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

[Capn Jimbo]

Is it your view section 5.23(a)(1), and the elaborations in the BAM Scott mentioned, do not apply to the labelling practices being discussed? If so, can you elaborate on your reasons?

Yes and this was done. The cut 'n paste was edited and underlined as needed to do that. The paragraphs quoted were not relevent to the instant issue. I hesitate discussing the poorly enforced regulations, which few really understand. To make matters worse - despite Chuck's reliance on the regulations - it's the rulings that clarify and really count and these are not easily available.

As I read Jim Murray, he doesn't like to see the word bourbon being used on a label when the product was treated in a way that does not represent historically what bourbon was and doing so will degrade its image ultimately.

Better, but his point goes beyond history and tradition to the Standards of Identity. Just like Chuck's controversial (but accurate) rant on "Potemkin distillers", he believes the multiply-aged spirits made from bourbon mash, but aged in a variety of barrels are simply not bourbon as defined and should not be labeled as such. The problem is not the law; it's the cajone challenged TTB who allows the deceptive practice and labelling to the point that the sheeple and even their sheepbulls believe its just fine.

Does the bourbon in that bottle stop being bourbon because it is mixed with vermouth and bitters? Of course not... If the label clearly and honestly describes what is in the bottle there is no harm, hence no foul

And not with coke, tomato juice, or water in any form either, lol. Does the vermouth stop being vermouth? Does the glass stop being a glass? Be honest, this is really a Zen Koan, right? Not, and repetition won't help. But I'm glad we agree on the need for clear and honest labeling: "A Fine Aged Whisky, distilled from bourbon mash" - per Jim Murray - would be just fine. Speaking of Koan(sp)...

When "it's all good" prevails, "it's all bad" is soon to follow. It did for rum...

Edited September 15, 2014 by Capn Jimbo

[Josh]

What is the singular of "sheeple"? Sheeperson? Ovine-American?

[squire]

I believe it's a diminutive of hoi polloi.

[cowdery]

The ultimate problem with your analysis, Jimbo, is that it relies entirely on Jim Murray, who is wrong about what U.S. law requires. I consider this a settled matter and no longer interesting.

[Gillman]

Nothing more to say from my perspective either, non-issue other than something that might be taken into account if the law is overhauled.

Gary

[Quantum]

The ultimate problem with your analysis, Jimbo, is that it relies entirely on Jim Murray, who is wrong about what U.S. law requires.

That, and the belief that his opinion possesses the power to bring a well beaten horse back from the dead, which he can ride into battle against the terrible windmills plaguing this land.

I consider this a settled matter and no longer interesting.

I couldn't help but read this in the voice of the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.

[garbanzobean]

I think all this nonsense stems from two issues:

1.) Jim Murray has gotten all he enjoyment he could out the Old Pultney controversy and decided to pick something new to be controversial about. Simply put: Jim Murray is bored.

2.) Jim Murray appears to have developed some kind of sulfur sensitivity, which led to him focusing on another sugary delight: American bourbon/rye. Which also contributed to point 1. Also his understanding of the American legal system is a bit irregular.

[squire]

Writing a book doesn't make you an expert but does display your expertise, or lack thereof. If you like Murray's writing buy his books. I'd rather buy more whisky.

[Capn Jimbo]

The ultimate problem with your analysis, Jimbo, is that it relies entirely on Jim Murray, thus settled and no longer interesting.

Au contraire. Perhaps my own analysis may be of more interest...

To understand this issue there are some key words to understand:

• 1. aging
  2. finishing
  3. storing
  4. containers
  5. chips and staves
  6. wood treatment
  

Background

Chuck's (Cowdery) crew believes that “aging” is somehow different from “finishing” and that once the proper mash of at least 51% corn is distilled and aged in “new, charred oak” it now can be (properly) be called bourbon. Cowdery's Zen position is that once achieved, "...you can't unmake bourbon". They distinguish this from “finishing” which they view as a quickie process to which this “bourbon” is treated. Thus the “bourbon” now can spend some time in say an ex-sherry barrel for a “sherry finish”. For this view to be correct “finishing” must be a different process able to be legally distinguished from “aging” and vice versa.

Murray, et al's view is obviously different. This view is that what the marketing boyz euphemistically call “finishing” is no different than aging, and that if the mash is spends time in anything but “new, charred oak” - it is no longer “bourbon” as defined by the Standards of Identity. For Murray the transfer of the spirit from its original new charred oak barrel to an ex-sherry or rum barrel immediately destroys its identity as bourbon. For this view to be correct, “aging” and “finishing” are simply synonyms for the same process of simply storing the spirit.

Let's start with the CFR's. The Standard of Identity for “Bourbon Whiskey” is clear and unequivocal. You probably think you understand it. Let's see...

§5.22 The standards of identity.

(1)(i) “Bourbon whisky”... produced at not exceeding 160° proof ...not less than 51 percent corn... and stored at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers;

About now you are saying “BFD, everybody knows that – that's not the issue!”. Simple and clear but has nothing to do with “finishing”, right? Not so fast. I want everyone to read the following, twice:

“Aging” and “finishing” do not appear, are not really defined and especially are not distinguished from one another in the CFR. The reason is obvious – these terms are hard to define and overlap. What some call "finishing", others call "double aging". Instead the TTB carefully uses a simple clear word: “stored”. Bourbon is neither “aged” nor “finished” in “charred new oak”, it is simply STORED in it.

The term “finished” has no legal meaning which is exactly why the marketing monkeys love to use it. There's nothing like attaching the name of a fine wine in single malt fashion to sell product.

Chuck is well aware of these misleading practices which allow the very same monkeys to misrepresent products like Templeton Rye, who cleverly name drops words like “small batch”, original hometown Prohibition recipe”, “craft distilled” etc. in a blizzard of words that misled most buyers to honestly believe it was distilled by them. As for the non-term “finished”, it's the same phony game.

Bottom line: while the the regulations do address age (in years), they do NOT define or distinguish “aging” from “finishing”. Both “store” the distillate in oak containers which must be “charred, new oak”. When the clearly defined “bourbon” leaves it's “charred, new oak container” it had better be to either a bottle it or to risk losing its legal identity. BTW, do note that the TTB also avoids defining "barrel", cask, butt, tunn, quarter cask, et al and for the same reason they don't define “aging” and “finishing”.

The SID offers no other alternative than “storage in...a charred, new oak container”. But, but, we sputter, how 'bout sku's massive copy/paste of Section 5.39? Next up...

§5.39 Presence of neutral spirits and coloring, flavoring, and blending materials.

(a) Neutral spirits and name of commodity. (...this section concerns the labeling of neutral spirits and is entirely irrelevent)

( Coloring materials. (and this one covers the labeling of coloring, also completely irrelevent)

© Treatment with wood. The words “colored and flavored with wood (insert chips, slabs, etc., as appropriate)” shall be stated as a part of the class and type designation for whisky and brandy treated, in whole or in part, with wood through percolation, or otherwise, during distillation or storage, other than through contact with the oak container.

“Aha!” you say, “now THIS is where finishing is surely addressed. Even our good man Chuck has argued this point in the past:

Chuck:

“Finishes and infusions are another controversial area... Woodford Reserve, Jim Beam, and Buffalo Trace have all used wood finishes, comparable to single malt scotch finished in sherry casks... The best way to understand finishes and flavorings is that just as you can’t un-ring a bell, you can’t un-bourbon a bourbon. The official description of Maker’s 46, for example, is Kentucky bourbon whiskey barrel-finished with oak staves.”

Well that settles it, right? Not really. The comparison to single malt fails on two counts: single malt whiskey has a different SID which does not specify wood, and second, the transfer to sherry barrels violates the SID for bourbon, above. Cowdery's one and only example, the Maker's Mark does not use sherry barrels at all, but rather claims to "barrel-finish with oak staves". Needless to say we all realize - or should - that what appears on any old label is hardly the measure of legality or compliance.

In this regard I'd again offer Chuck's own critical rant on Potemkin Templeton Rye, among many others. He's right. Labelling is abused. Second, and this is where you have to really read closely – is that both paragraph © above refers (read it twice) to “chips, slabs, etc.” - so far so good – but it also clearly states, using the specific legal word “shall”, the following:

“The words 'colored and flavored with wood (insert chips, slabs, etc., as appropriate)' shall be stated.” on the label along with the class and type, in this case “bourbon whiskey”.

When mandatory isn't mandatory...

Maker's marketeering monkeys have taken both artistic and legal license via their dubious and undefined label stating “barrel-finished with oak staves”! Are you kidding me? “Barrel-finished” with “oak staves”?! This is just more Templeton trickery: “barrel-finished” wants to imply it's, duh, finished in a sherry barrel, but no! It's "barrel-finished" not with a barrel, but with uh, oak staves. Perfectly clear for marketing blather. How hard would it be to just follow the law and print the mandatory “colored and flavored with oak staves”? Ouch! But they just couldn't bring themselves to use the dreaded “C” (colored) and “F” (flavored) words.

Replace the meaningless and made-up “barrel-finished” with the mandatory “colored and flavored” and they've got a winner. Obviously the compliant TTB could care less. But that's not all.

Section 5:39 addresses ONLY the use of “chips, slabs, etc”, either during distillation or when stored in the “container”. It makes clear that this treatment concerns only processes “other than contact with the container”. And what container is that? You know which one; it's already been defined. Chuck's only citation – MM46 - has everything to do with staves but absolutely nothing to do with containers (which are solely addressed in the original definition of bourbon whiskey).

Thus the only bourbons which can be altered and remain "bourbon" are those in which the bourbon remains in their “charred, new oak” containers, into which are inserted chips, staves and the like, and which are then mandated to be labeled “Bourbon whiskey colored and flavored by oak (chips, staves, etc.).” Any “bourbon” which is transferred to another used or uncharred container - for any reason - no longer meets the SID for “bourbon”, period.

Back to the beginning...

Thus, we've come full circle - the real subject here is not chips or chunks, but remains Murray's assertion: that once the “bourbon” is transferred out of its “charred, new oak container” to a sherry barrel then it is no longer “bourbon” but a “Whiskey distilled from bourbon mash”. I agree.

Murray is absolutely right, notwithstanding misleading labeling, lack of enforcement, and bourbon drinkers who don't seem to care. Remember: when “it's all good” prevails, “it's all bad” is not far behind. Bourbon has been defined narrowly and for the good of all – a truly pure and unaltered spirit with no equal. We need to keep it that way. Unfortunately the Marketey Mouse Club wants to take advantage of bourbons hard earned reputation and respect in the rule bending pursuit of temporary profit. Rum has already been destroyed as a pure spirit, and bourbon is now on the same slippery slope.

I defer to Jim Murray for the last word:

“This is of so much concern that there is at least one senior distiller ready to resign if his bosses take the path that leads to obscurification in the meaning, definition and understanding of what was the purest of all the world's whiskeys”.

*******

A personal note:

In closing, I want to make clear my unbroken admiration and respect for Chuck Cowdery who has always been supportive and more than informative over the years, both publicly and privately. I own his books, and have recommended them often and loudly. No one knows wood and bourbon better, period.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Capn Jimbo

[squire]

Jimbo instructing us to read your tome twice presupposes it's worth reading once. Under our legal system interpretation of laws or regulations is the province of the Courts who have the last word.

Our role as consumers is to simply decide if we want to buy it.

[Quantum]

Chuck's (Cowdery) crew believes that “aging” is somehow different from “finishing” and that once the proper mash of at least 51% corn is distilled and aged in “new, charred oak” it now can be (properly) be called bourbon. Cowdery's Zen position is that once achieved, "...you can't unmake bourbon". They distinguish this from “finishing” which they view as a quickie process to which this “bourbon” is treated. Thus the “bourbon” now can spend some time in say an ex-sherry barrel for a “sherry finish”. For this view to be correct “finishing” must be a different process able to be legally distinguished from “aging” and vice versa.

Murray, et al's view is obviously different. This view is that what the marketing boyz euphemistically call “finishing” is no different than aging, and that if the mash is spends time in anything but “new, charred oak” - it is no longer “bourbon” as defined by the Standards of Identity. For Murray the transfer of the spirit from its original new charred oak barrel to an ex-sherry or rum barrel immediately destroys its identity as bourbon. For this view to be correct, “aging” and “finishing” are simply synonyms for the same process of simply storing the spirit.

Let's start with the CFR's. The Standard of Identity for “Bourbon Whiskey” is clear and unequivocal. You probably think you understand it. Let's see...

§5.22 The standards of identity.

About now you are saying “BFD, everybody knows that – that's not the issue!”. Simple and clear but has nothing to do with “finishing”, right? Not so fast. I want everyone to read the following, twice:

“Aging” and “finishing” do not appear, are not really defined and especially are not distinguished from one another in the CFR. The reason is obvious – these terms are hard to define and overlap. What some call "finishing", others call "double aging". Instead the TTB carefully uses a simple clear word: “stored”. Bourbon is neither “aged” nor “finished” in “charred new oak”, it is simply STORED in it.

Your argument hinges on the premise that what would currently be classified as bourbon ceases to be bourbon the moment it enters anything other than a "new, charred oak" barrel. I see nothing in the regulations that support this idea. It only addresses the requirements to become bourbon, but not what happens once it has been legally defined as bourbon. I do see your logic, but your are making an assumption that is simply not based on anything concrete.

You could use that premise to argue that it would cease to be bourbon the moment it enters a glass bottle.

[amg]

You could use that premise to argue that it would cease to be bourbon the moment it enters a glass bottle.

I was about to post the same thing.

[Gillman]

"5.23 Alteration of class and type.

(a) Additions.

(1) The addition of any coloring, flavoring, or blending materials to any class and type of distilled spirits, except as otherwise provided in this section, alters the class and type thereof and the product shall be appropriately redesignated.

(2) There may be added to any class or type of distilled spirits, without changing the class or type thereof, (i) such harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials as are an essential component part of the particular class or type of distilled spirits to which added, and (ii) harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials such as caramel, straight malt or straight rye malt whiskies, fruit juices, sugar, infusion of oak chips when approved by the Administrator, or wine, which are not an essential component part of the particular distilled spirits to which added, but which are customarily employed therein in accordance with established trade usage, if such coloring, flavoring, or blending materials do not total more than 21/2 percent by volume of the finished product.

(3) 'Harmless coloring, flavoring, and blending materials' shall not include (i) any material which would render the product to which it is added an imitation, or (ii) any material, other than caramel, infusion of oak chips, and sugar, in the case of Cognac brandy; or (iii) any material whatsoever in the case of neutral spirits or straight whiskey, except that vodka may be treated with sugar in an amount not to exceed 2 grams per liter and a trace amount of citric acid".

Can I ask you a question again? Why in your view doesn't "coloring, flavoring, or blending materials " in sub (1) apply to a bourbon transferred to an ex-sherry cask? The residual sherry in the cask surely is coloring, or flavoring, and/or the effects of the wood frame itself. Same thing with rum barrels, etc. If you look at sub (2), which doesn't apply as such IMO because such additions are not customary for bourbon and also, sub (3) makes it clear you can't add these things to straight whiskey as such (i.e., they change its class and type), nonetheless it gives an indication of what coloring and flavoring are under the SOI. It is a pretty broad group including fruit juice and wine and is not limitative. So why isn't sherry or rum barrel treatment coloring or flavoring? And if they are, the product must be redesigned appropriately. If you say, "bourbon finished in sherry barrels" that sounds appropriate to me.

I would ask you, in the interests of focused discussion, just to address this question, there is no need to advert to personalities or issues in the industry or journalists. Just tell me why you don't agree with this interpretation.

Gary

Edited September 17, 2014 by Gillman

[cowdery]

The problem with this conversation is that one side is saying what the regulations are and the other is saying what, in their opinion, the regulations should be. It's a completely apples-to-oranges discussion.

[393foureyedfox]

I would think that, logically, it should be labeled as 'bourbon finished in 'X'...'

If a guy has a sex change and becomes a woman, physically, what does one call him/her? He was a male all along, but was 'finished' into something else. I use the analogy purely as humor, but it raises the same question....what do you call the final 'product'? it's a 'hairy' line......

[squire]

You've on a break at work aren't you Fox.

[Paddy]

You've on a break at work aren't you Fox.

I just can't get past "hairy"....Speaking of Harry, you got any thoughts on this? :eek:

[393foureyedfox]

You've on a break at work aren't you Fox.

i get no breaks at work, squire. If you're lucky, you can hide in the breakroom for 5 minutes and shove something down your neck before you're being called into a room again. But, it makes 13 hours seem less than an 8 hour shift anywhere else, and makes the bourbon all the more enjoyable when you do get home!

[Gillman]

But it would be interesting (Chuck, re) to see if he has anything on this specific point. If the SOI said that the class and type shall be re-designated appropriately without use of the words describing the type, then I could see an argument that "bourbon +" is not a valid way to redesignate. But the statute doesn't say that. It is written in a fairly general way which allows the interpretation made by TTB on this point, IMO. If the law is changed - and I'm not necessarily opposed to it while not being greatly exercised by it either - that is another matter.

Gary

[Harry in WashDC]

Paddy asked whether I had thoughts on this thread.

Uh, yeah, but they are not appropriate for mixed company - whatever that mix is.

Regards,

Harry

[sutton]

Just a layman's interpretation, but the CFR codifies (as I understand it) the rules/regs of the Executive Branch. I would think the intent of the rules quoted here have consumer protection as one of its primary goal. So how would a layman understand it? "Whiskey distilled from a bourbon mash stored in sherry casks" requires a lot more understanding of the production and aging process than "Bourbon stored in sherry casks".

The latter is more understandable to the average bourbon consumer on what they are purchasing. So I think that has more utility than some strict construction on the language in the rule.

[squire]

Since the whisky must first be aged in new oak I should think "Bourbon finished in Sherry Casks" would be a consumer friendly term.

[El Vino]

I would think that, logically, it should be labeled as 'bourbon finished in 'X'...'

If a guy has a sex change and becomes a woman, physically, what does one call him/her? He was a male all along, but was 'finished' into something else. I use the analogy purely as humor, but it raises the same question....what do you call the final 'product'? it's a 'hairy' line......

Transblender...perhaps?

[393foureyedfox]

Transblender...perhaps?

Nice!.......................

[Ravensfire]

Since the whisky must first be aged in new oak I should think "Bourbon finished in Sherry Casks" would be a consumer friendly term.

Concur.

If I see straight bourbon on a bottle, there shouldn't be anything else happening to that bottle. Distill it. Age it. Bottle it. If you want to add or finish it, it's bourbon XXXX in XXXXX. Tell me what you did and don't call it straight,