Stupid questions about age statetements

[Kane]

Yeah, so I was dropping some knowledge at work today, introducing bourbon and other spirits to my co-workers. Everything was going well, until one smartass decided to ask some really mean questions that have absolutely no practical value Nevertheless, they were some interesting brainteasers, so I consult the collective knowledge of SB.

 

I won't repeat what the guy said, but it all boils down to this: If I interrupt the aging of a bourbon, how would that impact the age statement on the label?

 

For instance, let's say I age my distillate for 5 years in virgin oak as usual, so I have a 5yo bourbon. Then I dump & finish this whiskey in some fancy wine barrel for some time. But later, I decide to put it back into brand new virgin oak, because why not, and age another 5 years. Can I label the final product a 10yo bourbon?

 

What if I do something even more meaningless, dump the original barrels into steel vats, and then put them back into the original barrels the next day? Does the aging "legally" continue, or did that one day ruin everything?

[The Black Tot]

I'm going to guess (for fun, I know someone will come by soon with a proper answer) that in your first instance of 5+5, that is clearly a 10yr aged bourbon. I know bourbon ain't scotch, but this happens with a lot of scotches, and in the bourbon world now that I think of it there's WR's Double and Triple barreled products.

 

In bourbon I'm going to say you couldn't count time in anything other than virgin US oak, because if you could, all the "finished whiskeys" would not have to say "Aged 3yrs in oak and finished for X mo in something else"

 

Steel tanking didn't turn ER17 into ER19+, but they'd have caught hell if people found out they were taking credit for extra maturation while it was sitting inert (at best) in stainless steel. Even if they could have of course they didn't want to make a rod for their own backs by having later to decrease back to 17 when the old stocks ran out, resulting in a perceived inconsistency in value.

[CardsandBourbon]

I agree with Tot.  Any time spent in a new white oak barrel would be counted as aging.  Any time spent in stainless steel would be considered holding and anytime in say a sherry cask would be considered finishing.  I could be wrong but . . . check my signature below. 

[jvd99]

Seems like every scotch distiller has a double or triple barreled product (and that does count toward its age). The arms race seems to have halted at three casks, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the number increase 

[kevinbrink]

3 hours ago, jvd99 said:

Seems like every scotch distiller has a double or triple barreled product (and that does count toward its age). The arms race seems to have halted at three casks, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the number increase 

Bourbon needs to be aged in New Charred Oak, Scotch does not so the impact to the age statement would be different, I kind of like the forced transparency in bourbon world. 

[Kane]

8 hours ago, jvd99 said:

Seems like every scotch distiller has a double or triple barreled product (and that does count toward its age). The arms race seems to have halted at three casks, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the number increase 

Please see the Macallan Edition No.x series, especially No.3 that came out just the other day!

[Kane]

I agree with everybody, intuitively, I wouldn't have any problem with such a bourbon being marketed to me as a 10yo.

 

I wonder what the labeling laws would say though.

 

Well, most likely they wouldn't be able to say much at this point This is probably one of those things that need a precedent, some offended parties, a stupid lawsuit, and as a result some case law.

[LCWoody]

When it comes out of a new barrel the 1st time that's the age that has to go on the age statement. 

[flahute]

In your first example, you can't call it a 10yr old bourbon without a clear explanation on the label. The finishing (or in this case, "middling", in the wine barrels) had to be stated on the label. Since it is not standard finishing, you'd have to state what you did. Since you are then dumping into new barrels again, it's unclear if that counts as 10yrs total. It doesn't really matter because you'd have to explain the entire process, and since double the barrels are being used (which = expensive), you can bet that the distillery will make a big deal out of this second barreling as a way of selling you on deeper flavor.

 

In your second example, it likely doesn't change anything since it's only a day, though nobody would ever do that of course. 

[Kane]

3 hours ago, LCWoody said:

When it comes out of a new barrel the 1st time that's the age that has to go on the age statement. 

You make this sound really authoritative!

 

Do you have any pointers to a regulation or something, or was it just an educated guess? Not that I don't trust your word, I'm just curious to know if regulators actually thought of these corner cases.

[flahute]

49 minutes ago, Kane said:

You make this sound really authoritative!

 

Do you have any pointers to a regulation or something, or was it just an educated guess? Not that I don't trust your word, I'm just curious to know if regulators actually thought of these corner cases.

I just read the regulations. It's not clear, but we do know the rules for finishing which informed my comments above.

[jvd99]

16 hours ago, Kane said:

Please see the Macallan Edition No.x series, especially No.3 that came out just the other day!

If I'm not mistaken, the Mac Ed. 3 is a blend of unique distillate from 6 different types of barrels.  I was referring to what the OP was questioning regarding transferring the same distillate to different barrel types.  

[Kane]

44 minutes ago, jvd99 said:

If I'm not mistaken, the Mac Ed. 3 is a blend of unique distillate from 6 different types of barrels.  I was referring to what the OP was questioning regarding transferring the same distillate to different barrel types.  

Right, I noticed my mistake after I posted, and hoped you wouldn't!

[smokinjoe]

I would think that in the second instance, it would constitute a finishing situation, and separate age declarations would have to be made for the original dump and then the second dump if they chose to do so. The first dump would be of course, in a new charred oak barrel, while the second would be "finished" in a used barrel, regardless of its original provenance.  

At least that is how I would rule, if I were Wapner...

Edited October 7, 2017 by smokinjoe

[LCWoody]

^^^^ what Joe said.....

[flahute]

6 hours ago, smokinjoe said:

I would think that in the second instance, it would constitute a finishing situation, and seperate age declarations would have to be made for the original dump and then the second dump if they chose to do so. The first dump would be of course, in a new charred oak barrel, while the second would be "finished" in a used barrel, regardless of its original provenance.  

At least that is how I would rule, if I were Wapner...

This is likely more technically correct. In my answer above, where it was only a day before being dumped back in, I was assuming that the barrel stayed wet so it was virtually uninterrupted.

Your answer is more correct though now that I think about it more.