Black Maple Hill Oregon Straight Bourbon / Oregon Straight Rye

[squire]

I suppose if the back label says "produced in Indiana" we'll have our answer, but I fail to see the motive for labeling these whiskeys "Oregon" if they came from anywhere else.

[Kwats7]

Profit . . . . . . . . . . . .

[squire]

I don't think there's anything like deceit going on, rather an attempt to promote a brand using origin as one of the selling points. The Seattle-Portland areas alone are large markets for craft beers so why not a whisky. Toss in NorCal and at $90 a pop the brand could turn a tremendous profit without ever being sold East of the Sierras.

[TunnelTiger]

T think Squire nailed it. The PNW has shown they love to support products produced in that area.

[kjbeggs]

$90 for 5yr old juice?? I think they're missing a 1 in front of it.

[squire]

Many years ago I represented a craft distiller but that was over estate matters as he was 84 years and had long since retired from moonshing.

[wadewood]

Im fairly certain it would have to be produced in Oregon based on the TTB ruling below. I suppose if the back label says "produced in Indiana" we'll have our answer, but I fail to see the motive for labeling these whiskeys "Oregon" if they came from anywhere else. It's not like CVI is claiming Kentucky SBW.

http://www.ttb.gov/rulings/54-416.htm

That's a very interesting find. My favorite part of this ruling:

Section 35(e) of Regulations No. 5 provides that labels of whisky and straight whisky shall disclose the State of distillation of such whisky, if such whisky is not distilled in the State given in the address on the label. This section further provides that the brand label shall show the State of distillation in all cases where the Assistant Regional Commissioner finds that without such statement the label is misleading as to the State of actual distillation.

Now to get the TTB to enforce our laws.

[flahute]

I don't think there's anything like deceit going on, rather an attempt to promote a brand using origin as one of the selling points. The Seattle-Portland areas alone are large markets for craft beers so why not a whisky. Toss in NorCal and at $90 a pop the brand could turn a tremendous profit without ever being sold East of the Sierras.

^^^^^This.

This region goes gaga over anything "local", or "craft" and they are willing to pay for it. Woodinville Whiskey is literally 5 miles down the road from my house and has quite a following in this region. People buy a lot of the stuff because it's local and craft. It's a 2 year old micro barrel product being sold at the $45 price point and it's just not that good.

BMH sees this and knows with their past reputation and Oregon on the label that they will have a cult hit in Portland and that Seattle will want in on it too.

[wadewood]

Now to get the TTB to enforce our laws.

Just sent an email to Jeffrey A. Salisbury, Specialist

Advertising, Labeling and Formulation Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

I'm concerned that many companies are violating TTB rules by misleading consumers as to the the State where whiskies are distilled.

http://www.ttb.gov/rulings/54-416.htm

The above ruling clearly indicates that if address on label is different than State of distillation, then actual State of distillation shall be disclosed.

"Section 35(e) of Regulations No. 5 provides that labels of whisky and straight whisky shall disclose the State of distillation of such whisky, if such whisky is not distilled in the State given in the address on the label. This section further provides that the brand label shall show the State of distillation in all cases where the Assistant Regional Commissioner finds that without such statement the label is misleading as to the State of actual distillation."

I could list over 20 whiskies that do not follow this rule. Is this ruling still valid? If not, would you provide a me a copy of the ruling that replaced it? If so, why is it not being enforced?

[dementedavenger]

^^^^^This.

This region goes gaga over anything "local", or "craft" and they are willing to pay for it. Woodinville Whiskey is literally 5 miles down the road from my house and has quite a following in this region. People buy a lot of the stuff because it's local and craft. It's a 2 year old micro barrel product being sold at the $45 price point and it's just not that good.

BMH sees this and knows with their past reputation and Oregon on the label that they will have a cult hit in Portland and that Seattle will want in on it too.

I agree, but this doesn't explain why it's showing up in North Carolina first: http://abc.nc.gov/pricing/view_item.aspx?filing=77290

[flahute]

Perhaps an experiment to see if their reputation alone can sell Oregon whiskey at a high price outside the northwest. Or, just counting on the craft movement to sell it anywhere.

[MyOldKyDram]

Maybe they just have no fecking plan.

[squire]

Maybe the truck was headed to North Carolina anyway.

[gusto16]

Unless it somehow gets rave reviews, I'll pass on this one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TunnelTiger]

North Carolina thinks they are the Oregon of the east so it makes sense.

No disrespect intended.

[BootsOnTheGround]

"Oregon Straight" claimed on the front.

Produced for BMH, not made by BMH. But we already knew that.

By Stein Distillery, Joseph, OR. But was it distilled by a placed called Stein Distillery in said location?

State of distillation not claimed anywhere unless "Oregon Straight" counts which I believe it doesn't.

No age statement, obviously.

There is also no "distilled by_______ [distillery]" anywhere. As far as I know, you cannot interchange "produced" and "distilled" but maybe that's what all the stink about with the TTB is lately as they're not cracking down?

I don't know, you guys go to town!

Edited July 11, 2014 by BootsOnTheGround

[amg]

The rules for "Oregon Straight" would come down to Oregon state law; not sure what they require w/r/t labeling of "Oregon" products, but other posts earlier in this thread indicate that it ought to have been distilled and aged in Oregon in order to have that labeling. Of course, violations happen a lot as you know.

Looks like Stein Distillery's own bourbon is bottled at 2 years, and they started distilling in late 2009, so they can't possibly be bottling any of their own distillate older than 4.5 years. Here's an old thread about Stein:

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?17703-Two-(semi)-new-bourbons-both-distilled-in-Oregon

So, I guess if it tastes like it was aged for 2-4 years in small barrels, it's probably really distilled by them.

[tanstaafl2]

There is a Stein distillery which has been making bourbon since about 2009/2010.

Some discussion of it in this thread.

So at most 4-5 years old and more like 2 years old wouldn't surprise me.

Probably the same bottle as Stein with a BMH label slapped on it.

Edited July 11, 2014 by tanstaafl2

[BootsOnTheGround]

Probably the same bottle as Stein with a BMH label slapped on it.

For sure, look at the bottles on their site.

And you're not exaggerating about slapped, either. It's peeling up on the edges and crooked. Looks like a 3rd grader put it on after printing it on a bubble jet in art class. It's too big for the bottle. The back one is ok, however.

[squire]

Black Maple Hill is a privately owned brand that has always been sourced so they can change sources anytime they want. I like that they're using select White Oak casks for aging though, would hate to think they were using the junky ones.

[bad_scientist]

BMW is like the Cynk of the bourbon world.

http://mashable.com/2014/07/10/cynk/

[alemmo]

This makes Diego's Orphan's look like bargains...

[smknjoe]

This makes Garrison Bros. look like a bargain.

...seriously though, how does it taste? Like a 4yr. bourbon from a reputable distillery or "other"?

[cowdery]

The only address on the label is "Joseph, Oregon" and assuming the whiskey was distilled in Oregon, that complies with the state of distillation requirement. I don't see any reason to doubt Stein Distillery is the maker. "Distilled by" is always nice, but it's hardly necessary in this case and certainly is not required.

I'm much more doubtful that the age statement requirement is complied with, since most micro-distillery straights are barely two years old and certainly not four.

The idea that a micro in Oregon would buy Indiana whiskey and then sell it to CVI as Oregon whiskey has a certain deliciousness, but I don't think we've quite come to that yet.

Edited July 12, 2014 by cowdery

[cowdery]

Just sent an email to Jeffrey A. Salisbury, Specialist

Advertising, Labeling and Formulation Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

I'm concerned that many companies are violating TTB rules by misleading consumers as to the the State where whiskies are distilled.

http://www.ttb.gov/rulings/54-416.htm

The above ruling clearly indicates that if address on label is different than State of distillation, then actual State of distillation shall be disclosed.

"Section 35(e) of Regulations No. 5 provides that labels of whisky and straight whisky shall disclose the State of distillation of such whisky, if such whisky is not distilled in the State given in the address on the label. This section further provides that the brand label shall show the State of distillation in all cases where the Assistant Regional Commissioner finds that without such statement the label is misleading as to the State of actual distillation."

I could list over 20 whiskies that do not follow this rule. Is this ruling still valid? If not, would you provide a me a copy of the ruling that replaced it? If so, why is it not being enforced?

Something in the TTB's numbering system seems to have changed since this ruling was issued a long time ago (when they were still making bourbon in Illinois) because the 'state of distillation' section is now 5.36(d).