Are Age Statements Verifiable?

[wadewood]

If a company tried to lie about an age statement, the TTB could fine and/or pull their DSP.  I don't think any of the big guys would take that risk on purpose.  

I know at Garrison Brothers we have federal inspections and they will ask where a particular barrel is and want to physically see it; ie you filled this barrel on Aug 15 2012 and you have not reported it as being dumped, so show it to us.

[starhopper]

43 minutes ago, wadewood said:

If a company tried to lie about an age statement, the TTB could fine and/or pull their DSP.  I don't think any of the big guys would take that risk on purpose.  

I know at Garrison Brothers we have federal inspections and they will ask where a particular barrel is and want to physically see it; ie you filled this barrel on Aug 15 2012 and you have not reported it as being dumped, so show it to us.

Thanks for that .....that's the first response I've seen that actually has some firsthand info on any inspection process.  I appreciate the input!

[jp_stargazer]

Interesting question, I definitely have wondered about it before.  I echo what other people have said that for the major distillers, at least, it doesn't seem like it would be worth tarnishing the brand or facing the legal/civil repercussions to cheat on age statements.  Although if one were to try it, I think "a mistake with inventory identification and tracking" would be a plausible excuse.  

Also if the success of many NDP's is an indication, an age statement (or any information about the whiskey in the bottle) is not necessary to entice consumers.  So if 80% (not a factually based number) of the consumer base would list an age statement as a less desirable trait than packaging, origin story, brand perception aka cool factor, or something that matters like proof, what market sense would lying on age statements even make?

At least with bonded bourbon there is (or should) be governmental oversight.  The label states where it was distilled (unless exhausting an old label like David Nicholson 1843).  I would imagine to prove the whiskey in the bottle was all from one distilling season there would be a record of when it was distilled, which the distiller would likely maintain anyway.  Then the barrel sits in a bonded warehouse where I assume there is also traceability for the entire time it ages.  Then a tax record of when the barrel is removed from the warehouse and dumped, where I would think proof is also adjusted and verified as 50% abv.  It starts to make sense really quickly why the BIB label was so important to indicate quality in bourbon days of old.

Jason

[Harry in WashDC]

Star - the TTB website (www.ttb.gov) does contain electro versions of public reports that the TTB prepares documenting its work.  Some of them are prepared in connection with the annual federal budget process, others are required by oversight committees.  I remember reading one last year, when there was a discussion on SB about the TTB and whether it is "doing its job", that set out: the number of labels reviewed; processing times; staffing levels; on-site inspections of breweries, wineries, and distilleries conducted; lab tests performed (like, is the proof what they say it is); etc., and the results and conclusions drawn from all those activities.

Of course, yesterday when I went looking for the place on the TTB website where these materials are located, I got a broken link.  Hence, I sent them an email telling them of the problem.  After all, if they want people to know they are working hard, they really should make sure the info they prepare to document that work is publicly available.

Incidentally, that website has TONS of info on the laws, regs, circulars, etc., as well as about industry practices, TTB participation in conferences, etc., that people like us find fascinating.  At least, I do.

[fishnbowljoe]

Luxco is what it is. A NDP, at least for now. Who knows what will happen in the future with their new distillery in Bardstown. 

To me, Diageo is the proverbial "horse of a different color". Good, bad, or indifferent?? The thing that gets me about them, is how they keep finding these older barrels of supposed SW distillate. IIRC, a few years back, they bought back some of the SW stocks they had sold previously. Supposedly they were earmarked for some of their other products. Basically Crown Royal. If that is/was true, I can't help but wonder if they either (conveniently?) forgot about a bunch of barrels, or maybe secreted some away. I lean more towards secreting some away. IMHO, they knew what they had, and what the market was like in the current "bourbon boom"  In all likelihood, they fully intended to hold barrels back and slowly release different products from time to time, and charge a premium price for said products. Some speculation, some fact, and some unknown factors at work. I could be totally wrong, but it do make for some interesting thoughts and conversation. Maybe Chuck could help shed a little more light on this subject too. 

Joe

[Scotch Neat]

Although there is the possibility of fudging the barrel dates and numbers (they are of course only slabs of wood with characters on them) I would

believe that any such practice would be publicized by a disgruntled employee, and there is always disgruntled employee.

[jsrudd]

7 hours ago, jp_stargazer said:

Also if the success of many NDP's is an indication, an age statement (or any information about the whiskey in the bottle) is not necessary to entice consumers.  So if 80% (not a factually based number) of the consumer base would list an age statement as a less desirable trait than packaging, origin story, brand perception aka cool factor, or something that matters like proof, what market sense would lying on age statements even make?

I think the consumer base does actually place an outsized value on age statements. Look at the secondary market value of Pappy 15 vs. 20 vs. 23; Parker's Heritage 27 Year vs. Golden Anniversary; and 10y WFE vs. 24y WFE. Granted, it's hard to disentangle these values from scarcity since there are fewer of the older bottlings. 

Another anecdotal point is the way whiskey is treated in movies/TV. If someone is going to celebrate with a really good bottle of whiskey (normally scotch), its always a really old (i.e., 30-Year) bottle not a very rare one.

This is not to say that I agree with the OP that we need some kind of governmental monitoring of age statements in the whiskey industry, but I do think there is some incentive to fabricate age statements. Fabricating an age statement, however, is very different than other misleading marketing tactics such as a suspect origin story or ambiguous statements that a whiskey was made in a state where it was bottled. It's hard to argue that your four year old whiskey is actually twelve years old. While ambiguous statements as to quality or origin are acceptable as marketing, plainly false statements of age are not and I don't think the prevalence of the former is evidence of the latter.            

[Spade]

Even if the probability of getting caught is low for any one offense, I wouldn't imagine any of the established producers would take the risk given the potential formal punishment as well as public backlash. 

[VAGentleman]

I would think the bigger issue for the distilleries on not being accurate on age statements would be with the IRS.  They have to pay taxes each year on the aging barrels (I believe).  If all of a sudden they had a bunch of 20 year old barrels that they hadn't been paying taxes on for 20 years they could be in serious trouble for not paying their taxes.  If there is one thing the government is usually good at, its collecting taxes

[starhopper]

6 minutes ago, VAGentleman said:

I would think the bigger issue for the distilleries on not being accurate on age statements would be with the IRS.  They have to pay taxes each year on the aging barrels (I believe).  If all of a sudden they had a bunch of 20 year old barrels that they hadn't been paying taxes on for 20 years they could be in serious trouble for not paying their taxes.  If there is one thing the government is usually good at, its collecting taxes

That's an interesting point VAGentleman!

[jp_stargazer]

1 hour ago, VAGentleman said:

I would think the bigger issue for the distilleries on not being accurate on age statements would be with the IRS.  They have to pay taxes each year on the aging barrels (I believe).  If all of a sudden they had a bunch of 20 year old barrels that they hadn't been paying taxes on for 20 years they could be in serious trouble for not paying their taxes.  If there is one thing the government is usually good at, its collecting taxes

I am trying to remember my bourbon homework (reading the books by Cowdery, Veach, Bryson, etc.) and I thought the government originally required tax paid upon distillation.  This was considered unfair to the distillers, who had no revenue to pay the taxes.  Distillers then lobbied for a tax deferral to allow aging, and then paying taxes when they could actually expect to sell the whiskey.  If I recall, that deferral period kept being extended to allow for older and older whiskey to be financially feasible for the distillers.  Today, I don't know if there is a fixed time limit but I believe the tax would be due when the whiskey is dumped/bottled.  I am certainly not the authority on the subject, though.

Jason

[jsrudd]

3 hours ago, jp_stargazer said:

Today, I don't know if there is a fixed time limit but I believe the tax would be due when the whiskey is dumped/bottled.  I am certainly not the authority on the subject, though.

Jason

The time limit is 20 years, but apparently (according to Julian) the IRS will make exceptions in practice. There's a good discussion of taxation practices (with Chuck and Mike weighing in) here. 

[jvd99]

On 4/18/2016 at 5:43 PM, Louisiana said:

It really comes down to whether you trust the company that your buying the whiskey from.

Buffalo Trace, Heaven Hill, Four Roses and numerous others have solid reputations.

I'm not saying Diageo would lie about the age of their whiskey, but you did question the age of Barterhouse 20 year.

Would you question let's say the age of Pappy Van Winkle 20 year? Just my thoughts on this.

 

I'd be more inclined not to trust a company like Diageo that makes up stories that are clearly a load of BS.  I just don't buy their bourbons.  Whether any company is lying about their age statements is worth discussion, bit in reality, it's probably not anything to worry about because the consequences, however remote, of being caught far outweigh the benefit of an indefensible consumer fraud

[Louisiana]

19 minutes ago, jvd99 said:

I'd be more inclined not to trust a company like Diageo that makes up stories that are clearly a load of BS.  I just don't buy their bourbons.  Whether any company is lying about their age statements is worth discussion, bit in reality, it's probably not anything to worry about because the consequences, however remote, of being caught far outweigh the benefit of an indefensible consumer fraud

 

I've never bought a Diageo product either.

I just don't know why the OP bought a bottle if he didn't trust them?

[b1gcountry]

Isn't 4r owned by kirin, which is owned by Diageo? I might be making that up, but I thought I heard that. ..

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[starhopper]

4 hours ago, Louisiana said:

 

I've never bought a Diageo product either.

I just don't know why the OP bought a bottle if he didn't trust them?

I never said I didn't trust them... the purchase just got me to thinking about it.

Edited April 21, 2016 by starhopper

[Flyfish]

When bourbon goes into a barrel it receives a bar code. When it comes out, the code is scanned for tax purposes. Theoretically, the government has a strong interest in knowing the age of every barrel. That doesn't mean you can necessarily verify which barrel(s) end up in which bottles. For that, we need to put the NCIS team on the job. Some SBers have palates that would qualify them for the bourbon testing team. I know that I would be willing to attend the Combines and try out for a position. Even be willing to do two-a-days and sit on the bench (or recliner anyway) until I could work into the rotation.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Flyfish

[tanstaafl2]

11 hours ago, b1gcountry said:

Isn't 4r owned by kirin, which is owned by Diageo? I might be making that up, but I thought I heard that. ..

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

Four Roses is indeed owned by the Kirin Brewery Company which is in turn owned by the Kirin Company, a large Japanese beverage company. But Kirin is not owned by Diageo. It is one of many, many different divisions of Mitsubishi.

[jvd99]

I do buy the occasional Diageo scotch though.  There's less duechbaggery going on across the pond.

[Louisiana]

7 hours ago, starhopper said:

I never said I didn't trust them... the purchase just got me to thinking about it.

 

Fair enough! It is always smart to think about these things. Especially where a lot of money is to be made.

 

What I find interesting though is the legal side of it. That sounds like enough to steer these companies in the right direction. 

[jsrudd]

9 hours ago, tanstaafl2 said:

But Kirin is not owned by Diageo. It is one of many, many different divisions of Mitsubishi.

Technically, Kirin is not owned by Mitsubishi. Kirin Holdings is a publicly traded company that has close ties with Mitsubishi.

 

22 hours ago, jvd99 said:

Whether any company is lying about their age statements is worth discussion, bit in reality, it's probably not anything to worry about because the consequences, however remote, of being caught far outweigh the benefit of an indefensible consumer fraud

 This makes sense intuitively, but I think the Volkswagon case proves otherwise. 

[b1gcountry]

 

Four Roses is indeed owned by the Kirin Brewery Company which is in turn owned by the Kirin Company, a large Japanese beverage company. But Kirin is not owned by Diageo. It is one of many, many different divisions of Mitsubishi.

Thanks for setting me straight!

[Canarse]

2 hours ago, jsrudd said:

Technically, Kirin is not owned by Mitsubishi. Kirin Holdings is a publicly traded company that has close ties with Mitsubishi.

 

 

 

Kirin is part of the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group keiretsu.  A keiretsu is a group of businesses that have holdings in each other to protect them from outside interests influencing their daily business decisions, or something like that.  

[Harry in WashDC]

On 4/21/2016 at 9:14 PM, jsrudd said:

The time limit is 20 years, but apparently (according to Julian) the IRS will make exceptions in practice. There's a good discussion of taxation practices (with Chuck and Mike weighing in) here. 

Fascinating.  Thank you for pulling up that link.

[jvd99]

17 hours ago, jsrudd said:

 This makes sense intuitively, but I think the Volkswagon case proves otherwise. 

 

Ask VW after they have to pony up $10B (with a "B") which is the number being bandied about.  Given the chance, I think they'd go back in time and put the correct emissions software in those vehicles.