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

[oke&coke]

Actually calling it straight could help in this instance. As long as it meets the standard of straight before the finishing. That would keep some distillers from aging it new casks for 15 minutes so they can call it bourbon.

[Phil T]

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,

Soooo..you have an issue with the HHSS bottling? :shocked:

[Ravensfire]

Soooo..you have an issue with the HHSS bottling? :shocked:

I'll tell ya when my bottles arrive ... :slappin:

I'm kinda in the middle of what I think are Murray's position and Cowdery's position. Chuck's comment about what the regs are and what they should be is causing some of this discussion is quite accurate. From my reading of the regs, what's happening now is just fine. I also think that Murray's position is utter bunk. It's bourbon. Add something, finish it in something and it's still bourbon. My personal preference would be to have the term "straight bourbon" add a requirement that it means bourbon that's been aged in new oak barrels only. If the distiller wants to dump them in fresh new oak barrels after some period of time, that's still fine. Anything else (and that would include Maker's 46) and it's Bourbon XXXX in XXXX, or whatever labeling is appropriate.

[garbanzobean]

Soooo..you have an issue with the HHSS bottling? :shocked:

Edited September 18, 2014 by garbanzobean
grammar

[dcbt]

Of course, that fear would go a long way toward being eliminated by a simple labeling addition such as "contains no artificial ingredients."

Careful on that. I get what you're saying, but plenty of 'natural' ingredients could then be added that you probably wouldn't want. Strawberries are natural. So is sugar, want more of that added?

[garbanzobean]

Careful on that. I get what you're saying, but plenty of 'natural' ingredients could then be added that you probably wouldn't want. Strawberries are natural. So is sugar, want more of that added?

Haha! You quoted me before I finished editing my post. I had the same thought and changed it.

I think if I made liquor, I would state on the label. "I distilled this liquor. I aged it in X barrels. I dumped it from the barrels to the bottles. The bottles didn't have anything else in them when I dumped the liquor into them. I didn't put anything else in bottles after I put the liquor in there. There is probably some air in the bottles, but I didn't put it there."

Edited September 18, 2014 by garbanzobean

[Ravensfire]

Careful on that. I get what you're saying, but plenty of 'natural' ingredients could then be added that you probably wouldn't want. Strawberries are natural. So is sugar, want more of that added?

Or caramel. Agree with dcbt's comment.

[Phil T]

I very much like the way these are labelled. Beyond being very simple and attractive, I really like the way the liquor inside is labeled. "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey finished in Cognac Barrels." Beyond nominally useful bottle number, Rickhouse/Floor and barrel/tier info, the side label expounds: 8 year old wheated bourbon finished in cognac barrels for 27 months. So while it may be debatable as to whether or not the current contents of the bottle remain straight bourbon, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what went into the cognac barrels was straight bourbon whiskey, I know that it is from Kentucky, I know how old it was when it went into the cognac barrels, and I know how long it was in cognac barrels. .

To me, the label says it all...Exactly what it is

[Capn Jimbo]

"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."

Gary, thanks for your very observant questions - they are good ones. The problem with trying to interpret the regs, is that they often cross reference one another. Sub (1) is actually an exclusionary clause. It denies any such additions of coloring and flavoring EXCEPT as stated in (2) and (3).

"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. "

Gary, you are one of the few who begins to understand sub (2). The harmless coloring and flavoring are only appropriate as you noted if such use is "customary", but if you complete that sentence "in accordance with established trade usage". "Established trade usage" is a well established and defined concept. I'll try to explain. For example let's say it is customary and established trade usage for bourbon distillers to add sugar to the end product. If so, if you then ordered a barrel of bourbon, you would then expect it to contain added sugar (even if you didn't specify it). If that barrel were delivered without sugar, you could legally reject it as not being "bourbon". Just google "established trade usage".

Since the addition of residual sherry is not established trade usage, sub (2) also eliminates the addition it, period.

"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? "

Now Here's where the cross-referencing of the regs comes into play. Let's for a moment assume what you conjecture - namely that residual sherry in the barrels somehow is indeed considered a flavoring material. This is where the cross-referencing comes in, and unfortunately you left out a key part of this section, the final sub paragraph, which is:

§5.23 (3)© Exceptions. (1)

This section shall not be construed as in any manner modifying the standards of identity for cordials and liqueurs, flavored brandy, flavored gin, flavored rum, flavored vodka, and flavored whisky ...

In other words, nothing in the alteration section you quoted in any way modifies or supercedes the demands of the flavoring section, which it cross-references, which is §5.22 The standards of identity, part (i), following:

(i) Class 9; flavored brandy, flavored gin, flavored rum, flavored vodka, and flavored whisky. “Flavored brandy, “flavored gin,” “flavored rum,” “flavored vodka,” and “flavored whisky,” are brandy, gin, rum, vodka, and whisky, respectively, to which have been added natural flavoring materials, with or without the addition of sugar, and bottled at not less than 60° proof. The name of the predominant flavor shall appear as a part of the designation. If the finished product contains more than 21⁄2 percent by volume of wine, the kinds and precentages by volume of wine must be stated as a part of the designation...

So - even if we assume that residual sherry is a "flavoring material", this flavoring clause would demand that it then be labeled as a "Sherry Flavored Bourbon", by naming the primary flavoring added. But even that isn't possible due to your method of delivery. If you really wanted to produce a "Flavored Bourbon", eg "Cinnamon Flavored Bourbon" or "Sherry Flavored Bourbon" the expected method is to take a legally produced and labeled "boubon" and simply "add" the flavoring to it, ie dump and mix it in. Delivery via another storage container is more than a stretch, and is not possible, as...

Furthermore it is very important to realize that no regulation supercedes another unless specifically stated, which hasn't happened here. The originating Standard of Identity for Bourbon establishes the base product and prevails overall of them, and demands the following: that the mash be at least 51% corn, at no more than 160 proof, and stored (at no more than 125 proof) only in charred, new oak barrels. This requirement is unmodified and stands.

While your method of adding the residual sherry via storing it in a used or uncharred barrel is novel, it simply does not apply. The SOI (SID) is clear, unequivocal and unmodified by the alteration or flavored sections. Thus to determine whether what's in the bottle is "bourbon" you need only ask these simple questions:

1. was it made from at least 51% corn?

2. was it distilled at no more than 160 proof?

3. was is stored at no more than 125 proof?

...and last...

4. was it always stored in charred, new oak containers?

If all your answers are yes, you have a bourbon.

Again, the terms "aging" and "finishing" have no legal meaning and have meaning only in the sense of #4 in that both are considered "storage" and thus must be constructed of "charred new oak". No exceptions anywhere in the entirety of all the relevent section, all covered here and in my previous long post.

Gary, you have done better than most, and your good questions are appreciated. But the fact remains that your residual sherry is unfortunately delivered, not by simply adding some, but by invoking storage in a non-charred, used barrel which triggers the original defining clause. The best that can legally be done is to just add some sherry to an already legally made "bourbon", and then label it "Sherry Flavored Bourbon", or insert some ex-sherry staves or chips into a bourbon stored in a charred, new oak container, and then label it "Bourbon Whiskey colored and flavored with ex-sherry oak staves" (like MM46).

Last I would remind all that just because you have seen such labels as "Bourbon finished in oloroso sherry barrels" does not mean these are legal. Mislabeling and misrepresentation via labels is far from rare, as Chuck Cowdery has made clear in his outing of the many, many Potemkin distillers, who lie through their teeth. Further, it is a fact also know by Chuck that the TTB is not particularly attentive to enforcement.

Hope that helps. Please know that this subject is far from new to me, and I can certainly empathize with the confusion that these heavily lobbied, weakly enforced, cross-referencing regs can cause for the average consumer.

The worst offender to date is Wild Turkey's Sherry Signature which is labelled "10 year old Straight Bourbon Whisky", but which was stored/aged/finished in ex-sherry barrels, and even adds some actual sherry. A proper label would be "A 10 year old Sherry Flavored Whiskey made from bourbon mash", and that's at best. When Chuck wrote his now standard bourbon book in 2004, the bastardization of bourbon had not yet occured. It is now.

BTW Murray noted that the head distiller of a large distillery has threatened to quit if his bosses forced him to engage in these dubious and obfuscatory practice. Anyone know or can guess who?

Edited September 19, 2014 by Capn Jimbo

[Josh]

Can we got back to talking about Fox's work schedule? This is all too confusing for me, being an average consumer and all.

[393foureyedfox]

Can we got back to talking about Fox's work schedule? This is all too confusing for me, being an average consumer and all.

im on a 4 day hiatus starting now....and tomorrow is HH6BIB roundup day. Im willing to bet that the metro Louisville area and surrounding counties of Bardstown will be wiped clean of all of it by weeks end. damn this place! youve all turned me into a bourbon packrat/hoarder!

[garbanzobean]

im on a 4 day hiatus starting now....and tomorrow is HH6BIB roundup day. Im willing to bet that the metro Louisville area and surrounding counties of Bardstown will be wiped clean of all of it by weeks end. damn this place! youve all turned me into a bourbon packrat/hoarder!

You could always switch to Kentucky Owl.

[Gillman]

Cap'n, thanks very much for this detailed reply. I need some time to interpret it carefully. I must say at first blush, I don't agree at all that sub (1) refers only to what is permitted by subs (2) and (3) - iMO the plain meaning of sub (1) is it stands on its own to permit a class and type to be changed i.e., redesignated. Sub (2) deals with the case where, if you fit in its wording, there is no change of class and type. Sub (3) inter alia states that straight whiskey can't have anything added to it at all and still be called only by the class and type stated in 5.22 - you can't add sherry to bourbon and simply call it bourbon, for example, but we are all agreed on that.

Now, where I need to think further is if what you said about flavored whisky changes my view as stated above. I'll look at it over the next couple of days and revert.

Gary

[OutlawSW]

I don't know if post 84 was a brief, a motion or a ruling but it was an interesting read, thanks for the effort.

[LCWoody]

This thread makes me want to drink BOURBON, finished or not. I'll make up my own mind if I like it or not. Jimbo, you sound like a dictator trying to get everyone on this site to look at bourbon through your eyes. You've put the same info out here many, many, times. We've read it, we are all big boys on this site, let us make up our own minds.

Im with Chuck on this on, you have beat this horse to death and now you're slinging raw flesh and blood everywhere.

Thanks to you and Jim Murray for y'all's OPINION.

Edited September 19, 2014 by LCWoody

[Tony Santana]

I've been periodically following this thread, and I'm a lawyer, but some of these lengthy posts just make my eyes roll back in my head. Talk about picking at nits. I don't care about the Jim Murray kerfluffle, he's just trying to stir the pot. I don't care if bourbon gets finished in a cognac barrel (I know of at least one example that's phenomenal) or has honey added (I will stay away from that crap at all costs) as long as the label tells me what's been done to it. The HHSS label is a perfect example. Go ahead and experiment, variety is the spice of life, and some of this "finished" stuff is very good. There will always be just plain old bourbon aged in an oak barrel and poured into a bottle too. And for that I am grateful as well.

[Josh]

im on a 4 day hiatus starting now....and tomorrow is HH6BIB roundup day. Im willing to bet that the metro Louisville area and surrounding counties of Bardstown will be wiped clean of all of it by weeks end. damn this place! youve all turned me into a bourbon packrat/hoarder!

[squire]

Frankly I find these "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussions rather boring. I'm much more interested in Fox's journey from being a fan of the high octane stuff to appreciating HH6 and Larceny.

[oke&coke]

You mean fox started to like other things?!? Dang and I missed it. Gotta stop taking sabbaticals from the forums.

[Gillman]

Alright Cap'n, I read anew through 5.22 and 5.23, SOI.

My conclusion is that my initial interpretation is completely correct. I will not rehearse the reasons, as I have already stated them.

The only thing I would add is in reference to this paragraph you mentioned in your last note:

"This section shall not be construed as in any manner modifying the standards of identity for cordials and liqueurs, flavored brandy, flavored gin, flavored rum, flavored vodka, and flavored whisky or as authorizing any product which is defined in § 5.22(j), Class 10, as an imitation to be otherwise designated".

In my view, all it means in relation to flavored whisky is what it says, that nothing in the section shall be taken to modify the standard earlier stated for "flavored whisky". Flavored whisky is defined as follows:

"Class 9; .... flavored whisky. ... “flavored whisky,” [is] ... whisky ... to which [has]... been added natural flavoring materials, with or without the addition of sugar, and bottled at not less than 60° proof. The name of the predominant flavor shall appear as a part of the designation...".

So, to be called "flavored whisky", you can only add "natural flavoring materials", not, say, any of the non-natural flavoring materials mentioned or referred to in section 5.23 (straight malt rye whiskey, say, or sherry). The law is telling us, for example, if you put out a "flavored whisky", you can't add sherry to it and think that the class and type don't change just because 5.23 (a)(2) protects the producer by reason of it being customary to add flavorings to flavored whisky.

This has nothing to do, therefore, with the interpretation of 5.23 (a)(1), on which I have already given my view.

Hey Cap'n, you are free to disagree, of course - that's what open discussion is all about, I just wanted to know your thinking in the area, that's all. By the way these rules aren't new to me either, I've been reading them for a long time too, about 10 years in my case...

One thing I should add is, I haven't looked at the BAM, or the various decisions and rulings that the TTB and tribunals may have issued concerning this question. Not interested to go there, and if a fair look at it would convince me I'm wrong, that's fine, but just not interested in that. All I'm interested to say here, FWIW, is what I think the regulation itself states.

Gary

Edited September 19, 2014 by Gillman

[Quantum]

Frankly I find these "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussions rather boring. I'm much more interested in Fox's journey from being a fan of the high octane stuff to appreciating HH6 and Larceny.

I missed the Larceny bit, but hasn't he liked HH6 for a while?

[Capn Jimbo]

Cap'n, thanks very much for this detailed reply... I don't agree at all that sub (1) refers only to what is permitted by subs (2) and (3) - iMO the plain meaning of sub (1) is it stands on its own to permit a class and type to be changed i.e., redesignated. Sub (2) deals with the case where, if you fit in its wording, there is no change of class and type.

Gary

Gary you understand (2) correctly and earlier agreed that it didn't apply due to lack of customary and established trade usage. But as for (1) upon which you rely, you are right "flavoring materials" may indeed be added but if done without also meeting (2) or (3), the resulting flavored spirit is not simply "permitted" to change class and type, it must be changed. And to what? Remember this whole section cross-references the "flavored clause" as superior and which takes precendent no matter what happens under the additive clause.

Under the "flavored" SID, a "Bourbon" flavored with any natural flavoring material - your residual sherry - must now changes class and type to a "Flavored Bourbon", the direct result of the addition. Further the primary flavoring must be labelled, for example "Sherry Flavored Bourbon". And dare I say, please consider that "adding" is clearly distinguished from "storage in a container".

You still completely ignore the primary ruling class and identity of bourbon which makes mandatory that the 51% corn distillate must be "stored in charred, new oak containers". It's fine to add sherry (and change classes and labelling), but you can't change to an unauthorized container and still call it bourbon. This of course is quite different from the single malts whose definition includes any kind of oak container - new, used, charred or not, etc.

Simply that's why what is euphemistically called "finishing" (which is nothing but continued storage in a specified ex-something container) is perfectly legal for single malts, but not for bourbon. Think about it: if specifying "charred, new oak" meant transferring for storage in anything else, then why bother making this requirement, when the single malt definition of "stored in oak" would have done just as well.

Again the test of a spirit labelled bourbon is ascertained by asking a few simple questions:

1. Is it at least 51% corn?

2. Was it distilled at no more than 160 proof?

3. Was it stored at no less than 125 proof?

and last...

4. Were the storage containers made of only charred, new oak?

Answer all yes, and...

[squire]

Storing in new oak for a period of two years makes it Straight Bourbon and transferring it to another container makes it finished.

[Harry in WashDC]

And, if I'm the container into which it is transferred, can we consider it a "finished" bourbon?

[squire]

Yup, that's a done deal Harry.