What new regulations would you guys like to see for US produced Whiskies?

[FasterHorses]

45 minutes ago, Saul_cooperstein said:

Because bourbon is clearly a ‘distinctive product of the United States’ id want to see regulations that allow for its ability to be shipped from retail (or direct from distillery) to consumers in all 50 states plus some regulations that manage the ability for a controlled and legal secondary market - particularly one that can feed into on-premises (restaurant/bar) sales. Perhaps Just mirror existing econdary market rules in place for wine for whiskey. 

What are the existing secondary market rules for wine and whiskey? I agree lots of room for improvement here

[smokinjoe]

1 hour ago, wadewood said:

General consumers look at that on label and assume it's Bourbon; whiskey geeks know it's not.  Also you still don't what's in the barrel because you don't know what was in that brandy barrel or what processes were used to treat the barrel; ie sherry barrels have sulfur issues.  Also many producers 'recharge' barrels - meaning they empty out after bourbon was finished, then they put back in some port/sherry/etc to recharge and then fill again with bourbon.  Rinse and repeat.

Wade, are we referring to what may be considered a poor interpretation by the TTB through BAM in this case?  It’s not uncommon for what seems specific wording in the regs to be actually adjusted in practice through BAM clarifications.  Or, is your position clear cut through both TTB language and BAM interpretations?  I have always followed the “you can’t unring a Bell” line of reasoning, but the added flavoring through any means is pretty clear.  I have begun to find it difficult to find compromise between the two in my nugget...  Then, the whole “whiskey specialties” category, et al, enters in the picture.  

[wadewood]

8 hours ago, smokinjoe said:

Wade, are we referring to what may be considered a poor interpretation by the TTB through BAM in this case?  It’s not uncommon for what seems specific wording in the regs to be actually adjusted in practice through BAM clarifications.  Or, is your position clear cut through both TTB language and BAM interpretations?  I have always followed the “you can’t unring a Bell” line of reasoning, but the added flavoring through any means is pretty clear.  I have begun to find it difficult to find compromise between the two in my nugget...  Then, the whole “whiskey specialties” category, et al, enters in the picture.  

 

[smokinjoe]

 

2 minutes ago, wadewood said:

 

So, what are you saying?

Edited May 9, 2018 by smokinjoe

[GaryT]

8 hours ago, wadewood said:

 

When I read this, it sounds like "This isn't 'straight bourbon whisky" but IS "Straight Bourbon Whisky w/ FD&C Yellow #5 Added"?

Which sounds to me like they could put damn near anything (coloring/flavoring/etc) as long as it is called out on the label.

 

With finishes - I'm totally on board with this approach.  Otherwise it would be too damn confusing.  "Whiskey which would otherwise be known as bourbon before we finished it in sherry cask" seems more sketchy than just calling it "bourbon finished in sherry".  I'm looking for clarity and transparency to a reasonable degree - which seems met by that. 

[Canarse]

On 5/5/2018 at 11:15 AM, fishnbowljoe said:

I think that we should form a panel made up of members here on straightbourbon.com. We could rotate the members of the panel periodically so that everyone has a chance to participate. We could come up with a sticker or label, something like “Approved by Straightbourbon.com”.  All  bourbon/whiskey products could then be sent to our panel for tasting and regulatory evaluation. If it conforms to our rigorous standards, it gets our seal of approval. With our seal of approval, you’d know it was good. Without our seal, well  “you pays your money, and you takes your chances”.  

 

Biba! Joe

Hoo, boy.  This sounds good at first glace, but could be a trail to ruin.  Once you get into the business of "approving" products you are part of the system.  Marketers will be trying to work their way in to influence the process.  The independence of the group will be questioned.  Frankly, I think this would be really rough. 

[Canarse]

I'm all in favor of a free market, but one with transparency.  Asking distillers/NDPs to include basic information on their labels is only fair to consumers.  As we have seen, there are always those out there that will deceive if allowed. 

 

I certainly agree that the proper enforcement of current regulations is #1. 

 

A way to make things more clear to consumers may be to further restrict the usage of the term "straight" as it applies to bourbon.  I would suggest that the term "straight" should not be used when referring to any whiskey that has had it's flavor altered in any way.  That would be by flavorings or finishing barrels like sherry, port, etc. 

 

I wouldn't want to see them drop the term bourbon from a whiskey that has been through a different barrel finish.  Calling it some kind of whiskey instead of bourbon doesn't allow me to know what kind of flavor profile to expect.  I want to know it's bourbon finished in sherry casks, not XX whiskey finished in sherry casks.  That would be confusing to have to guess what was the initial spirit. 

[dad-proof]

2 hours ago, Canarse said:

I'm all in favor of a free market, but one with transparency. 

Good post, Canarse. No need for the use of the word "but" in this sentence, in my opinion. The idea of a free market is based principally on the free flow of information. A market can't be free if sellers hide information or if buyers aren't allowed to find what they want. Good labelling requirements can make the market more free. 

 

I like the idea of expanding on the BIB act and making all American Whiskey, BIB or not, state both the distiller and bottler DSP.  This and better enforcement of existing TTB. 

[ThirstyinOhio]

I'd love to see age statements on all bottles and better regulation when using terms like barrel proof, cask strength, and full proof as it could mean barrel entry or however it came out of the barrel.

[Canarse]

10 hours ago, dad-proof said:

Good post, Canarse. No need for the use of the word "but" in this sentence, in my opinion. The idea of a free market is based principally on the free flow of information. A market can't be free if sellers hide information or if buyers aren't allowed to find what they want. Good labelling requirements can make the market more free. 

 

I like the idea of expanding on the BIB act and making all American Whiskey, BIB or not, state both the distiller and bottler DSP.  This and better enforcement of existing TTB. 

If you required the distiller and DSP how would you handle blends like those of Barrel Bourbon?  That would be kind of messy. 

[kaiserhog]

16 hours ago, GaryT said:

When I read this, it sounds like "This isn't 'straight bourbon whisky" but IS "Straight Bourbon Whisky w/ FD&C Yellow #5 Added"?

Which sounds to me like they could put damn near anything (coloring/flavoring/etc) as long as it is called out on the label.

 

With finishes - I'm totally on board with this approach.  Otherwise it would be too damn confusing.  "Whiskey which would otherwise be known as bourbon before we finished it in sherry cask" seems more sketchy than just calling it "bourbon finished in sherry".  I'm looking for clarity and transparency to a reasonable degree - which seems met by that. 

It appears to be saying that straight bourbon whisky can be listed as an ingredient.

[dad-proof]

6 minutes ago, Canarse said:

If you required the distiller and DSP how would you handle blends like those of Barrel Bourbon?  That would be kind of messy. 

I think there would be room to list multiple DSP #s on the back of the label... but thinking about a response to your question made me realize the bigger issue is that many distillers don't want to be transparent about selling their stocks to NDPs. My suggestion could result in fewer sourced whiskey and limit consumer variety. Maybe a compromise would be to a simple requirement to note an NDP bottling. 

[Cranecreek]

I spied a bottle of Mic Drop that Mako254 posted under "what bottle did you purchase"  Now if all producers NDPs and others were to be as transparent as that company then we would not have any need for more regs. !  Those are the kind of companies I want to give my support and purchase power to.

[fishnbowljoe]

14 hours ago, Canarse said:

Hoo, boy.  This sounds good at first glace, but could be a trail to ruin.  Once you get into the business of "approving" products you are part of the system.  Marketers will be trying to work their way in to influence the process.  The independence of the group will be questioned.  Frankly, I think this would be really rough. 

FWIW,  this was meant tongue in cheek. I was kidding folks. With the latest updates, the emojis aren’t working yet. “Winka  Winka Winka”

 

Biba! Joe

[Richnimrod]

11 hours ago, fishnbowljoe said:

 With the latest updates, the emojis aren’t working yet. “Winka  Winka Winka”

 

Biba! Joe

Mine do!!!     Not!

[kevinbrink]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 9:33 PM, Cranecreek said:

I spied a bottle of Mic Drop that Mako254 posted under "what bottle did you purchase"  Now if all producers NDPs and others were to be as transparent as that company then we would not have any need for more regs. !  Those are the kind of companies I want to give my support and purchase power to.

That bottle (apart form the remarkably unattractive label) really takes it's queues from Independent Scotch bottlers who have provided more info on their packaging than they are required to as they are geared towards the enthusiast community. I appreciate the info but if the mark up for that is what PM Spirits is charging for an 8 year MGP I'm not interested, I bought an 8 year old barrel proof MGP for under $40 today, I'm sure Nicholas Palazzi did a fine job of picking good barrels but even at that the price is pretty bad.

[Saul_cooperstein]

On 5/8/2018 at 8:33 AM, FasterHorses said:

What are the existing secondary market rules for wine and whiskey? I agree lots of room for improvement here

Idont know all but I do know that n CA a restaurant can buy wine from individuals and sell it ilas long as 1) they put a sticker on the wine that says acquired from a vintage cellar, 2) the wine was originally purchased at retail and 3) if white it’s at least 5 years old and for red 10 years old. Can’t do this with whiskey which must be purchased in essentially all instances from a licensed wholesaler 

[Cranecreek]

9 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

That bottle (apart form the remarkably unattractive label) really takes it's queues from Independent Scotch bottlers who have provided more info on their packaging than they are required to as they are geared towards the enthusiast community. I appreciate the info but if the mark up for that is what PM Spirits is charging for an 8 year MGP I'm not interested, I bought an 8 year old barrel proof MGP for under $40 today, I'm sure Nicholas Palazzi did a fine job of picking good barrels but even at that the price is pretty bad.

Oh I agree totally that just because a label has more information than that would somehow make it better.  My point is that there are no laws against producers putting all the information they want on the label.  They can always find room for some Cock & Bull story about someones pioneer grandfather and his secret recipe but find it difficult to include a distiller.  The Mic Drop (quality aside) has everything from the Distiller /  Mash bill in %'s / and Oaked and bottle dates. And an age statement.

 

[tanstaafl2]

I would like to see the consumer be able to buy whiskey (and any other spirit, wine or beer) from a source in another state (and international as well to the greatest extent possible) and stores willing to ship be able to do so without more than a reasonable shipping cost. If a state wants to have people buy stuff locally then reduce the excessive taxes on it and make it easier to bring as many different brands as possible into the state rather than the punitive registration/licensing requirements. The 50 different laws in 50 states debacle s long overdue for elimination. State monopolies need to go and the various tyrannical three tier systems need massive reform.

[Vosgar]

Much has been said about wanting transparency, especially from NDP's. I just bought this bottle of Siembra Azul tequila (first bottle of tequila I've purchased since the late 70's!) at a spirits tasting, and the amount of information on the label is amazing. I realize this is a bit over the top, but it's impressive to me that the distiller wants his customers to know virtually everything about his product. I'm not saying I'd like to go to this extreme, I just found it interesting and think it's a great marketing tool.

 

BTW......this is very good tequila

[Old Hippie]

On 7/28/2018 at 10:25 PM, Vosgar said:

Much has been said about wanting transparency, especially from NDP's. I just bought this bottle of Siembra Azul tequila (first bottle of tequila I've purchased since the late 70's!) at a spirits tasting, and the amount of information on the label is amazing. I realize this is a bit over the top, but it's impressive to me that the distiller wants his customers to know virtually everything about his product. I'm not saying I'd like to go to this extreme, I just found it interesting and think it's a great marketing tool.

 

BTW......this is very good tequila

That is impressive indeed! They are setting themselves apart from the multitude of other Tequila options out there. Much like Bourbon, Tequila is a fast growing category with new labels showing up regularly. 

If I were trying to decide which tequila to buy, I would definitely lean towards something like this as I would have an expectation of quality based on the information gleaned from the label. Kudos to them!!!