Transition from sourced distillate?

[tanstaafl2]

I appreciate the presence from Smooth Ambler on the board and have really enjoyed the Old Scout line bottles I have, have tried the new Yearling and look forward to having more of their whiskey as it continues to mature. Also good to know that the Old Scout will continue in the foreseeable future.

I know they have also been very transparent on this board in what they are doing which I also appreciate. I do wish Smooth Ambler could help lead the movement of meeting TTB regs by listing the state of distillation more consistently on some of their bottle labels.

I also noted with amusement that they barrel I had the chance to help pick for my local store had the original barrel details that had been stenciled on the head carefully sanded off and new bright red stencils of the Smooth Ambler logo painted on the barrels with no other details to speak of. I can understand wanting to add your own logo on the barrel but is obliterating the barrel details from the head really necessary? Most people wouldn't know what any of that means anyway but for the enthusiast that would be nice to see.

Seemed like a bit of overkill...

[SmoothAmbler]

The stencil on the barrel, and the option to remove the Segrams tag (that's what it says) from the barrel head, is nothing more than an advertising issue. We want those barrels to have our name on them anywhere they go, because it helps spread our name. The barrel tag says nothing other than "Bourbon" or "Rye", the date of production and the date of barreling. We also write the barrel date on the barrel head, so you aren't really losing any information. Of course, if someone wants the tag to stay on there, we are happy to leave it.

Not sure I made that clear. There is no stencil on the Seagrams/LDI/MGPI barrels. They just have a 5x5 tag that has a barcode along with the information I mentioned above. We didn't sand anything down, just yanked the tag off and put on our stencil. Not sure that really matters, I understand your point, but I wanted you to know.

Edited July 3, 2014 by SmoothAmbler

[tanstaafl2]

The stencil on the barrel, and the option to remove the Segrams tag (that's what it says) from the barrel head, is nothing more than an advertising issue. We want those barrels to have our name on them anywhere they go, because it helps spread our name. The barrel tag says nothing other than "Bourbon" or "Rye", the date of production and the date of barreling. We also write the barrel date on the barrel head, so you aren't really losing any information. Of course, if someone wants the tag to stay on there, we are happy to leave it.

[SmoothAmbler]

Well, we certainly aren't trying to cover it up or make anyone think it's our juice. I suppose pulling off the tag gives that impression, but I promise it's not our intent. It just makes the stencil look better. I also suppose we could turn it over, but I'm sure the guys that do it just haven't thought about it.

Regarding the markings...the barrel number that we assign, along with the barrel date, should be marked on the barrel end. We just use a Sharpie.

[HighInTheMtns]

Least deceptive NDP ever.

[chrisg]

Looks like New Riff has a bourbon and rye they will be selling. They were upfront that it was sourced from MGP. I believe the bourbon is 8 years old. Not sure about the rye

http://newriffdistilling.com/oki/

Edited July 4, 2014 by chrisg

[cowdery]

Most of the examples given in this thread involve moving distilleries but owning the distilling process on both sides. I do believe that some craft distillers using NDP whiskey today plan on transitioning to their own aged distillate using the same/similar product label.

Isn't this the case with Breckenridge? Their label is surprisingly void of details and simply says "bourbon whiskey" and includes the statement "Aged for a minimum of 2 years in charred new American oak barrels", yet it's fairly obvious by the profile that it's a longer aged NDP product that could be labeled "straight" and not need an age statement (=> 4 years). If one day, or over time, they blend/replace their own distillate into a bottle with the exact same label on the front (the fine print on the back may need to change, but who looks at that?), they aren't breaking any laws. It's very deceiving if they actually did that, especially with all the marketing they to do promote their awards, but it's entirely plausible.

The problem with this analysis is that it is all speculation. Breckenridge certainly has made no statements to this effect because they don't admit they're bottling whiskey they didn't make and whether or not they actually make anything is unknown. AND they are in violation of several labeling rules, though I don't know if that qualifies as "breaking any laws" in your mind.

[DBM]

The problem with this analysis is that it is all speculation. Breckenridge certainly has made no statements to this effect because they don't admit they're bottling whiskey they didn't make and whether or not they actually make anything is unknown. AND they are in violation of several labeling rules, though I don't know if that qualifies as "breaking any laws" in your mind.

Fair point, but aren't you simply saying that lack of official statement from Breckenridge means that it shouldn't be speculated?

sku more or less states what I implied that Breckenridge started as NDP bourbon and will be transitioned to their own make over time. Of course they can apply for a different label for this new product (of which they do have three or four bourbon labels approved - one with "For Sale in Colorado Only", a "winter release" and a single barrel), but their claim-to-fame-award-winning bourbon bottle is what folks are saying is being expressly described and advertised as Colorado distilled bourbon.

Breckenridge's own site states the same grain composition and mashbill percentage as sku's post describing the Kentucky-sourced whiskey, though Breckenridge claims 2 to 3 years of aging in the bottle. At the very least that's strange.

There is also a lot of odd data regarding Breckenridge as a distiller. They use DSP-CO-15017 on all their COLA applications for Breckenridge products (bourbon, vodka), but the application itself claims they are Double Diamond Distillery LLC dba Breckenridge Distillery, except that Double Diamond Distillery LLC is DSP-CO-15015 according to the TTB. DSP-CO-15017 is actually Dancing Pines Distillery LLC out of Loveland in a different county. Seems like there's a switch-a-roo in there somewhere, but I'm not experienced enough with TTB data to know if this confusing paper trail is normal or if it's intentionally trying to obfuscate something.

I like my odds that Breckenridge is (sneakily) trying to move from sourced juice to their own without updating their marketing and sales strategy that this is a different product than what won all their "awards". And yes it's all speculation. If it's on the Internet, it must be true!

[cowdery]

You can speculate all you want, and so can Steve, but the evidence is thin and mainly based on other speculation (if this, then that). Also, many people interpret 'produced by' which Breck claims, as meaning 'distilled by,' which they don't claim. They aren't the same thing. Legally, 'produced by' just means they did something, like put it in a bottle. Unless the label explicitly says 'distilled by' you can be 99% positive they didn't distill it.

My point about speculation is that since they haven't admitted they don't make it now, they're not likely to make any statements about transitioning. People are assuming they're transitioning when there is no reason to believe they are making anything to transition to. Some people speculate that they are mixing house-made whiskey with Kentucky-made whiskey, but again there is no real evidence they are doing anything of the kind.

[bad_scientist]

Chuck, those are very good points and there is nothing I can add to them. I do have one question: have you tasted the more recent stuff they put in their bottles? I thought it wasn't worth a purchase, but it did taste really different from any distillery profile I'm used to.

[cowdery]

They have it at Binny's but I haven't had a chance to taste it. Maybe at our next Binny's get-together or at the gazebo. I'll taste it if I have the opportunity. As usual, I'm not too terribly interested in anybody who plays these kinds of games.

[bigmzungu]

Has anyone tried this? As far as I know it is only available at the distillery and I was told they will not continue it after their own has aged. It's priced at $45 and I was gun shy about buying blind. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Looks like New Riff has a bourbon and rye they will be selling. They were upfront that it was sourced from MGP. I believe the bourbon is 8 years old. Not sure about the rye

http://newriffdistilling.com/oki/

[tanstaafl2]

Has anyone tried this? As far as I know it is only available at the distillery and I was told they will not continue it after their own has aged. It's priced at $45 and I was gun shy about buying blind. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[jburlowski]

Has anyone tried this? As far as I know it is only available at the distillery and I was told they will not continue it after their own has aged. It's priced at $45 and I was gun shy about buying blind. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

It's also available at TPS.

I've tried it. It is a fairly standard MGP bourbon. I've had numerous iterations of MGP bourbons at various ages and proofs. My impression has always been the same: good (sometimes very good) but not great. YMMV.

New Riff has bought 300 barrels of (currently) eight and nine year old bourbon from MGP. They plan on some single-barrel and barrel-proof expressions in the future.

[bigmzungu]

I had a chance to try it now too. I liked it. Not spectacular, but quite good.

[cowdery]

"New Riff has bought 300 barrels of (currently) eight and nine year old bourbon from MGP."

Hmmm. Not long ago, I got it direct from the folks at MGP that they didn't have anything older than two years available. The only way the above can be true is (a) they actually bought these barrels a few years ago, or ( someone released some or all of a large batch of MGP whiskey for some reason, e.g., Diageo may have had more than it needed. These are the sorts of things even the more transparent NDPs are often not very transparent about.

[tanstaafl2]

"New Riff has bought 300 barrels of (currently) eight and nine year old bourbon from MGP."

Hmmm. Not long ago, I got it direct from the folks at MGP that they didn't have anything older than two years available. The only way the above can be true is (a) they actually bought these barrels a few years ago, or ( someone released some or all of a large batch of MGP whiskey for some reason, e.g., Diageo may have had more than it needed. These are the sorts of things even the more transparent NDPs are often not very transparent about.

Unless the distillery folks talk no way to know for sure but presumably this group, presumably having had a sense what was happening at MGP as a result of running TPS, bought barrels back when the distillery was still in the planning stage just for this reason. It would make sense but doesn't mean it happened that way of course.

[jburlowski]

"New Riff has bought 300 barrels of (currently) eight and nine year old bourbon from MGP."

Hmmm. Not long ago, I got it direct from the folks at MGP that they didn't have anything older than two years available. The only way the above can be true is (a) they actually bought these barrels a few years ago, or ( someone released some or all of a large batch of MGP whiskey for some reason, e.g., Diageo may have had more than it needed. These are the sorts of things even the more transparent NDPs are often not very transparent about.

My understanding is "a".... I don't know the specifics of how this was done.