When is "bourbon" not bourbon? Ask Jim Murray...

[Capn Jimbo]

This subject has garnered a nice thread over at The Rum Project, but frankly a discussion about bourbon is better discussed at this fine site. Here goes...

I recently received my copy of Jim Murray's Bible. Although his scoring is of course his own, his knowledge of whiskey is respected. In his "Bible Thumping" article/rant he takes aim on disturbing trends in both single malts and yes, bourbon. He's speaking of the trend of "finishing", especially but not limited to the use of ex-sherry barrels.

According to Murray this began with single malts, under the control of the SWA. Murray points out the problem of these sulfur-treated barrels (to kill fungus, etc.) as this treatment may leave enough residuals to negatively affect the product. In truth such finishing was marketing driven, in any attempt to distinguish the product as "new, different, better and more interesting".

Now insofar as "bourbon", we Americans en masse would defend the position of Bourbon as the purest spirit in the world - absolutely no additives, no coloring whatever and the uniform use of new, charred barrels. Oops! Not to Murray. He identifies the dilemma the KDA (Kentucky Distillers Assoc.) is now facing.

No one will disagree that bourbon and now rye have achieved their current respect and growing popularity from a long history of the commitment to purity. But the marketing boyz once again have no issue with tossing tradition - and regulation aside. Quoting Murray:

"What is happening now? Cask finishes. With the word "bourbon" somewhere being used on the label. That of course leads to confusion at the very time when the world is just beginning to understand... So the moment the spirit is transferred from virgin oak, which makes it bourbon, into used casks, it has clearly crossed the border... In these cases the word bourbon should not appear anywhere on the label unless clearly titled 'whisky distilled from bourbon mash... It just ain't bourbon."

Accordingly Murray has two separate categories in this year's Bible: one for "Bourbon Whiskey" and another for "Whiskey made from bourbon mash". For example he does not list Angel's Envy "rum finished" product as a bourbon, but rather in the latter category. He is dead serious about this.

Murray begs the KDA to be clear and to protect bourbon as we knew it. Unfortunately even the associations are not immune from mega-pressure, to wit regarding residual sulfur, the SWA apologetic and weak response was to spin it as just adding "variety". Murray's main point - that these practices are nothing less than the nose of the camel under the tent, a cancer that will inevitably metastasize and destroy the category of once great spirits.

[brettckeen]

When did Booker start doing the cognac finished masterpiece?

[callmeox]

This has been discussed here many times and those educated in all matters of bourbon believe that you can't un-bourbon bourbon.

Finished bourbon, flavored bourbon, etc become "bourbon finished in x" or "bourbon with y".

IMO, as long as the secondary treatment is declared on the label, this is much ado about nothing.

If you think the "marketing boyz" are responsible for the barrel finishes and other experiments the you haven't been paying attention. Stuff like Red Stag and the plethora of honey/cherry/etc abominations are the marketing darlings.

Edited September 13, 2014 by callmeox

[sku]

This subject has been discussed a lot here and elsewhere in bourbon circles. To sum up, the general rule that seems to be in place is that as long as something is properly bourbon, you can transfer it to a finishing barrel as long as it is so described on the label (e.g. "bourbon finished in Cognac casks.") This is the same rule for flavored bourbon which can be described as "bourbon with cherry flavoring." As Chuck Cowdery has said, once you make bourbon, you can't unbourbon it. Anything else you do to it is a modification which must be clarified on the label.

With regard to finishing, this makes some sense as the federal regulations require that bourbon be stored in charred new oak containers and require that "whiskey distilled from bourbon mash" be stored in used oak containers, but there is no designation for a product stored in both new and used containers.

Using a modified "Bourbon with" title makes it clear to the consumer what the product is, which is, after all, the goal of the regulations.

EDIT: Looks like Callmeox beat me to it!

Edited September 13, 2014 by sku

[squire]

Mr. Murray writes about whisky for a living and whisky writers need something to write about. I'm reminded of the late Michael Jackson 's comment that one of the most difficult things in being a whisky writer was thinking up new words (wet slate, dew drops on violets, etc.) to describe the tastes of whisky.

I'm perfectly comfortable with Bourbon finished in other casks if it qualified as Bourbon before it was finished.

[Harry in WashDC]

Thanks to Col. Taylor and President Taft, the rules re: the definition of "bourbon" and "straight" are pretty clear; even "whiskey" made in the US has a pretty clear definition. Thanks to Chuck, Bernie, Mike, Clay, Josh, Steve, and some others out there, whiskey-liking persons can learn how to read an American whiskey label (e.g., the label on whiskey made in the US) if they care to. Thanks to the USDA, FDA, and others, consumers have been told that labels now contain information on contents if they care to read them; hence, they likely are in the habit of looking at labels on everything - if not, I can't make them do so. Putting all this together means that a whiskey shopper knows (or should know) to check labels, if the shopper cares to, and can (or should be able to) determine just what, if anything, was done to the whiskey (and more particularly the bourbon) after it became whiskey (or bourbon). Marketers and advertisers (as well as their notorious doppelgangers the scammers, cheats, cons, frauds, and liars) depend on consumers to NOT take advantage of reading. While some of us might like, in theory, to not have to bother reading because somebody else is doing it for us, I don't think life's like that. We all have to do some lifting, and picking up a bottle and turning it to read all the words on it seems to me to be a small amount of work that results, if one knows what to look for, in more than fair value for that labor.

Whew! Need some sustenance. OGD 114 to help me forget about the rain outside.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Harry in WashDC
spelling

[squire]

It might be raining outside Harry but it's pouring inside.

[mosugoji64]

I have no problem with finishes provided the label reflects the additional step. HH and Angel's Envy have achieved some great results using the process. Artificial flavors and colors, however, are where I draw the line. Come on, aren't there enough flavored vodkas out there to keep the sorority girls happy? Leave the whiskey alone!

[squire]

I can add a drop of Port to a pint for a fraction of what Beam charges for the service.

[Harry in WashDC]

Heck, Squire, have some port after dinner and then, later when everyone else has retired, pour bourbon into the unwashed port glass a la Sazerac.

[wadewood]

There is no comparing the SWA to the KDA. SWA is a pretty powerful organization whose ideas usually translate directly into law and the KDA promotes county fairs.

[wadewood]

Scott and Steve already said about can't unmake bourbon. That's the interpretation of it currently by the TTB. I disagree with that and don't think these finished products should have bourbon/rye in the name. If you look up the actual legal designated class type for Angel's Envy, you will see that it is type 641 - whiskey specialties. I suggest the label should say exactly that - Angel's Envy Whiskey Specialty.

[Capn Jimbo]

Scott and Steve already said about can't unmake bourbon. That's the interpretation of it currently by the TTB. I disagree with that and don't think these finished products should have bourbon/rye in the name. If you look up the actual legal designated class type for Angel's Envy, you will see that it is type 641 - whiskey specialties. I suggest the label should say exactly that - Angel's Envy Whiskey Specialty.

[callmeox]

Stir as much as you wish, but this is nowhere the controversy that Murray wants to make it.

[danz]

Does Murray similarly break out Scotch whiskies into finished and unfinished varieties in his latest book? I have last year's, but wasn't planning to pick up a new one this year. This discussion suggests that is the right choice. I agree with Squire's early note: sometimes writers face a challenge to come up with something new to write about. Trying to create a controversy is one approach to the issue.

[sku]

The problem with Murray's formulation is that bourbon must be aged in new casks and whiskey distilled from bourbon mash must be aged in used casks, so if you interpret the bourbon regs to mean ONLY new casks, which is not specified, you would need to consistently interpret whiskey distilled from bourbon mash as meaning only used casks. There simply is no definition for bourbon aged in both new and used casks. That leaves the TTB to try and figure out a designation, and what they have arrived at is Bourbon with a qualifier. Given that, it's clear what that means to the consumer, so what's the problem?

And to Wade, I think "Bourbon finished in Cognac casks" is much more informative than "A whiskey specialty." As far as labels go, my philosophy is the more complete information they include, the better. If I don't like finishing, it's easy for me to avoid it if it's right on the label.

[Gillman]

The fact that the label indicates the bourbon was finished or treated by aging in a sherry barrel or by having sherry (or rum, port, etc.) added, is IMO a complete answer to those who object to the result being called bourbon. Test it this way. Say the bourbon was aged 10 years. Say you want to claim the age statement. Say the bourbon was rested in a sherry barrel for 2 years. So, you say, 10 year old bourbon finished in sherry wood. Who can possibly be misled by that? You are not saying the bourbon was aged 12 years, which would be misleading. Scott and Chuck are completely right, IMO, Squire too as I read him. It is a non-issue. As long as the label is clear and doesn't "hide" the further treatment, no one is misled.

By the way malt whisky has been aged in ex-sherry casks since the 1800's. It is a very old practice and can add a delicious taste. I think Jim Murray's issue is that today, inferior sherry casks are often used, but that is a matter for the taste of the drinker. If he doesn't like the way the whisky is sherry-treated, he won't buy it again.

Gary

Edited September 13, 2014 by Gillman

[DBM]

To determine if it's worth protecting the sanctity of the word bourbon, it's always worth going back in history to understand how bourbon got here. The reality is that bourbon is defined today mostly because of politics and money, and to a lesser extent purity (bottled in bond) but more specifically, consumer protection. But the current definition still only addresses a limited subset of what makes bourbon bourbon (as we typically consume it). For example, I believe most of us would want to outlaw micro barrels. I haven't (yet) tried a bourbon that was equally as good as a similar product aged in standard 53 gallon barrels. But there is no law stating a minimum (or maximum) size for a barrel. If there was, it would make bourbon more "pure", more consistent.

The regulations for aging and barrel age/wood/toast were not created to guarantee only the finest production of whiskey can be labeled "bourbon", it was originally to protect political and financial interests. Why try to enforce those same rules to protect a name, a product, that in this case doesn't benefit from the restrictions placed on it?

If this was really about consumer protection and the purity of bourbon, words like "straight" should be depreciated, require minimum age statements on all bourbon regardless of age, add barrel size requirements, add a requirement that bourbon can't be rebarreled for any reason, add legal definitions for "small batch", "reserve", "distilled by" label requirements. No solera, no mingling, no experimentation.

My opinion is to not focus on restricting the product, and instead change the regulations to make it clearly acceptable. I do appreciate that whiskey in "finished in..." products was distilled and aged as bourbon and not another whiskey style, and as a consumer I want that to be clearly visible.

Edited September 13, 2014 by DBM
grammar

[Capn Jimbo]

Does Murray similarly break out Scotch whiskies into finished and unfinished varieties in his latest book?

Edited September 13, 2014 by Capn Jimbo

[Gillman]

I see what you are saying (DBM), but you go too far IMO by stating that political and financial interests dictated the current definition. That is too simple. There was, by the 1930's when the current definition took shape, a good understanding of what bourbon was, and moreover the drink was internationally known by then. No Arkansas lumber interest or whatever is said to have determined the current rules was going to trump 100 years of history. I don't say these interests such as they were had no influence, but the legislature wasn't going to fool with the definition of a classic American spirit just to please lumber companies which donated to the political parties… But as I said, I agree with you that the definition as we have it is only partial and relies to a good extent on traditional practice, e.g. to use large barrels and American oak. It might be useful to redo the rules now and this would give the chance to create a proper place for the finished category. But quite honestly, who cares? How many treated/finished bourbons are there?

Gary

[Gillman]

But Cap'n, your point about the 15 minutes applies just as much to a bourbon so aged and marketed as bourbon plain and simple. The finishing part is irrelevant, in other words.

Anyway, let the consumer decide.

Gary

[squire]

I just checked my stuff I need to be concerned about list and what Jim Murray thinks wasn't on the sheet.

[danz]

This subject has been discussed a lot here and elsewhere in bourbon circles. To sum up, the general rule that seems to be in place is that as long as something is properly bourbon, you can transfer it to a finishing barrel as long as it is so described on the label (e.g. "bourbon finished in Cognac casks.") This is the same rule for flavored bourbon which can be described as "bourbon with cherry flavoring." As Chuck Cowdery has said, once you make bourbon, you can't unbourbon it. Anything else you do to it is a modification which must be clarified on the label.

With regard to finishing, this makes some sense as the federal regulations require that bourbon be stored in charred new oak containers and require that "whiskey distilled from bourbon mash" be stored in used oak containers, but there is no designation for a product stored in both new and used containers.

Using a modified "Bourbon with" title makes it clear to the consumer what the product is, which is, after all, the goal of the regulations.

EDIT: Looks like Callmeox beat me to it!

[Capn Jimbo]

As usual, sku does an excellent job summing up the requirements. TTB has taken the approach that when you have bourbon, plus additional treatments, those additional treatments must be described on the label. The likelihood of confusion seems minimal. Murray, like some others, appears to be trying to manufacture a controversy to attract attention.

/QUOTE]

The regulations were clearly cited in re "new, charred oak". Murray also cites all relevent citations that he takes quite seriously, despite the pot shots. Regarding this claim (that additional treatments must be labeled), citations, please.

[Capn Jimbo]

As usual, sku does an excellent job summing up the requirements. TTB has taken the approach that when you have bourbon, plus additional treatments, those additional treatments must be described on the label. The likelihood of confusion seems minimal. Murray, like some others, appears to be trying to manufacture a controversy to attract attention.

The regulations were clearly cited earlier by me in re "new, charred oak". Murray also cites all relevent citations that he takes quite seriously, despite the pot shots. Regarding this claim (that additional treatments must be labeled), citations, please.