Jump to content

whiskies that fail to list State of Distillation?


wadewood
This topic has been inactive for at least 365 days, and is now closed. Please feel free to start a new thread on the subject! 

Recommended Posts

Oh, I took that to mean they wanted a list so they could go after the makers of the improperly labeled bourbons. My mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Traverse City Whiskey Company is also in violation of the state of distillilation rule.

Edited by Josh
Nobody cares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Jefferson's Reserve - 14051001000011

A recently spotted bottle of this has a vertical label on the side which says "Distilled in Indiana. Bottled for McLain & Kyne, Louisville, Kentucky."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to violating section 5.36 (d) that Chuck posted, I think these also violate section 5.34 (a):

§5.34 Brand names.

(a) Misleading brand names. No label shall contain any brand name, which, standing alone, or in association with other printed or graphic matter, creates any impression or inference as to the age, origin, identity, or other characteristics of the product unless the appropriate TTB officer finds that such brand name (when appropriately qualified if required) conveys no erroneous impressions as to the age, origin, identity, or other characteristics of the product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about that interpretation of the stuff about the ATF officer, Harry, but if you read it carefully, it doesn't give the officer unlimited discretion. It only lets him or her make a tighter restriction in cases where the otherwise okay labeling might be misleading . . .[snipped the rest]
Edited by Harry in WashDC
to clarify a quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's plain old deception for the purpose of monetary gain. If there is any question the regulators should err on the side of the consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's plain old deception for the purpose of monetary gain. If there is any question the regulators should err on the side of the consumer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think so.

I concur. I always assumed that the reason other "fake age" brands use language like "No. 10 Brand" or "Old No. 7 Brand" or "Superior No. 12 brand" (EW1783, JD, and GD respectively) was specifically to comply with this section, in letter if not in spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly not in spirit. Producers claim to be moving away from 'Old' labels but they sure use old as a fall back in their advertizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laughed out loud when I saw Wade's tweet at the end of that string ... kind of put an abrupt end to that discussion. Still laughing ... Well done! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

http://fredminnick.com/private-citizens-pursue-deceitful-whiskey-brands-federal-government/

Fred Minnick's latest blog has Wade's comments on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I added a comment (my first ever) to the effect everyone dislikes being deceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it is not the same thing but how can a consumer (or the government) verify that Bulleit is in compliance if the label indicates that it was distilled by a fictitious distillery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they should do away with all the fictitious distilleries on all labels and list the true distillery, location and DSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading a blog yesterday (forgive me for not remembering whose) one thing that now stands out to me is why haven't any of the major distillers like JD, Diageo, BT, Beam, etc filed a fromal complaint with the government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.