Straight whiskey is dead

[wadewood]

At one point us consumers knew if we bought Straight whiskey it would have nothing else added.  And then producers started messing with finishes.  The TTB called these products class type 641 whiskey specialties.  They allowed the producers to call these products the type of whiskey used followed by what was done to it on the front label; i.e. Straight Rye finished in a Cognac barrel.   They still required a formula to be submitted to the TTB and internal were coded class type 641.

The TTB put forth a modernization act about 3 years ago.  2 years ago they issued comments based on this and implemented some changes.  I've thoroughly read TTB-158 multiple times.; you can do so here -  TTB-158

What flew under the radar is from that TTB is allowing producers of any class type of whiskey, except bourbon, to keep the designated class type even when finished in whatever barrel type.  So Straight Rye finished in a barrel previously holding honey, is still class type 102 - Straight Rye. No formula required.  The industry secret about barrel finishing is these producers all use the secondary barrels over and over again.  They recharge them between uses, which simple means if it was a port barrel, after being used, they add a gallon of port wine before refilling with whiskey.  It's mostly a work around to add flavoring to whiskey.  

TTB-158 never mentions this change, yet it's the reason the TTB gives for it.  

[Kepler]

Geeze what new hell is this?  This sounds crazy.  How are we expected to know the difference if a bottle is simply labeled as straight rye?  I'm not usually a big fan of barrel finished whiskies (with a few notable exceptions when I'm in the mood) so I always want to know before I buy. 

[flahute]

33 minutes ago, Kepler said:

Geeze what new hell is this?  This sounds crazy.  How are we expected to know the difference if a bottle is simply labeled as straight rye?  I'm not usually a big fan of barrel finished whiskies (with a few notable exceptions when I'm in the mood) so I always want to know before I buy. 

Unless that rye whiskey is from someone we know well and is established I will be passing on it from now on. 

[Harry in WashDC]

THX, Wade, for catching this.  I do like some (well, just a few and not all that often) finished whiskeys but was diligent about reading the labels before picking any up.  I, too, will follow Flahute's lead.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Harry in WashDC
Had to end a sentence by adding a dot after ". . . any up".

[BigRich]

Thank you for this Wade.  I was already kind of in the same camp as Steve's comment prior to this.  This isn't surprising to me but still disappointing. 

[Skinsfan1311]

That's nuts!

Thanks for sharing!

[Jazz June]

Does this apply to labeling? Meaning that straight rye finished in honey barrels can say just “straight rye” on it with no indication of the second barrel?

[wadewood]

2 hours ago, Jazz June said:

Does this apply to labeling? Meaning that straight rye finished in honey barrels can say just “straight rye” on it with no indication of the second barrel?

Apparently yes.  I know one example of that.  Uncle Nearest product says Straight Rye on front, back label says finished in used barrels.  It's a weird product.  Canadian whiskey that they sourced from some DSP in New York, then aged in used barrels in TN.

[evasive]

1 hour ago, wadewood said:

Apparently yes.  I know one example of that.  Uncle Nearest product says Straight Rye on front, back label says finished in used barrels.  It's a weird product.  Canadian whiskey that they sourced from some DSP in New York, then aged in used barrels in TN.

I read this the other day:

 

https://malt-review.com/2023/01/19/in-search-of-transparency-uncle-nearest-rye-and-the-importance-of-reading-a-label/

 

 

[Harry in WashDC]

On 1/21/2023 at 11:48 AM, evasive said:

I read this the other day:

 

https://malt-review.com/2023/01/19/in-search-of-transparency-uncle-nearest-rye-and-the-importance-of-reading-a-label/

 

 

THX for this link.  TWO conflicting thoughts: (1) I tried Uncle Nearest's initial releases when they came out but remained a bit skeptical of the back story.  This article reduced my skepticism about that story and reinforced my hopes for their business.  In other words, it's time to try their bourbons again.  (2) I stayed away from their rye when it came out mostly due to the overly flowery story told on the back label even when compared to their whiskey - aged in "THE BIG CITY", for example.  Why is that worth mentioning?  However, the apparent fact that UN mgt. quickly decided to change its rye label because of (well, apparently because of) the questions David Levine in "MALT" was asking outweighs, on my mind at least, some of the disdain (well, that's too harsh - the "bad feeling") I had for their marketing.  In other words, the bourbons are clearly back on the "buy" side, but I'll wait awhile for more reviews on the rye.  I really don't need another shelf dud from Canada.

 

Yeah, I'm a snob and a stickler for the labeling rules.  I like to KNOW what I'm drinking.

[Kepler]

On 1/20/2023 at 12:21 AM, flahute said:

Unless that rye whiskey is from someone we know well and is established I will be passing on it from now on. 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 12:12 PM, Harry in WashDC said:

...

I, too, will follow Flahute's lead.

 

On 1/20/2023 at 12:19 PM, BigRich said:

...

I was already kind of in the same camp as Steve's comment prior to this. 

 

 

Me too!!

[Jazz June]

I also don't see where this change was announced in the Federal Register notices. I do note the following from the new regulation of age statements:

 

"After reviewing the comments, TTB agrees that all the time spent in all oak containers should count towards the age statement. TTB notes that where a standard of identity requires aging in a particular kind of barrel, such as straight whisky, which requires aging two years in a new charred oak container, that aging must take place in that specified container type before being transferred to another vessel. TTB is amending existing § 5.40(a)(1) regarding statements of age for whisky that does not contain neutral spirits to provide that multiple barrels may be used and to provide that the label may optionally include information about the types of oak containers used. This does not affect current requirements to disclose aging in reused cooperage under 27 CFR 5.40(a)(4)."

 

Are they interpreting this to say that the disclosure of the types of oak containers after the first one are optional? That still conflates an age statement regulation change with a violation of the straight whiskey class/type regulation.

 

Another thought is, have they just reinterpreted what an HCFBM is and it no longer includes the result of finishing in a second barrel?

 

I also see this note, but again this doesn't seem to broaden the definition of straight whiskey:

 

"TTB also will liberalize its policy on the term “straight” and is amending current § 5.22(b)(2)(iii) to make it an optional labeling designation for whiskies that qualify for the designation, but will not expand the use of the term to other classes of distilled spirits."

 

Would a bottled in bond whiskey should still be a traditional "straight" per the following part of a BiB's definition:

 

27 CFR §5.88(a)(4)

 

"(4) Unaltered from their original condition or character by the addition or subtraction of any substance other than by filtration, chill proofing, or other physical treatments (which do not involve the addition of any substance which will remain in the finished product or result in a change in class or type);"

 

If they don't consider the second barrel an addition, maybe not.

[mbroo5880i]

On 1/21/2023 at 11:48 AM, evasive said:

I read this the other day:

 

https://malt-review.com/2023/01/19/in-search-of-transparency-uncle-nearest-rye-and-the-importance-of-reading-a-label/

 

 

 

Thanks!  This helped me better understand this issue.  I am not going to say I will never buy an Uncle Nearest bottle but this type of deception isn't a good selling point.  

[wadewood]

On 1/21/2023 at 10:48 AM, evasive said:

I read this the other day:

 

https://malt-review.com/2023/01/19/in-search-of-transparency-uncle-nearest-rye-and-the-importance-of-reading-a-label/

 

 

Yes that was the article that led me down this path.  They quoted a lawyer from Lehrman Beverage Law LLC.  I have meet with Robert Lehrman before so I contacted them about this.  They told me this is how the TTB has been ruling on these finsihed whiskies.  They agreed with me that nothing in the modernization act justified this change, but the TTB insisted that it did.