post-decant with new-oak aged rye or new-oak aged wheat whiskey. It's not uncommon.

I thought this quote from Andrew is especially interesting, given the content of the discussion here and the WA article above.

Which bourbons have I been drinking that have been post decant mixed with new rye and new wheat whiskies? The answer better be none, if the distiller in question is labeling*it as*bourbon and expects me to spend any money on their products in the future.

[MyOldKyDram]

Very sad that it's being released tomorrow, seemingly with the bourbon name intact. Screenshots please, from any of our Chicagoans who don't happen to be on their way to the KBS.

[callmeox]

My email to the TTB went unanswered, so it's not due to a lack of effort to make them aware of the error.

I do find it interesting that the only time WA refers to it as bourbon is when they quote the name on the label. Seems they are careful to call it whiskey throughout the article, including the title of the piece.

[MyOldKyDram]

My email did not go unanswered. I had several exchanges w the TTB and they were apparently looking into it. They would not discuss much of anything regarding what exactly that meant, or what kind of action they may or may not take, however.

[Ravensfire]

My email did not go unanswered. I had several exchanges w the TTB and they were apparently looking into it. They would not discuss much of anything regarding what exactly that meant, or what kind of action they may or may not take, however.

You got more than I did when I e-mailed them about the root beer flavored, 70 proof bottled in bond whiskey label. I got one reply "we're looking" then nothing back from them, despite a couple of pokes. Really annoying.

Label approval should be a pretty simple process for them. Get the label submission from the company. Based on the product type, pull up the appropriate check list. Check for basic legal requirements. Check for certain key words/phrases (BIB, etc). If you find them, pull up the checklist for each phrase and verify that requirements for that phrase are met. If you can't determine that, request information from company. If you get the company to send a text version of the labels plus the other required information in the submission process you could just about automate it.

*sigh* So ... depressing. I'm a software developer so my inclination is to automate where possible. It's extremely frustrating to see something like this where some aspects are computerized (their website is surprisingly well done) and other parts appear to sadly lacking. This is a perfect case for a rules engine for most of the checking then bring in a TTB employee to verify the information on the submission is accurate and validate everything else.

[squire]

It certainly doesn't seem to be a difficult job to get right. Perhaps we should get the Kentucky congressional delegation involved. Those Senators and Congressmen represents constituents who have an interest in protecting the definitions of Bourbon, Bottled in Bond, etc.

[cowdery]

TTB won't get back to you to tell you what happened. That's their policy. They investigate, make their determination, and work with the label owner if a correction needs to be made. They don't disclose the results publicly.

Based on a couple of continued vague and evasive emails with a couple of the kings, and the lack of a simple straight answer to the question "is there anything other than bourbon in that bottle," I am now on the side of considering this product mislabeled, based on the information we can pry out of the producers. I still think these are 'good guys,' but I'm afraid they're about to go to school.

[MyOldKyDram]

They've either outright lied, deceived, or obfuscated the truth to you, us, and or the TTB. Please tell me how that makes them good guys again. Not sure why you're bending over backwards to defend them here. What they've gotten away with is flat out wrong. And there's absolutely no way it was unintentional on their part.

[Paddy]

TTB won't get back to you to tell you what happened. That's their policy. They investigate, make their determination, and work with the label owner if a correction needs to be made. They don't disclose the results publicly.

Based on a couple of continued vague and evasive emails with a couple of the kings, and the lack of a simple straight answer to the question "is there anything other than bourbon in that bottle," I am now on the side of considering this product mislabeled, based on the information we can pry out of the producers. I still think these are 'good guys,' but I'm afraid they're about to go to school.

Chuck, I'm looking at this quote and strongly agree with Sean. I acknowledge you have gone to great lengths to cultivate relationships and such, but the lack of a simple straight answer alone is enough for me!

Good guys shoot straight and don't smell like :horseshit:...

[cowdery]

Their intentions are good, they didn't set out to deceive anyone, and in fact set out to do something very cool, but they screwed up and now they're compounding it through obfuscation. I expect to see some or all of them in person tomorrow. There may be more to report, there may not. Where we differ is that I don't think one mislabeled bottle is a hanging offense, that's all.

[squire]

It's a lose a customer offense though, for this and their other products.

[MyOldKyDram]

I absolutely think they intended to confuse people or else they would've simply cleared up the matter by now

[cowdery]

I don't think they started out trying to confuse, but now that they're busted they're spewing gobbledegook worthy of Diageo. The difference between us is very small on this one. I agree they've screwed up and are making it worse by burying their heads in the sand.