JACK DANIEL'S: LEMONADE NEXT?

[cowdery]

Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7 is a simple reminder that some things just never change. And shouldn’t. This is the old-time whiskey made as our fathers made it. Remaining true to Jack Daniel’s original recipe and charcoal-mellowed character means folks today enjoy the same sipping whiskey awarded seven international gold medals.

On the one hand, changing the proof is changing the product, which the above--from the JD web site--seems to say they will never do. On the other hand, only the previous change, from 90 to 86, was within recent memory. No doubt it was 100 proof both before and immediately after Prohibition. Off-proof whiskies only started to appear in the 1950s. On the other hand (how many hands is that?), bottle proof isn't really "recipe," it's more like a serving suggestion. On the other hand, what it really, really is about is a sneaky way to take a price increase. I think that's the real point.

[TNbourbon]

Happily, they can't do it again, unless they want to take the word "whiskey" off the label. Anything lower than 80 proof has to be labeled "diluted whiskey."

Of course, and we talked about this before, Jack Daniel's might be able to get away with just calling it "Jack Daniel's," period.

Just coincidentally, I happened across an old photograph of JD No. 7 Black this evening from an old (early-Eighties) drink-mixing book -- and the label plainly stated "78 proof". Since it also was labeled "sour mash whiskey" and "70cl", I'm assuming it was an export-only bottle, but it does show that Jack Daniel's has experience and willingness to bottle below 80 proof, at least for certain markets.

[gr8erdane]

After perusing all that has been said, and enduring the pain of long dormant grey matter being awakened from lack of use, I offer another matter for thought. Could it be that the demand has outstripped their supply and by cutting the proof they can produce a greater quantity to meet the current demand of existing and possibly new markets overseas? This may be a way of stretching a maximized production capacity without adding new capital expenditures needed to increase plant size over a short period of time. It certainly is cheaper to add water than to build a bigger distillery.

Naw, they're probably just greedy as everyone else has surmised.

[Vision]

Tell 'em what you think

[Gillman]

I have at least two books on spirits and liqueurs from the 1970's, published in Britain, which also show a picture of a bottle of Jack Daniels. The proof stated on the labels also is 78. However, I believe this does not not denote 39% abv. Formerly in Britain, the proof system used was British proof, sometimes called the Sikes system after the scientist who devised it in the early 1800's, Bartholomew Sikes. Sikes felt that a proven spirit - one that burned evenly when mixed with gunpowder - was 57.1% alcohol by volume. On this basis, 100 British proof equals 57.1% abv (pure alcohol would be 175.1% proof, that is, 75 overproof). You add or deduct 1% proof for every half-percentage of alcohol. The formula to convert British proof to alcohol by volume is multiply by 4, divide by 7. 78.00 proof produces just under 90 American proof. 78.75 British proof is exactly 90 American proof, which is what Jack Daniels was in the 1970's in America. Possibly, intending to sell the same (U.S. 90 proof) liquor in Britain as in the States, the company settled on 78 British proof although in fact the product may have been 78.75 proof (i.e. on the idea that there is no harm offering a little more than advertised but ensuring no less was offered).

Or possibly I am wrong and the statements on the 1970's U.K. bottles were rendered in U.S. proof thus meaning an approximately 40% abv product was sold in Britain at the time, but I think that was not the case. Certainly in Canada at the time Jack Daniels was 90 proof. On page 208 of the 1970's era British book mentioned in the note below, it is stated that Jack Daniels comes in two versions, a Green Label sold in parts of the South and a national domestic and exported Black Label, and that both labels are "78 proof". If at the time Green Label, as we know the Black was, was 90 proof, this would suggest that "78 proof" was being used on the label of the exported Black Label in its British sense. By the way, I believe domestically in Britain today, the Sikes system is no longer used, and the alcohol by volume system (Gay Lussac) has replaced it.

Gary

Note: The above information on proof systems and strength of the Black and Green Labels in the 1970's is from, "The World Guide To Spirits, Aperitifs and Cocktails" by Tony Lord, 1979, Quarto Limited, London.

[Gillman]

Parenthetical thought: Old Grandad 114 proof surely is an echo of the old British proof standard of 57% alcohol content.

Gary

[OneCubeOnly]

Well, it may not be so secret now after all! Yesterday CNN Headline News did a short segment about the proof change. I can only paraphrase, but a few memorable quotes were: "many of their loyal fans are outraged" and "sales have increased since the change."

[tdelling]

There was an Associated Press story put out at 2PM on the 29th, which,

according to GoogleNews, turned up in ~175 newspapers and TV stations.

Here's a link to the first one that's free to look at:

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/092980proofjack29-ON.html

My favorite line from the story:

"Rich said the company was saving money by adding more water, but Jack Daniel's

said any savings were canceled by the expense of having to change its labels."

Hahahahahaha!

Ummm... we're not stupid here. A quick surf over to the TTB tells you

that changing the stated alcohol content on a whiskey label doesn't require

re-approval of the label. So it doesn't have to be lawyered up and waited

90 days for or anything like that. And even if it did, it's really only

about three days lawyer-time when all is said and done.

I'm sure they've still got the old 90 Proof label design on file. Any idiot

with photoshop, or even the t-shirt screenprinter down the street, could

take the "0" from "90" and smack it on top of the "6" from "86".

It's pretty easy to change the design at the printer's... I'm assuming they

use offset lithography, but I don't have a bottle on hand. Even if they

have to cut a new gravure/intaglio cylinder, it's not the end of the world.

The only expense I can think of is paying some suit to figure out if it's

more cost efficient to bottle at 86 proof until the supply of old labels runs

out, or to say screw it and send the old labels out the recycler.

Tim Dellinger

[BrbnBorderline]

I just went and signed the on-line petition, not that they care. Bean counters are running things now, it seems.

By comparison, I read an article on cocktailtimes.com about Jimmy Russell @ WT. He said that the bean counters are always after him to save $$ and cut costs where he can, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT. That is what I'm talkin' about.

BTW, here is a list of B-F brands that I am boycotting:

Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey

Gentleman Jack Rare Tennessee Whiskey

Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Tennessee Whiskey

Canadian Mist Canadian Whiskies

Southern Comfort

Early Times Kentucky Whisky

Old Forester Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whisky

Woodford Reserve Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey

Pepe Lopez Tequilas

Don Eduardo Tequilas

Jack Daniel's Country Cocktails

Jack Daniel's Original Hard Cola

Finlandia Vodkas

Glenmorangie Single Highland Malt Scotch Whiskies

Glen Moray Single Malt Scotch Whiskies

Ardbeg Islay Malt Whisky

Tuaca Liqueur

Appleton Estate Jamaica Rum

Amarula Cream Liqueur

One.6 Chardonnay and One.9 Merlot

Fetzer California Wines

Korbel California Champagnes and Wines

Bel Arbor California Wines

Bonterra California Wines

Jekel California Wines

Sonoma-Cutrer California Wines

Mariah California Wines

Bolla Italian Wines

Fontana Candida Italian Wines

Michel Picard French Wines

[cowdery]

Maybe one of the math wizards here can figure out how much they actually are saving (i.e., pocketing) WRT the Excise Tax. The FET is $13.50 per proof gallon. A "proof gallon" is one gallon of 100 proof spirits. You can figure it out per-bottle or overall. Jack sells about 7 million "flat" (i.e., 9 liter) cases per year.

The FET is where the money is. The production cost saving of substituting water for some of the whiskey isn't a big deal, but the tax saving is. The genius part, of course, is that by doing this there is no preceptible price increase and 100 percent of the increase goes into the producer's pocket. The rest of the distribution chain doesn't see a penny.

In a few cases, consumers will actually see the price they pay for Jack come down slightly. Cook County (Chicago, Illinois) has a sales tax on alcoholic beverages that is also based on proof. Since this is paid by the consumer, the consumer will realize a slight savings.

It's funny that Jim Beam is crowing about this. Since they're already at 80 proof, Jim Beam can't go any lower without labeling their product as "diluted." They did the same thing, they just did it years ago.

I guarantee that Allied Domecq would love to do the same thing with Maker's Mark, but Bill Samuels stands in their way. At least for now.

[musher]

First, the math on tax per gallon:

(13.50 * 86) / 100 = 11.61 (the algebra is 13.50/100 = x/86)

(13.50 * 80) / 100 = 10.80 (13.50/100 = x/80)

For the liter/gallon conversion, I went to www.convert-me.com, and find that 7 million cases of 9 one-liter bottles comes out to 16,640,000 gallons.

That would mean that instead of paying $193,190,400 in taxes, they would only have to pay $179,712,000. So they're saving $13,478,400 in taxes.

You could argue that the end consumer ultimately pays the taxes, but since they're taking a cut in those taxes and not passing the savings along to the consumer, the company esentially gets an $0.81/gallon price increase.

[wrbriggs]

It's funny that Jim Beam is crowing about this. Since they're already at 80 proof, Jim Beam can't go any lower without labeling their product as "diluted." They did the same thing, they just did it years ago.

Well yes, I suppose the standard Beam is 80 proof... but for less than a bottle of Jack Daniel's, you can get the 90-proof Black Label, which I've actually found to be quite good .

[cowdery]

Mike, you the man. There it is, folks. This little maneuver delivered $13,478,400 annually straight to the bottom line. That's not too shabby. If anyone wants to argue that they did it for any other reason, I have about 13.5 million counter-arguments for you.

As an aside, the nine liter case, also known as the "flat" case, is the standard way of expressing sales in the distilled spirits industry, since one case of 12 750ml bottles contains 9 liters of liquor. When you see a statement that such-and-such sells X million "cases," you can be pretty sure they mean flat cases.

[TNbourbon]

Nah -- the current JB Black is 86 proof. A few states have 7yo, 90-proof still in stock, but it's OLD stock. That switch happened 4-5 years ago.

[cowdery]

Tim is right, but Beam has screwed around with the Black Label product so much over the years that anyone can be excused for getting it wrong.

Here's what the Jim Beam website says:

Every barrel is aged 8 years to achieve a full 86 proof and distinctive character that anyone can respect.

Isn't it amazing how ignorant the people who write this stuff are? Its age has nothing to do with its proof and 86 is hardly "full" proof (100 is).

But I do like Jim Beam black. Their strategy is pretty obvious v JD, the white label beats Jack on price, the black label is priced at parity with Jack, but it's twice as old and higher proof.

Although I haven't compared them recently, I used to find the taste of JB black very similar to Booker's when you adjust for proof.

[TNbourbon]

Chuck, as usual, makes good points that I only ham-handedly prompted. And, I didn't mean to disparage JB Black -- it's one of my favorites. But I prefer the older (but younger), 90-proof version myself, and can't find it anymore in TN.

[lakegz]

strange, i remember buying my first bottle of JD in October of 2003 and i clearly saw 80 proof on the bottle.

[TNbourbon]

Green-label No. 7 has been 80 proof, if not forever, at least a very long time. But the Black-label was 86 (after dropping from 90 15 or so years ago) until after Jan. 1 this year.

[cowdery]

It's possible they rolled the 80 proof black label out in some test markets prior to Jan 1. I know there was some test marketing before the general rollout.

[Gillman]

At the Japanese miniature site, www.ne.jp/asahi/miniature/smallworld, there are pictured two bottles of Green Label and Black Label Jack Daniels each bearing a red strip stamp. Clearly these were domestic U.S. bottles. The table of attributes states each is 90 proof. This would suggest that in the mid-1970's, both labels were 90 proof. (Likely, the differentiation was that Green Label was either slightly younger than Black or the same age but less mature in flavor). Years later, Jack Daniels Black Label became 86 proof and likely the Green Label did too. In any case, both finally became 80 proof.

This supports the view that the labels of imported-to-U.K. Jack Daniels Black Label bottles pictured in 1970's drinks books stating, "78 proof" refer to British proof, not American proof, i.e., Jack Black Label sold in the U.K. at the time was essentially 90 U.S. proof, the same whiskey as sold in the U.S. at the time. The Tony Lord book I mentioned is a high quality, carefully written book. I doubt it would be wrong in stating, in the text accompanying the photo, that in the U.S. the proof of both labels was "78 proof". And if the proof of both was the same, as the miniature photos and table of attributes confirm, this had to be 90 U.S. proof in the U.S., of course, not lower since Black Label at the time was always 90 proof in the States. Since the words 78 proof also appear on the label of the bottle pictured in this book, this suggests to me that Jack Daniels Black Label in Britain had the same amount of alcohol as in the U.S.

Gary

[Gillman]

Further thought: Brown-Forman might consider increasing the proof of the Green Label to 86 or even 90 as a nod to tradition and concession to fans of higher proof Jack Daniels. True, Green Label is said to be somewhat different in flavor but I did a side-by-side tasting a couple of years ago and found it almost indistinguishable from Black Label. I suppose too, distribution of Green Label might have to be increased somewhat, but as long as, say, it was available in the outlets in which one can buy the Single Barrel now, that would seem a reasonable solution. In other words, the product would be a specialty item but reasonably available. I understand that originally the label on Jack Daniel's bottle was green, so there is a strange logic perhaps to this idea.

Gary

[bluesbassdad]

I commented on the possible difference between the two here.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[TNbourbon]

It's possible they rolled the 80 proof black label out in some test markets prior to Jan 1. I know there was some test marketing before the general rollout.

Quite honestly, I don't know if that's what they did. Since we had heard about the proof change several months in advance (I first heard it, then confirmed it via a distributor rep, in October 2003, I think) and knew the change was coming, we were looking for it -- and our stock started changing around the end of February, early-March. It's certainly possible we were the first market to switch, but I don't know that.

[pepcycle]

This info was shared in an e-mail from Maker's/Bill Samuels today.

Dear Ambassadors,

Last Thursday I was hosting an Ambassador event in Houston, Texas and I was bombarded by questions from our many loyal Ambassadors asking if Maker's Mark ever intended to drop the strength of our 90-proof whisky.

It seems that this question was at the top of everyone's mind that evening due to a flurry of recent news stories about one of the world's most famous and respected whiskies lowering their proof strength.

I cannot speak as to whether their decision was a smart one, or whether they handled it well. But I can say with 100% certainty to all Maker's Mark fans that you'll never have to worry about us trying to fix something that's not broken. We've been doing things the same way for a long, long time and don't plan on changing now.

So here's my promise to all loyal Ambassadors and faithful Maker's Mark drinkers throughout the world. As long as I'm around, the strength of your favorite bourbon will remain at 90-proof. My father strongly believed that 90-proof bourbon made the perfect Manhattan, and he sure knew a thing or two about bourbon.

Your concern is much appreciated, but there is no need to worry.

Okay, let's move on to regular Ambassador business:

[cowdery]

Hmmmm. What exactly is "regular Ambassador business"?