Four Roses 2017 Small Batch LE

[Don Birnam]

13 hours ago, Kpiz said:

Well I'm just a small town pizza lawyer, but I'll throw my opinion in here...

 

Since the blend is all straight bourbon >4 years old, Four Rose doesn't have to list an age statement at all. However, since they've chosen to put an age on there, they must format it as the TTB dictates. Sku cites chapter 8 of the TTB Beverage Alcohol Manual. The first page through the top of the second page (including the rum example) addresses this and it's pretty clear that percentages are required if the ages of multiple components are listed. To summarize all this:

• Since all components are straight whiskeys >4 years old, Four Roses does not have to include an age statement on the label
• If they choose to include an age statement, it must be in one of two formats as @VAGentleman said. Either:
  • If using the youngest age in the blend: "___ years old" or "Aged ___ years"
  • If listing the components and ages: "___% straight bourbon ___ years old" or "___% straight bourbon aged ___ years" (this must be done for each component)
• They have chosen to list the ages of the components, so they must also list the corresponding percentages of the blend (in terms of proof gallons I believe)

Alright, all fine and dandy, EXCEPT one very important thing. Four Roses did not choose to include an age statement.

The ages on this product are supplementary, miscellaneous as it were, and is covered on page 8-10 of the manual.

 

To summarize:

A specific statement of age is ALLOWED but not required, EXCEPT for whiskeys younger than four years. This product clearly isn't.

And now the important part.

A miscellaneous statement of age is also ALLOWED. BUT the specific age statement must appear on the same label as the miscellaneous age statement. UNLESS all are straight whiskeys greater than four years old. AND the miscellaneous age reference (keep in mind this is a reference not a statement) is general and inconspicuous. Better known as on the back label. If the front label listed the type and ages THAT would be a violation, it doesn't, and isn't.

 

So the label for 4RLESB 2017 does not contain a specific age statement (Specific statements of age are on the front label.), and isn't required to, as it is all aged for more than four years.

The ages on the back label are considered supplemental and are merely references. And as such, are not held to any rulings other than having to be on the back label.

 

I am sorry, but SKU has a large helping of crow to eat. I have no idea why he has such a huge axe to grind with Four Roses, but it is clear he does.

 

PS

I am the anonymous commenter on SKU's blog. Well one of them anyway, the one attempting to clarify.

[Kpiz]

1 hour ago, Don Birnam said:

Alright, all fine and dandy, EXCEPT one very important thing. Four Roses did not choose to include an age statement.

The ages on this product are supplementary, miscellaneous as it were, and is covered on page 8-10 of the manual.

 

To summarize:

A specific statement of age is ALLOWED but not required, EXCEPT for whiskeys younger than four years. This product clearly isn't.

And now the important part.

A miscellaneous statement of age is also ALLOWED. BUT the specific age statement must appear on the same label as the miscellaneous age statement. UNLESS all are straight whiskeys greater than four years old. AND the miscellaneous age reference (keep in mind this is a reference not a statement) is general and inconspicuous. Better known as on the back label. If the front label listed the type and ages THAT would be a violation, it doesn't, and isn't.

 

So the label for 4RLESB 2017 does not contain a specific age statement (Specific statements of age are on the front label.), and isn't required to, as it is all aged for more than four years.

The ages on the back label are considered supplemental and are merely references. And as such, are not held to any rulings other than having to be on the back label.

 

I am sorry, but SKU has a large helping of crow to eat. I have no idea why he has such a huge axe to grind with Four Roses, but it is clear he does.

 

PS

I am the anonymous commenter on SKU's blog. Well one of them anyway, the one attempting to clarify.

 

Welcome to SB, Don.

 

Thanks for calling attention to page 8-10.

 

In your comment above you define a "specific statement of age" as being contained on the front label - is that defined by the TTB as such, somewhere? Is "miscellaneous age statement" also defined somewhere? I think the formal definitions are necessary for proper interpretation.

 

Aside from the definitions for those two terms, the very last part of the last section catches my eye. In it, they state that the miscellaneous age reference must be "general in nature and inconspicuous (e.g., contained in back label text) on the label". This is phrased in a peculiar way; if they intend to mean that the miscellaneous age reference is compliant if it's on the back label, wouldn't they have said "contained on the back label" instead of "contained in the back label text"? The way they've phrased it, it's possible this is intended to mean that the "miscellaneous age reference" is ok if it's embedded in a textual description of the product (the older Elijah Craig label comes to mind where it states "12 years old" in the paragraph on the back label). And if this is the case, the label would possibly not be compliant, as the ages are listed separately from the main text.

 

For anyone else still following along, I think it's helpful to look at the full text of the pertinent section on page 8-10, so I pasted it below:

 

Is a specific statement of age allowed?

YES

A specific statement of age is REQUIRED if any of the straight bourbon whiskies in the blend are less than 4 years old

 

Is a miscellaneous age reference allowed?

YES

BUT a specific statement of age must appear as conspicuously and on the same label as the miscellaneous age reference UNLESS all of the straight bourbon whiskies in the blend are not less than 4 years old and the miscellaneous age reference is general in nature and inconspicuous (e.g., contained in back label text) on the label

 

 

If we get any deeper into this label discussion, we may need a new topic so as not to derail the entire conversation about this product. I should add that I will purchase one of these if I have an opportunity to do so at or near the suggested retail price, whether it is labeled correctly or not.

[smokinjoe]

5 hours ago, Kpiz said:

 

 

 

If we get any deeper into this label discussion, we may need a new topic so as not to derail the entire conversation about this product. I should add that I will purchase one of these if I have an opportunity to do so at or near the suggested retail price, whether it is labeled correctly or not.

 

I for one, am thoroughly enjoying the discussion, and I hope there is more to come.  Your rec to move the this part to a separate thread is a great idea.  Hey O, can you set us up with that?  

[callmeox]

On 3/9/2017 at 1:50 PM, Kpiz said:

 

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I think this is the first year they've revealed the proportions of the components in their LESmB blend.

 

The article also has a picture of the bottle, which resembles the WTMK bottle more than the 4R Super Premium bottle. So much for our conjectures.

Jim Rutledge era FR was open WRT the volume of each component in the small batch SE's. I even have a photo of graduated cylinder of each whiskey next to a bottle that I took at a release event. 

[Don Birnam]

6 hours ago, Kpiz said:

If we get any deeper into this label discussion, we may need a new topic so as not to derail the entire conversation about this product. I should add that I will purchase one of these if I have an opportunity to do so at or near the suggested retail price, whether it is labeled correctly or not.

 I thoroughly agree, it was not my intention to take this thread off on a tangent. I only did because SKU's blog entry was mentioned.

Also, I know this topic can get contentious and that isn't my desire either, I certainly hope if a thread is created for this it can remain civil and the participation is educational.

 

For now, Kpiz, I may have overstated the front label, a specific age statement can be on the front, back or side. I only used front because most bottlers wouldn't want to draw attention to underaged or of 'legal' aged *snicker* but immature spirit by having say, a big red "5 years old" on the front label in the case of straight whiskey. 

 

As to 'general in nature and inconspicuous' the label at issue is a prime example, the miscellaneous age statements are the same size and coloration as the rest of the descriptive text, though offset by a double space. Nothing to draw your attention to, in order to deceive the actual age. Also, if you look, they are in alphabetical order not by age. Once again, they aren't drawing the eye to the oldest spirit. 

[Kpiz]

Jim Rutledge era FR was open WRT the volume of each component in the small batch SE's. I even have a photo of graduated cylinder of each whiskey next to a bottle that I took at a release event. 

Thanks for the additional info, Ox, I didn't realize that the percentages for the blend were ever released. It's possible I'm just thinking of last year's LESmB or maybe I'm just mistaken. I will say that it seems like the folks who make it to Kentucky for tours, barrel selections, etc. are able to learn some of these cool details that sometimes don't make it to print.

[Kpiz]

 I thoroughly agree, it was not my intention to take this thread off on a tangent. I only did because SKU's blog entry was mentioned.
Also, I know this topic can get contentious and that isn't my desire either, I certainly hope if a thread is created for this it can remain civil and the participation is educational.
 
For now, Kpiz, I may have overstated the front label, a specific age statement can be on the front, back or side. I only used front because most bottlers wouldn't want to draw attention to underaged or of 'legal' aged *snicker* but immature spirit by having say, a big red "5 years old" on the front label in the case of straight whiskey. 
 
As to 'general in nature and inconspicuous' the label at issue is a prime example, the miscellaneous age statements are the same size and coloration as the rest of the descriptive text, though offset by a double space. Nothing to draw your attention to, in order to deceive the actual age. Also, if you look, they are in alphabetical order not by age. Once again, they aren't drawing the eye to the oldest spirit. 

So far this has been a civil and productive discussion. I'm sure we can keep it that way, and maybe even get to the bottom of this labeling question...although I think I already gave my best rebuttal to your overview of page 8-10 and I don't have too much more to add. I looked for TTB definitions of "specific statement of age" and "miscellaneous age reference" and couldn't find anything official. It would be nice to have those. But I agree with you that Four Roses doesn't make the 23yo OBSV stand out more than the other components, and this could certainly qualify as "general in nature and inconspicuous". Also, if I were to judge it without any knowledge of the TTB regs, I would say that it's not misleading.

Did you bring attention to this specific page in the comments on sku's blog? I don't remember any mention of it there. Would be interesting to hear his take on it.

[Don Birnam]

9 hours ago, Kpiz said:

 

So far this has been a civil and productive discussion. I'm sure we can keep it that way, and maybe even get to the bottom of this labeling question...although I think I already gave my best rebuttal to your overview of page 8-10 and I don't have too much more to add. I looked for TTB definitions of "specific statement of age" and "miscellaneous age reference" and couldn't find anything official. It would be nice to have those. But I agree with you that Four Roses doesn't make the 23yo OBSV stand out more than the other components, and this could certainly qualify as "general in nature and inconspicuous". Also, if I were to judge it without any knowledge of the TTB regs, I would say that it's not misleading.

Did you bring attention to this specific page in the comments on sku's blog? I don't remember any mention of it there. Would be interesting to hear his take on it.

 

 

I too believe if this discussion were to carry on it would be civilized and educational. I may have joined about a month back, but I have visited, read and learned for quite some time and the members are very decent and understanding.

 

All I find on specific age statements in regard to straight whiskeys is, as we know, if it's younger than four years it must be stated. And would be called a 'specific' age statement. And miscellaneous age references can be used but must be inconspicuous and general.

I feel a good example of this would be store picks and other private selections.

With those, the whiskey is chosen by the 'store' but processed by the plant, so the labeling is the normal type, with an additional label with separate information.

My Knob Creek SB private selections pop to mind, the label is the normal wrap-around nine year stated, but with an additional side label, with a barreling date, bottling date, rick house location, etc.

The nine year statement is of course an understatement and perfectly within regulations, but the barreling date and bottling date prove out that the contents are ~33% older.

 

No, I did not bring any attention to those regulations. I felt the 'discussion' was going downhill quickly, and I also felt no one was going to admit their misinterpretation of the regulations.

 

To that end, SKU and the others seem to be ageists and care less for the overall taste (not that anyone other than FR has tasted it yet) than the fact it's old spirit. I, for one, don't care for old bourbons, while some are fine, most have far too much young oak influence

Now a nice old Scotch, for me is where it's at, the wood has less impression on the whisky due to the fact the barrels are broken down for shipping and have 'aired out' and the mellowing comes from oxidation more than wood interaction.

[Kpiz]

 
I too believe if this discussion were to carry on it would be civilized and educational. I may have joined about a month back, but I have visited, read and learned for quite some time and the members are very decent and understanding.
 
All I find on specific age statements in regard to straight whiskeys is, as we know, if it's younger than four years it must be stated. And would be called a 'specific' age statement. And miscellaneous age references can be used but must be inconspicuous and general.
I feel a good example of this would be store picks and other private selections.
With those, the whiskey is chosen by the 'store' but processed by the plant, so the labeling is the normal type, with an additional label with separate information.
My Knob Creek SB private selections pop to mind, the label is the normal wrap-around nine year stated, but with an additional side label, with a barreling date, bottling date, rick house location, etc.
The nine year statement is of course an understatement and perfectly within regulations, but the barreling date and bottling date prove out that the contents are ~33% older.
 
No, I did not bring any attention to those regulations. I felt the 'discussion' was going downhill quickly, and I also felt no one was going to admit their misinterpretation of the regulations.
 
To that end, SKU and the others seem to be ageists and care less for the overall taste (not that anyone other than FR has tasted it yet) than the fact it's old spirit. I, for one, don't care for old bourbons, while some are fine, most have far too much young oak influence
Now a nice old Scotch, for me is where it's at, the wood has less impression on the whisky due to the fact the barrels are broken down for shipping and have 'aired out' and the mellowing comes from oxidation more than wood interaction.

Interesting in regards to the supplemental labels on private selections. I hadn't really thought about those as being a part of the label but they are, of course. Despite examples I still long for a TTB definition of these terms, though it's not a foregone conclusion that they would help clarify any of this.

At this point I think the crux of the issue remains whether the ages listed on the back label (along with each recipe) qualify as a miscellaneous age reference or if they constitute a specific age statement. Based on page 8-10 of the BAM they probably are a miscellaneous age reference and therefore compliant. Without page 8-10, however, (and thus based just on section 5.40 of the CFR and page 8-1 of the BAM) I would have opined that the label is definitely in violation of the TTB labeling regulations.

Hopefully we didn't scare everyone else away, it would be interesting to hear what some of the other folks think as well.

[flahute]

I'm enjoying this discussion but don't have time to dig into the rules myself so thanks to you guys for doing it. Please keep it going.

[garbanzobean]

19 hours ago, Don Birnam said:

 

I too believe if this discussion were to carry on it would be civilized and educational. I may have joined about a month back, but I have visited, read and learned for quite some time and the members are very decent and understanding.

 

All I find on specific age statements in regard to straight whiskeys is, as we know, if it's younger than four years it must be stated. And would be called a 'specific' age statement. And miscellaneous age references can be used but must be inconspicuous and general.

I feel a good example of this would be store picks and other private selections.

With those, the whiskey is chosen by the 'store' but processed by the plant, so the labeling is the normal type, with an additional label with separate information.

My Knob Creek SB private selections pop to mind, the label is the normal wrap-around nine year stated, but with an additional side label, with a barreling date, bottling date, rick house location, etc.

The nine year statement is of course an understatement and perfectly within regulations, but the barreling date and bottling date prove out that the contents are ~33% older.

 

No, I did not bring any attention to those regulations. I felt the 'discussion' was going downhill quickly, and I also felt no one was going to admit their misinterpretation of the regulations.

 

To that end, SKU and the others seem to be ageists and care less for the overall taste (not that anyone other than FR has tasted it yet) than the fact it's old spirit. I, for one, don't care for old bourbons, while some are fine, most have far too much young oak influence

Now a nice old Scotch, for me is where it's at, the wood has less impression on the whisky due to the fact the barrels are broken down for shipping and have 'aired out' and the mellowing comes from oxidation more than wood interaction.

So a couple nits to pick:

 

1.) I think lumping SKU in with ageists is maybe premature.  Having communicated with SKU for a number of years online, I feel comfortable saying that it is more likely that he was trying to point out the hipocrisy of folks who worship 4R yet don't hold them accountable to the same standard as other distilleries.  SKU doesn't take himself too seriously, as nearly as I can tell

  I actually tend to lean toward your interpretation of the rules, though.  In fact, I believe Chuck Cowdery has weighed in on this issue in the past and agrees with your interpretation, based on the fact that he cites instances where American Whiskey Producers do it without citing Percentages: http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2016/02/compass-box-crusade-is-already-won-in.html

 

It is certainly possible that Chuck is wrong about this, but his words have more weight in my eyes than SKUs.

 

2.) Be careful about your characterization of why scotch is the way it is.  Many of us here are also malt whisky fans, and will likely want to point out some shortcomings in your explanation of barrel influence in Scotch whisky.

 

 

 

 

[Richnimrod]

Having read through many (not all: eyeball fatigue, not to mention brain fatigue) of the posts in this thread, I'll go ahead and weigh in (not that anybody will care what I think... Ha!)......

I shall rise to speak in defense of Four Roses.     Well . . . to type in their defense anyway.

 

I can't see any intent to deceive in the giving of MORE information on a label, rather than keeping silent on age/recipe questions, just to be safely regulation-compliant.     (Attorneys everywhere love to see folx run in fear of the laws... keeps 'em gainfully employed litigating the minutia).     So, I for one am happy to see the additional information, and do not find it misleading; certainly not nefarious.       I commend 4-R for putting it on the label, giving us more details about what's in the bottle. 

If nothing else it's given many of us all this fodder for expending electrons in discussion of the ramifications of it!    More darned fun! 

Now I want to TASTE the stuff and pass the only real, meaningful judgement about this offering about which I care.    I only hope I get the opportunity.

[Paddy]

^^^What Rich said! 

[Don Birnam]

17 hours ago, Kpiz said:

At this point I think the crux of the issue remains whether the ages listed on the back label (along with each recipe) qualify as a miscellaneous age reference or if they constitute a specific age statement. Based on page 8-10 of the BAM they probably are a miscellaneous age reference and therefore compliant. Without page 8-10, however, (and thus based just on section 5.40 of the CFR and page 8-1 of the BAM) I would have opined that the label is definitely in violation of the TTB labeling regulations.

Hopefully we didn't scare everyone else away, it would be interesting to hear what some of the other folks think as well.

 

 

Yes,  Section 5.40 being the regulation, isn't very explanatory, but it is clear. Everything below the word 'optional' pertains to whiskey types other than straight (4 years and older).

That is where the commenters at SKU's blog made their mistake, by reading further into the regulation, and thus reading too much into the regulation.

The whiskey at hand contains whiskeys that are all older than four years, and that makes statements of age and percentages optional.

§5.40   Statements of age and percentage.

(a) Statements of age and percentage for whisky. In the case of straight whisky bottled in conformity with the bottled in bond labeling requirements and of domestic or foreign whisky, whether or not mixed or blended, all of which is 4 years old or more, statements of age and percentage are optional. As to all other whiskies there shall be stated the following:.......

 

They jumped all the way to §5.40(a)(2)(iv) to make the claim of dirty dealings. That section pertains to blended whiskeys (containing GNS) with straight (4 year+) and young (≤4 year old) whiskey, and even then they skipped to the optional part and claimed it rule.

 

(iv) If more than one straight whisky and more than one other whisky is contained in the blend: “__ percent straight whiskies __ years or more old, __ percent whiskies __ years or more old.” The age blanks shall be filled in with the ages of the youngest straight whisky and the youngest other whisky. In lieu of the foregoing, a statement may be made of the ages and percentages of each of the straight whiskies and other whiskies contained in the blend: “__ percent straight whisky __ years old, __ percent straight whisky __ years old, __ percent whisky __ years old, and __ percent whisky __ years old.”

 

 

 

9 hours ago, garbanzobean said:

So a couple nits to pick:

 

1.) I think lumping SKU in with ageists is maybe premature.  Having communicated with SKU for a number of years online, I feel comfortable saying that it is more likely that he was trying to point out the hipocrisy of folks who worship 4R yet don't hold them accountable to the same standard as other distilleries.  SKU doesn't take himself too seriously, as nearly as I can tell

  I actually tend to lean toward your interpretation of the rules, though.  In fact, I believe Chuck Cowdery has weighed in on this issue in the past and agrees with your interpretation, based on the fact that he cites instances where American Whiskey Producers do it without citing Percentages: http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2016/02/compass-box-crusade-is-already-won-in.html

 

It is certainly possible that Chuck is wrong about this, but his words have more weight in my eyes than SKUs.

 

2.) Be careful about your characterization of why scotch is the way it is.  Many of us here are also malt whisky fans, and will likely want to point out some shortcomings in your explanation of barrel influence in Scotch whisky.

 

 

 

 

 

I only lumped SKU in with the ageists because of his assertion that there may well be only a thimble full of 23 year old whiskey in this mixture.

"The big news here is that it includes a 23 year old bourbon. That's the oldest bourbon I've ever seen in any Four Roses bottle which is pretty exciting, but since we don't know the percentages, there could literally be a thimble full of 23 year old in the entire vatting."

 

The brouhaha with Compass Box wasn't even a labeling issue, it was an issue the SWA had with Compass Box including a pamphlet in the tube that stated components and their respective ages and percentages. To me a Scottish bureaucracy problem.

 

Speaking of Scotch, I too, am a single malt man, (along with a few Scotch blends) I am merely referring to the effect the oak itself has on Scotch whisky as opposed to Bourbon whiskey. If you take umbrage with what I say, let me know.

But please, let's keep it to the oak and not the other spirit(s) that may have been in the barrel, ex-bourbon barrels are used world wide for aging other spirit, and some are then used for Scotch whisky aging, yes, those other spirits and hence the barrel have an influence, a greater influence than the oak.

 

Better yet, let's not discuss that here, I feel I have derailed this thread enough.

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Don Birnam
Additional information.

[smokinjoe]

Still enjoying the conversation and frankly not convinced one way or the other.  As far as this Sku fellows motivation to point this out seems much less trying to grind any type of axe, ageism, or an attempt to intentionally sully 4R's reputation with charges of dirty dealings, but rather falling prey to "Sensationalistic Bloggerism" with a click-inducing hyperbolic headline. 

[OldFitzWithTheGoldLabel]

It's mostly Greek to me. I never learned the language, but I love the food. I have also never learned all the different recipes of Four Roses or the finer chemistry of mashbills or the semantics of labeling. I just know that I love Four Roses Single Barrel, I loved the tour of Four Roses Distillery, I'm glad that Kirin rescued Four Roses from the bottom shelf, and I know I will buy a bottle of this in a hot second if I happen upon one at MSRP.

Cheers!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[garbanzobean]

4 hours ago, Don Birnam said:

 

I only lumped SKU in with the ageists because of his assertion that there may well be only a thimble full of 23 year old whiskey in this mixture.

"The big news here is that it includes a 23 year old bourbon. That's the oldest bourbon I've ever seen in any Four Roses bottle which is pretty exciting, but since we don't know the percentages, there could literally be a thimble full of 23 year old in the entire vatting."

 

The brouhaha with Compass Box wasn't even a labeling issue, it was an issue the SWA had with Compass Box including a pamphlet in the tube that stated components and their respective ages and percentages. To me a Scottish bureaucracy problem.

 

Speaking of Scotch, I too, am a single malt man, (along with a few Scotch blends) I am merely referring to the effect the oak itself has on Scotch whisky as opposed to Bourbon whiskey. If you take umbrage with what I say, let me know.

But please, let's keep it to the oak and not the other spirit(s) that may have been in the barrel, ex-bourbon barrels are used world wide for aging other spirit, and some are then used for Scotch whisky aging, yes, those other spirits and hence the barrel have an influence, a greater influence than the oak.

 

Better yet, let's not discuss that here, I feel I have derailed this thread enough.

 

RE:  SKU.  That is a common complaint around here by many of us.  I really think you are stretching to refer to him as ageist and are maybe taking his post a little personally.  If he really is just trying to sh*tstir, he definitely got to you.

 

RE:  Chuck Cowdery article.  I am not sure if you are just commenting on the general situation or if you chose not to read or didn't want to discuss the blog post.  Here is the relevant portion that relates to this situation, NOT the Compass Box situation.  I am confused, because I am actually providing some circumstantial evidence to support your argument.  Mr. Cowdery is an acknowledged expert of the bourbon world.

 

Quote

"Here, age statements are optional for any whiskey that is more than four years old. Age statements must state the age of the youngest whiskey in the mix, but producers are welcome to provide information about the other components too.

And they do. High West is releasing a new version of its popular Bourye that is "a unique and very premium blend of rich 9-year-old bourbon and 13- and 17-year-old ryes." Luxco's Blood Oath Pact 1 is a combination of three straight bourbons; a 6-year-old wheater, a 7-year-old rye recipe, and a 12-year-old rye recipe. Last year's Yellowstone Limited Edition was a 7-year-old wheater, a 7-year-old rye recipe bourbon, and a 12-year-old rye recipe bourbon . . . Diageo deserves credit for including the percentage of each component, which producers usually forgo."

 

--Chuck Cowdery

Quoted from:  http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2016/02/compass-box-crusade-is-already-won-in.html

Note:  Mods, I understand that this is a fairly long quote and might be somewhat of a stretch of our rules.  I would hope that you would leave the quote up given that I already linked to the article once without comment, am giving Chuck full credit for his content, the fact that Chuck is a poster here on SB.com, and that this subform is not open to the general public, nor it is searchable via google.  I would be happy to contact him for permission to quote this particular article if it is an issue.

 

RE:  Scotch.  My issue is with this specific statement:

On 3/20/2017 at 11:02 AM, Don Birnam said:

Now a nice old Scotch . . . the wood has less impression on the whisky due to the fact the barrels are broken down for shipping and have 'aired out' . . . 

 My issue is that this specific statement is not especially accurate and you leave the impression that this is the sole reason for less wood influence in scotch, but if you want to debate that let us please move that discussion here:  https://www.straightbourbon.com/community/forum/22-foreign-whiskey/

 

And as others have said, welcome to SB.com.  Don't take any of us--yourself included--too seriously.  Except when we talk about bourbon.  Then it's all serious business.

[jsrudd]

Going back to the discussion of whether the "age statement" is compliant. I completely agree with Don's analysis of the regs (read together with the BAM).

 

WTMK Decades adopts the same strategy. There is no age statement on the front label, but it says it's a blend of 10 to 20-year-old bourbon on the back of the neck label.

 

As a more general matter, I think this is a good middle ground for the TTB to take. It protects consumers against fraudulent age statements, while at the same time leaving room for the producers to market their goods. Of course, I would love to know that exact percentages of the blend, but the purpose of the law is not to compel producers to disclose specifications to enthusiasts. That being said, I think these kind of disclosures benefit the producers in the long-term.   

 

[garbanzobean]

Ultimately if this is actually a TTB reg violation, I can't work up the energy to get upset about it.  The type of violations that irritate me are all geared toward misleading the consumer into purchasing mystery meat whiskey or pull some kind of crap like "aged less than four years" or "aged X seasons".  While it would be nice if TTB regs were clear cut, very easy to follow, and not left up to the discretion of the BATFE to reinterpret as is convenient for them, I can accept just about any gray that gives the consumer more information about the product.  

 

It certainly would be nice to see Four Roses include percentages to set a positive example for others, though.   

[Don Birnam]

13 hours ago, garbanzobean said:

RE:  SKU.  That is a common complaint around here by many of us.  I really think you are stretching to refer to him as ageist and are maybe taking his post a little personally.  If he really is just trying to sh*tstir, he definitely got to you.

 

RE:  Chuck Cowdery article.  I am not sure if you are just commenting on the general situation or if you chose not to read or didn't want to discuss the blog post.  Here is the relevant portion that relates to this situation, NOT the Compass Box situation.  I am confused, because I am actually providing some circumstantial evidence to support your argument.  Mr. Cowdery is an acknowledged expert of the bourbon world.

 

Note:  Mods, I understand that this is a fairly long quote and might be somewhat of a stretch of our rules.  I would hope that you would leave the quote up given that I already linked to the article once without comment, am giving Chuck full credit for his content, the fact that Chuck is a poster here on SB.com, and that this subform is not open to the general public, nor it is searchable via google.  I would be happy to contact him for permission to quote this particular article if it is an issue.

 

RE:  Scotch.  My issue is with this specific statement:

 My issue is that this specific statement is not especially accurate and you leave the impression that this is the sole reason for less wood influence in scotch, but if you want to debate that let us please move that discussion here:  https://www.straightbourbon.com/community/forum/22-foreign-whiskey/

 

And as others have said, welcome to SB.com.  Don't take any of us--yourself included--too seriously.  Except when we talk about bourbon.  Then it's all serious business.

 

I am not taking this personally, and how can you say he got me? From two anonymous comments on his blog?

I brought the issue here firstly because his blog was mentioned, and then to get the take on the matter from SB members.

 

I did read the Chuck Cowdery article, when it was posted last year and again yesterday.

Yes sir, the general situation, which is what the Mr. Cowdery article is all about, the consternation the SWA had with Compass Box for including the information. All Chuck said was it didn't apply to the U.S. and U.S. producers have done the same, all within the TTB regulations. And to that end, a few of his commenters attempted to call him to task.

 

Until a thread is created in the Foreign Whiskey topic. All I will say is you can't actually believe the oak has nearly as much influence on Scotch (or other spirits) as it does on Bourbon.

If so, please do start a thread, I clearly would like to hear your opinion.

 

The only thing I am taking seriously is the regulations and the fact that a certain blogger picked and chose segments in order to make his claim. Regulations are not mix and match.

 

2 hours ago, garbanzobean said:

Ultimately if this is actually a TTB reg violation, I can't work up the energy to get upset about it.  The type of violations that irritate me are all geared toward misleading the consumer into purchasing mystery meat whiskey or pull some kind of crap like "aged less than four years" or "aged X seasons".  While it would be nice if TTB regs were clear cut, very easy to follow, and not left up to the discretion of the BATFE to reinterpret as is convenient for them, I can accept just about any gray that gives the consumer more information about the product.  

 

It certainly would be nice to see Four Roses include percentages to set a positive example for others, though.   

 

If regulations were clear cut and easy to read we wouldn't need attorneys.

I believe Four Roses did what is in their best interest, stating a mere 5% of 23 year old whiskey would do more harm than good. As was made clear by SKU and his thimble full comment. A lot of people probably feel the same way. Taste be damned, I want old whiskey! I have talked to more hipsters than I can shake a stick at that think old age liquor is superior, simply because it is old. It may taste like it was filtered through a West Virginia coal miners boot, but at least it's old.

[namadio]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 7:22 AM, OldFitzWithTheGoldLabel said:

 

 

I will happily pay $150 for a bottle, if I can find one after it is released.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 

 

 

Samesies!!!

 

On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 7:35 PM, Charlutz said:

Lastly, we know Four Roses has been doing this for years. High West does it. I think Blade and Bow also but don't have a bottle to see. 

 

Interesting topic. 

 

Doing it for years definitely doesn't make it okay.  The TTB is understaffed or unwilling to enforce.  At unnamed federal agency that someone like me may or may not work at, there are egregious violations of contracts all the time.  The local legal department often chooses not to pursue because the cost of the ensuing legal battle far outweighs the rewards in their eyes.  In my eyes (or someone like me that may or may not work this unnamed place) it is also worth legally pursuing such a violation if no other reason than to set an example for the next guy that thinks about trying to pull one over on the US taxpayers (which they should be part of those jerks). 

 

Any who... very interesting indeed.....

[The Black Tot]

I do think our acceptance of this practice is a dangerous precedent to set, that opens up an ugly door into producers dropping a teaspoon of older whiskey into a blend and then mentioning it as "a component in the blend"

 

I think if you're going to put the older whiskeys on the list of blend ingredients, you should be allowed, so long as you're obligated to include percentages such that the customer can make an informed choice.

 

4R is a great company and the fact that they gave us the percentages somehow informally (because I think I read them earlier in this thread) is great, but it should be on the label such that the customer can see this at the point of sale.

 

Not that it's going to be an issue for this particular release - nobody who doesn't know about this whiskey already is going to be standing in a store in front of a shelf of these trying to make a decision. This one won't ever hit shelves.

 

But I shudder to think what some of the less scrupulous producers will do once they see they can get away with it.

[Bourbonmakesmepoop]

^^^^ this made me think of blade and bow.

i bet if they had to disclose what percentage of each bottle was SW juice, there wouldn't be enough room on the bottle for all the zeros to go after that decimal point.

[Don Birnam]

22 hours ago, Bourbonmakesmepoop said:

^^^^ this made me think of blade and bow.

i bet if they had to disclose what percentage of each bottle was SW juice, there wouldn't be enough room on the bottle for all the zeros to go after that decimal point.

 

 

The fact of the matter is Blade and Bow should be called Homeopathic Whiskey Co., named after the 'snake oil' science of alternative medicine.

[Richnimrod]

2 hours ago, Don Birnam said:

 

 

The fact of the matter is Blade and Bow should be called Homeopathic Whiskey Co., named after the 'snake oil' science of alternative medicine.

Hah!     THAT is a very apt comparison, Don.    I like that a lot, and I believe it is very accurate.

I know some have enjoyed the offering, and even say it's not a total ripoff for the cheddar asked; but none of my cheese will be expended in such a manner.   Of that, I'm certain.