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

[Gillman]

"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".

But nothing actually states this in 5.23 or elsewhere in the SOI: it's an inference you are making. Not necessarily an unreasonable one, but it is just as reasonable to go the other way: bourbon finished in a sherry cask indicates clearly that the primary ruling class as you put it has been modified, changed, indeed "must be" as you say. The purity of the original classification is not compromised. There are different verbal formulations to give effect to the result of that sub (1) applying here. There is not only one way to express it, but multiple ways, ways that can include use of the word "bourbon", in the (reasonable) judgment of the TTB (and numerous here on the board). This is what you don't see.

Gary

[squire]

A rose is still a rose by any other name and so is Bourbon.

[Gillman]

Very true Squire. Bourbon finished in a sherry cask. Matured southern corn mash rested a spell in a moist sherry cask from the Spanish Main. Aged Whiskey Blessed With A Whisper of Heady Castilian Wine.

It all goes down the same way.

Gary

[squire]

It's all good . . . .

[Capn Jimbo]

"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".

But nothing actually states this in 5.23 or elsewhere in the SOI: it's an inference you are making. Not necessarily an unreasonable one, but it is just as reasonable to go the other way: bourbon finished in a sherry cask indicates clearly that the primary ruling class as you put it has been modified, changed, indeed "must be" as you say. The purity of the original classification is not compromised. There are different verbal formulations to give effect to the result of that sub (1) applying here. There is not only one way to express it, but multiple ways, ways that can include use of the word "bourbon", in the (reasonable) judgment of the TTB (and numerous here on the board). This is what you don't see.

Gary

Oh dear, one last time. The SID for "bourbon" establishes at least four criterion:

1. at least 51% corn

[Capn Jimbo]

"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".

But nothing actually states this in 5.23 or elsewhere in the SOI: it's an inference you are making. Not necessarily an unreasonable one, but it is just as reasonable to go the other way: bourbon finished in a sherry cask indicates clearly that the primary ruling class as you put it has been modified, changed, indeed "must be" as you say. The purity of the original classification is not compromised. There are different verbal formulations to give effect to the result of that sub (1) applying here. There is not only one way to express it, but multiple ways, ways that can include use of the word "bourbon", in the (reasonable) judgment of the TTB (and numerous here on the board). This is what you don't see.

Gary

Asked and answered.

The next thing to be claimed is that "storage in an ex-sherry barrel", er container, is actually part of the bottling process, and doesn't count toward the age. Bartender, another round for my friends... do you have a good whiskey made from bourbon mash?

We now know why Chip threated to shoot the chairman of the board, lol...

Edited September 20, 2014 by Capn Jimbo

[Gillman]

Asked and answered.

You did, and I appreciate your replies as I said earlier. One thing I'm starting to think more and more is that the standards of identity should probably be overhauled, not by a band-aid approach, but taking a fresh look at it.

There are numerous changes in the industry in recent years which argue for this. First, the prevalence of white spirits of various kinds, some flavored, some not, some aged a little in different ways, some not. The finishing thing we've been talking about. The definition of containers and the kind of oak perhaps, etc. etc. The labelling issues discussed on other threads. The current rules largely reflect a 1930's look at the products then available, in turn that goes back to the 1800's, for much of it.

The current rules were good enough when the industry largely regulated itself but it's a different time now.

Gary

[DBM]

I appreciate Jimbo and Gillman's lively and thorough discussion on the topic, dissected in every which way possible. Jimbo's argument is pretty solid, but Gillman's interpretation is entirely acceptable within the regulations as they are written, or maybe more importantly, how they are enforced.

Ultimately, we are debating what words should appear on a bottle of spirits made in a specific fashion to inform and protect the consumer.

I like bourbon. Bourbon that has been finished in other (flavored) barrels doesn't detract from the fact that I like bourbon, and thus I may like a finished bourbon. I have zero problem calling it bourbon whiskey finished in xxxx because it clearly states what the base product is and what non-standard practice has been applied to it.

Unless there is a plausible concern about how this labeling could be abused and misrepresented, we should put our energy behind changing the regulations to accommodate a reasonable label requirement for additional styles of bourbon, not trying to remove the consumer friendly designations we want and appreciate.

[Capn Jimbo]

I appreciate Jimbo and Gillman's lively and thorough discussion on the topic, dissected in every which way possible. Jimbo's argument is pretty solid, but Gillman's interpretation is entirely acceptable within the regulations as they are written, or maybe more importantly, how they are enforced.

Unless there is a plausible concern about how this labeling could be abused and misrepresented, we should put our energy behind changing the regulations to accommodate a reasonable label requirement for additional styles of bourbon, not trying to remove the consumer friendly designations we want and appreciate.

DBM, I'm sure both Gary and I appreciate your comments. However there is indeed not only a plausible concern of abuse and misrepresentation, which I'll do my best to summarize. It is well to keep in mind that the law is the law, and until changed must be abided. The marketing tail must not be allowed to continue to wag the dog...

From §5.22 The standards of identity:

(1)(i) “Bourbon whiskyâ€...is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn... and stored at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type.

And from the same section:

(2) “Whisky distilled from bourbon mash†is whisky produced in the United States at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn... and stored in used oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type."

The difference is meaningful and based primarily on the oak used for storage. It is essential to understand that the regs make no distinction between what is called "finishing" and what is called "aging". Truth be told, neither do the marketing monkeys nor the misinformed public.

What the regs do define is "storage" in oak "containers" of varying types. The regs consider storage as well, storage. What you want to call “finishing†or even “aging� It's all “storage†to the TTB. No distinction is made other than the required wood type. Anytime a spirit is in an oak container, that is considered storage. If it is moved from one container to another (eg for the euphemistic "finishing" or "aging"), it must be to another bourbon barrel of the same kind (charred, new oak).

"§19.326 Mingling or blending of spirits for further storage.

A proprietor may mingle or blend spirits in the storage account according to the following rules...

( Domestic spirits distilled at less than 190° of proof may be mingled for withdrawal or further storage if the spirits:

(1) Are of the same kind; and

(2) Were produced in the same State."

No one can convincingly argue that a used sherry barrel/container (containing residual sherry) and which was probably produced in Europe or California is "of the same kind" as a charred, new oak container of bourbon made in Kentucky. Sherry – residual or otherwise - is not bourbon, and simply can't be mingled with the resultant mixture being called either "bourbon" or "sherry".

The novel attempt by one poster to redefine the standard of "storage in a used container†to somehow instead be considered just a form of adding "flavoring" – is simply that: novel and unconvincing. It has no basis in the regulations. The flavoring clause does not modify the standard of identity in any way; to the contrary, the flavoring and other alteration clauses follow the SID which defines the base spirit/category (“bourbonâ€), takes precedence and to which the others must defer. "Adding" and "storage" are clearly defined and must both stand. The defining SID cannot be whatever the marketing monkeys want it to be.

Bottom Line:

The only fair and legal label choices: add sherry directly in the customary manner and you may label it "Bourbon Flavored with Sherry" (§5.22(i) Class 9, Flavored Whiskey), or insert some sherry staves or chips into the bourgon required charred new oak storage, and then label it "Bourbon flavored and colored with sherry oak chips" (§5.39© Treatment with wood).

Otherwise, and if moved for continued storage in a used oak sherry container, the spirit now must be identified as "Whiskey distilled from bourbon mash" and the sherry need not be labelled.

Mind you, the legalities and the current misleading marketing labelling are two different things, not to mention the cowering and complaint TTB, to whom "enforcement" is an oxymoron. Twist and turn as you will, that's the law.

But let's hear from the apologists..

Now to those who assert that they're just fine with a label stating “Bourbon, barrel-finished in Oloroso Sherry Barrelsâ€, keep in mind that this is just a continued degradation of what for a hundred years was and remains the singular and clear standard definition of a “bourbon whiskeyâ€. Misleading labels such as that blur the distinctions between “Bourbonâ€, “Flavored Bourbonâ€, “Bourbon flavored and colored with oak chipsâ€, and “Whiskey distilled from bourbon mashâ€.

All of those are clearly defined and separate categories and should be. This whole recent notion of “finishing†bourbon is pure marketing and is undefined in the regs short of being just another form of “storage†(in a container). In fact, Cowdery's 2004 book “Straight Bourbon†does not seem to even mention the concept. The mega-corporations have but one goal: new sales and new profits. Their goal is to trade on the success and heretofore absolute purity of a spirit that until rather recently was guaranteed to be free of color, additives of any kind including other spirits, and whose storage was solely in charred, new oak containers.

Enter the Madmen...

The mega-corporate marketing monkeys have noted the success of single malts using ex-sherry barrels, but ignore the fact that the SID for those malts allows storage in any oak container, charred or not. They know that a made up “Bourbon finished in Oloroso PX Barrels†will sell a lot better and for lots more money than a “Sherry Flavored Bourbon†and as for the proper “Whiskey distilled from bourbon mashâ€, never! And they're fully aware that the TTB is in their very deep pockets, er "open minded" in re their very creative labeling.

By tweaking the label with their euphemistic “finishedâ€, they want you to believe that it's a valued and established “bourbon whiskey†and not an ugh, flavored bourbon of any kind and in any fashion. Trust me this is a very slippery slope. Rum has become so degraded with coloring and additives – labeled or not - that the category and label of “rum†is completely abused and unreliable. Now when you buy a bottle labeled “rum†you really have no idea what else is in there. The legal labels of “rum†and “flavored rum†are for all practical purposes one in the same. A cheap rum can now be tweaked and sold for premium dollars.

The very same conglomerates who have destroyed “rum†as a category have obviously taken aim at bourbon, and you'd better know that. The fix is in and the trusting sheeple obediently follow. A quick “finish†and capture of residual sherry and you can now take what ought have been a $25 “bourbon†into a $150 super-premium, marketing created “barrel-finished bourbonâ€. Ouch. When the day comes that they actually not only switch storage containers to an unauthorized ex-sherry barrel and its residual sherry, but then even dare to add even more sherry to the bourbon, and still call it bourbon (!!) – well then perhaps you'll understand. Surely that'll never happen!

Not so fast!

That day is already here. The completely made up super-premium nicknamed “Sherry Signature†does exactly that – even adding foreign sherry – and is still is clearly and loudly labeled “ Straight Kentucky Bourbon Whiskeyâ€. This time the made up word “finished†is superceded by the highlighted and even more euphemistic “Sherry Signatureâ€. My friends, you'd better wake up and smell the bourbon. The fix is in. The bourbon you loved for the last 30 or 40 years is not the bourbon of today. Now it's “Sherry Signature†and even contains some added sherry, with those two marketing words costing you about another $60 each.

Let me close with the now famous story of Sydney Frank, back when vodka was just another $10, bottom shelf buzz facilitator. When he proposed to triple the price and produce a super-premium vodka he was laughed at. His retort, paraphrased “It's only water and alcohol, so if I can triple the price it's all profitâ€. Thus his highly promoted, fancy bottled Grey Goose was born, and the category of ordinary vodka was changed forever. His detractors? Soon enough they too were inventing new and sales inducing bottle designs and unprovable claims. Enter “Sherry Signatureâ€.

But hey, “it's all goodâ€, right? Not at all. Remember that the category of "rum" was ruined by the regulatory abuse and lack of enforcement. As this was happening bourbon and single malt remained as safe haven, predictable and trustworthy for two reasons: the regs were tight and clear, and they were enforced.

Accordingly both bourbon and single malts maintained a great respect, and justified their greater value and pricing. For rum - like Sydney Frank's Grey Goose - super-premium is all marketing and has little to do with what is actually in the bottle.

And that my friends is what bourbon now risks. With Signature Anything, that barn door is now fully open...

[callmeox]

This thread has devolved into a rehashing of the same arguments while settling nothing.

Everyone has had a chance to state their case, so it is time to move along for now.