whiskies that fail to list State of Distillation?

[wadewood]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LmOwA29TLM6A7qjljNPvujtVC6R90GgQBKGBXzCulc0/edit?usp=sharing

updated list that anybody with this link can add to if they wish.

[tanstaafl2]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LmOwA29TLM6A7qjljNPvujtVC6R90GgQBKGBXzCulc0/edit?usp=sharing

updated list that anybody with this link can add to if they wish.

Not sure how to find the TTB labels but pretty sure that in addition to the Jefferson Reserve the newer Jefferson Ocean and the Jefferson 10yo rye don't give any indication of state of distillation. The Jeff Rye used to say Canada but hasn't said that in a long time.

[Josh]

I think you are thinking of Grand Traverse Distillery, Wade. Different company entirely.

Traverse City Whiskey Co. has confirmed to me that they use sourced bourbon from "the Midwest" and we all know what that means. The last bottle I saw had no mention of the state of distillation.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Josh

[wadewood]

Not sure how to find the TTB labels but pretty sure that in addition to the Jefferson Reserve the newer Jefferson Ocean and the Jefferson 10yo rye don't give any indication of state of distillation. The Jeff Rye used to say Canada but hasn't said that in a long time.

The newer Jefferson Ocean says bottled in Louisville, KY. I suspect that it is MGPi form IN, but I have no real knowledge of that. If in fact it is made with sourced whiskey distilled in KY, then they are not violating 5.36 (d).

This law works well with fakers from other states, but if bottle has KY bottle/produce/etc on label, then hard to say they are violating the law.

Edited July 23, 2014 by wadewood

[wadewood]

I think you are thinking of Grand Traverse Distillery, Wade. Different company entirely.

Traverse City Whiskey Co. has confirmed to me that they use sourced bourbon from "the Midwest" and we all know what that means. The last bottle I saw had no mention of the state of distillation.

I did indeed get these mixed up. My list is mostly fakers in Texas because I know what is going on in my state. Hence I posted my spreadsheet so anybody can add fakers from their state.

[cowdery]

In addition to DISCUS, the President's Forum (another industry organization) has gotten interested in this. Certainly the big companies, who are pretty scrupulous about compliance since they have so much at stake, like the idea of a grassroots movement urging TTB to enforce this simple rule, which mostly falls on upstarts and fly-by-nights.

[wadewood]

One brand that I have not included in my list that I was aware was in violation was Smooth Ambler out of West Virginia. I did not include because they and their website has always been upfront that the Smooth Ambler Old Scout brand was sourced whiskey (and they are putting out some great bourbon in that line).

I contacted them today and asked about 5.36(d) compliance. They were unaware of this requirement when they originally obtained COLA approvals. They are now aware have resubmitted COLA labels to be in compliance. It will take the TTB a while to approve and Smooth Ambler will be allowed to use up old labels, but kudos to them for complying and being about the most honest whiskey company ever.

[Phil T]

One brand that I have not included in my list that I was aware was in violation was Smooth Ambler out of West Virginia. I did not include because they and their website has always been upfront that the Smooth Ambler Old Scout brand was sourced whiskey (and they are putting out some great bourbon in that line).

I contacted them today and asked about 5.36(d) compliance. They were unaware of this requirement when they originally obtained COLA approvals. They are now aware have resubmitted COLA labels to be in compliance. It will take the TTB a while to approve and Smooth Ambler will be allowed to use up old labels, but kudos to them for complying and being about the most honest whiskey company ever.

It is my understanding from reading tons of posts about them here, that for the vast majority of their labels, have been in compliance, just a few have not??

[wadewood]

It is my understanding from reading tons of posts about them here, that for the vast majority of their labels, have been in compliance, just a few have not??

Smooth Ambler is an active grain to glass distiller making many types of spirits including bourbon. Their Old Scout line is the name of the products that they source. They have sold both ryes and bourbons of various ages under the Old Scout name. These had statement of bottled in West Virginia, but failed to list actual state of distillation. That will be corrected.

[squire]

That's stand up performance.

[sku]

One brand that I have not included in my list that I was aware was in violation was Smooth Ambler out of West Virginia. I did not include because they and their website has always been upfront that the Smooth Ambler Old Scout brand was sourced whiskey (and they are putting out some great bourbon in that line).

I contacted them today and asked about 5.36(d) compliance. They were unaware of this requirement when they originally obtained COLA approvals. They are now aware have resubmitted COLA labels to be in compliance. It will take the TTB a while to approve and Smooth Ambler will be allowed to use up old labels, but kudos to them for complying and being about the most honest whiskey company ever.

That's great to hear. They are indeed, a stand-up outfit.

[tanstaafl2]

Smooth Ambler is an active grain to glass distiller making many types of spirits including bourbon. Their Old Scout line is the name of the products that they source. They have sold both ryes and bourbons of various ages under the Old Scout name. These had statement of bottled in West Virginia, but failed to list actual state of distillation. That will be corrected.

Some of their bottles would have Indiana hand written on the bottle. But it was always a bit hit or miss. Glad to hear they are getting it corrected.

Not a slam at SA but it does amaze me that people can start a business in this field where everyone knows it is heavily regulated (at least on paper, enforcement is another issue all together) and not be aware of the regulations. Considering the cost of start up the risk would seem to be enormous if one got penalized in some way.

Kind of same for what practices distilleries use (trying to cover up sources, using words that are known to have a less than a positive connotation on labels or advertising to try to claim something that isn't true, which will inevitably be found out). Start up can't all be the guy with the money who knows next to nothing about the industry or even whiskey in general. Doesn't there have to be at one or two whiskey nerds involved somewhere??? Then again, I suppose the know nothing money guys get the last say since they indeed have the money.

I guess you need a whiskey nerd who also has money! Which is hard to come by I suppose since if you are a whiskey nerd and you have money you are likely going to spend it all buying more whiskey...

[squire]

That or he spent it on an addition to his house for a bigger bunker.

[SmoothAmbler]

Some of their bottles would have Indiana hand written on the bottle. But it was always a bit hit or miss. Glad to hear they are getting it corrected.

Not a slam at SA but it does amaze me that people can start a business in this field where everyone knows it is heavily regulated (at least on paper, enforcement is another issue all together) and not be aware of the regulations. Considering the cost of start up the risk would seem to be enormous if one got penalized in some way.

All I can tell you is that the enormity of the regulations are overwhelming, even for experienced industry folks. Our federal permit was 149 pages. We (I) self-filed, meaning we didn't hire an attorney to help us with that process. It's very hard to know every single detail of production, storage, processing, TIB's, COLAs, etc., even after reading the regs many, many times. Heck, I've gotten different answers on several regulations from the TTB itself. Even some experienced folks I spoke with missed this regulation.

It's not a good-enough excuse...we should have gotten it right the first time. But, I can promise you this. Our mistakes are that...mistakes. We have made, and will continue to make, every effort to correct them. There is no ill intent in what we do.

[Harry in WashDC]

Dear SA:

I knew that. Thanks for avoiding fluff in advertising. Some of us appreciate it enough that we go out of our way to let others know what we like. Now, if you could just get the wholesalers in WashDC to find me some SAOS barrel proof stuff . . . :grin:

FWIW on the serious side, the more recent bottles of SAOS do, indeed, have ink info added on age and place. THAT, I can confirm.

[squire]

Tell you a secret John, if you had turned that job over to your attorney he would've had to read all 149 pages with no guarantee he would've understood it any better than the regulators who gave you conflicting answers.

[mbroo5880i]

Tell you a secret John, if you had turned that job over to your attorney he would've had to read all 149 pages with no guarantee he would've understood it any better than the regulators who gave you conflicting answers.

I suspect John could find a few helpful attorney friends on SB.com who might be willing to "work for whiskey."

[squire]

Oh sure but then he would just get a bunch more different answers.

[mbroo5880i]

I think it awesome that John and his folks continue to build their business the right way. I work in a very heavy regulated industry (steel manufacturing) and we occasionally make a mistake but never on purpose and try to correct it quickly. In the end, our focus is on the customer and doing things the right way. The folks at Smooth Ambler appear to have the same focus. My kind of people.

[TunnelTiger]

Love some SA but there is nothing better than a good (great) attorney when you need one. amen

[SmoothAmbler]

Love some SA but there is nothing better than a good (great) attorney when you need one. amen

Yeah. They are a lot like spouses/girlfriends. A good one is a great thing indeed. A bad one....oh man.

And thanks for the kind words folks!

[cowdery]

Dear Mr. Cowdery:

Thank you for writing to share your concern about the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau's (TTB) enforcement of 27 CFR 5.36(d). I appreciate hearing from you.

Consumers have a right to know where the alcohol – and other products – they purchase is made. Requiring companies to show the state of distillation on the bottle makes good sense. I have reached out to TTB to share your concerns about non-enforcement of 27 CFR 5.36(d) and to ask the Bureau to increase its efforts to crack down against bad actors. I will continue to follow the Bureau's actions on this issue closely, keeping your concerns in mind.

Again, thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance to you in the future.

Sincerely,

Jan Schakowsky

Member of Congress

[TunnelTiger]

Well at least it's a step. We can only hope that it grows.

[wadewood]

Since the TTB seems to be dragging their feet, I decided to see what the State of Texas will do about it. I just picked two examples to start. I've contacted TABC a few times before with a question and always received prompt informative answers. I sent this yesterday:

In the TABC Administrative rules Ch. 45 Marketing practices, 45.5 Labels - Prohibited practices:

(1) any statement that is false or untrue...that tends to create a misleading impression.

(7) no label shall contain a brand name..that creates any impression of or inference as to the age, origin, identity...that conveys erroneous impressions.

I think there are some brands that mislead consumers and violate both of these. A few examples include:

Texas label certificate 879046, 1835 Bourbon Whiskey. This product is labeled on front Texas 1835 Bourbon Whiskey; it also says Texas Made. The back label is a Texas history lesson.

Texas label certificate 839489, Witherspoon's Texas Straight Bourbon Whiskey. This product label says it's Texas Straight Bourbon Whiskey.

Both of these products in their current versions are sourced whiskeys that were fermented and distilled out of State. I think any ordinary consumer buying these products would think they were made only in Texas because they give this misleading impression.

In addition, they violate federal code, CFR 27, section 5.36 (d), which states for certain types of whiskies, the actual State of Distillation must be listed on the label. This is not listed on the label. I would like to file an official complaint about these 2 products.

If anybody wants to read the Texas rules I'm referencing - https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/code_and_rules.asp

Note about Witherspoon's - They are an actual distillery, but this product is labeled Straight Bourbon with NAS, so it has to be 4 years old. They opened in 2011 and started selling this product in 2013, so either it's sourced whiskey or it is lacking the required under 4 year age statement.

[JeffM]

One of the listed distillers called me today about this. He says he's unaware of this rule. For the benefit of he and any other offenders, it is Section 5.36(d). (Emphasis mine.)

(d) State of distillation. Except in the case of 'light whisky,' 'blended light whisky,' 'blended whisky,' 'a blend of straight whiskies,' or 'spirit whisky,' the State of distillation shall be shown on the label of any whisky produced in the United States if the whisky is not distilled in the State given in the address on the brand label. The appropriate ATF officer may, however, require the State of distillation to be shown on the label or he may permit such other labeling as may be necessary to negate any misleading or deceptive impression which might be created as to the actual State of distillation. In the case of 'light whisky,' as defined in Sec. 5.22((3), the State of distillation shall not appear in any manner on any label, when the appropriate ATF officer finds such State is associated by consumers with an American type whisky, except as a part of a name and address as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

I'm new to Straight Bourbon and late to this conversation, but I have a question that is relevant, I think. Mr. Cowdery had a blog post about one of our Montana distilleries, Headframe Spirits, and their Neversweat Bourbon a couple of days ago. I commented on his post and said that I had bought a botlle of this bourbon over a year ago and contacted the company about their claim on the label that the bourbon was distilled by them, to which they never responded. I guess they have since changed the label to say "blended and bottled by..." (I haven't bought another bottle since that first one). Based on the above reg, are they now in compliance with the labeling requirements since this is apparently "a blend of straight whiskies"? To me, regardless of the fact that the label says "blended and bottled by...", they are still being deceptive by not saying where it was distilled, unless all of it was distilled in Montana. This is pretty much impossible since as far as I know, the oldest distillery in Montana (Roughstock) can just now barely make the claim to have NAS straight bourbon, and they don't produce enough to share. So, should Headframe Spirits' Neversweat be added to this list of whiskies that fail to list the State of distillation?