New rye whiskeys

[craigthom]

The bottle of Rittenhouse BIB I purchased a couple of weeks ago says DSP-KY 354.

[cowdery]

Although we have seen some brands that seemingly have made labeling "mistakes," the Rittenhouse BIB labels seem to be reliable, in that if you have one that says DSP-31 it probably was made at Bardstown, not at BF.

The whiskey being made by BF for HH is being made to HH's specifications, under the supervision of Craig Beam, primarily, as it's like pulling teeth to get Parker to drive to Louisville. HH is having BF make some of its whiskey because Bernheim doesn't have enough capacity, a problem they are in the process of correcting.

[Gillman]

Maybe this is a good place to ask a question I've been thinking about.

Can it be that a new spirit distilled at, say, B-F, shipped in a tanker truck to the HH warehouse, entered in barrels there and aged 4 years there or more, can be legally DSP-31 bonded whiskey if it was distilled in one season by one distiller at one distillery (which generally new make would be) and bottled at 100 proof in bond? Or does the whiskey have to be distilled at the place where it is entered in the barrel to be bonded? I tried to find the legal provisions which define bonded whiskey but cannot. I see references to bonding in the ATF standards of identity and they in turn refer (I think) to the Internal Revenue Code, but I can't in the latter find where bonding is discussed in relation to whiskey (as opposed to general taxation of distilled spirits, transfers of same between bonded warehouses and certain other matters).

I have a similar question in relation to non-bonded whiskey: is it possible to say a whiskey is made or produced (but not distilled as such) at a given distillery if it was entered in barrels and aged its whole life there as in my example above? Some whiskeys, not bonded, indicate a registered distillery where they are produced but do not state in so many words they are distilled there.

Gary

[Rughi]

Although we have seen some brands that seemingly have made labeling "mistakes," the Rittenhouse BIB labels seem to be reliable, in that if you have one that says DSP-31 it probably was made at Bardstown, not at BF.

Chuck,

We know that isn't the case. As played out on sb.com in December of 2005 in this thread Heaven Hill had produced Rittenhouse at Brown Forman for almost 9 years before they realized they had a non-compliant label and should order new labels. Post 50 is where I speculated about the label mystery.

Upon reading that, our own Bettye Jo went to talk about it with Larry Kass, who responded in Post 55. Sometime later on another forum John Lipman alerted people to the new dsp 354 labelling showing up on bottles.

So, HH made "mistakes" with the dsp numbers, but I don't think anyone is trying to say they were trying to be sneaky.

Roger

[cowdery]

Thanks, Roger. I had forgotten about all that.

As for Gary's question, Mike Veach has speculated that, using that scenario, one could use the DSP of the facility where the whiskey was entered and aged. The words "distilled at" couldn't be used, but those specific words don't appear to be required. On the other hand, is the word "produced" ambiguous, or would most people consider it to be synonymous with "distilled."

One could always write to the TTB and ask them. They're supposed to regulate the industry in our interest.

After this first came up, I asked Craig Beam that specific question and he said they are not doing that. He couldn't speculate as to whether or not one could, he's a distiller, not a lawyer.

Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me if the anomalous JTS Brown BIB labels that have been observed are another example of out-of-date label stock being used, although you would think that by now they would have purged anything with DSP-31 on it.

[Gillman]

I can only add that "produced" might be interpreted by some - and interpretations may vary unless a uniform practice is required, presumably by the regulator - to mean distilled under contract. Take the case where company X hires another still in which to distill bourbon white dog. Assume further the distilled spirit is immediately returned to company X for entering in the barrel and aging at its warehouse.

That whiskey arguably is distilled or at least produced by company X, whose name (or trade name) then is the one which would appear as the producing and warehousing distillery on the label. The question then would be what is the number of the distillery at which it is produced, since that must be stated on the label too. Well maybe some people (at least at some times) have felt that it is company X's plant or distillery's number since company X is responsible for the production and owns the output. If company X has more than one plant or distillery (more than one DSP), it might be the number of the plant or distillery mainly responsible for the production and this might be where the goods were entered and stored. Reading the legislation as printed on the other thread, these last speculations might go a bit too far, I would have thought in the case of production off-site under contract the distillery where the spirit is produced is where it was actually distilled albeit the distiller, distilling company and distilling season are those of company X. Still, I can't rule out this other reading.

Anyway, it is interesting to read the bonding rules and speculate how they might be interpreted in different scenarios. I think because they are in the labelling section I just didn't think to look there before Timothy posted them!

Gary

[cowdery]

What you have described in your first paragraph is exactly what Heaven Hill is doing with Rittenhouse but they are interpreting "produced" to mean "distilled," are using the word "distilled" on their label, and are identifying DSP 354 -- the distillery -- as the point of production. Looking at how someone actually does something is often a pretty good way of getting a feel for what the regulators are requiring.

The thing is, there are so few BIBs that it seldom comes up.

We have no examples of the alternate interpretation you describe. Regulations are always subject to different interpretations. The word "vegetable" can be interpreted as describing catsup (famous Reagan-era ruling). But all the evidence we have says we're supposed to expect a bottled-in-bond label to tell us the DSP of the plant where the whiskey was distilled, not where it was entered into barrels.

[Gillman]

I think you are probably right and perhaps the subsisting cases you have mentioned stating a DSP which is not apparently the distilling entity can be explained by using up of old label stock, a practice which may have been approved administratively by the regulator. However Mike mentioned that case some years ago he was familar with where an apparent purchase of bulk goods entered and aged at a distillery's warehouse was considered DSP goods of the receiving distillery. I think in other words what may have happened is it was - and still is - possible to argue the full validity of this alternate reading but perhaps under guidance from regulators or because of an emerging industry consensus people will move to a uniform way of doing it. It doesn't mean the apparent non-conforming labels and this older practice are non-conforming, there is an argument I think that they were and are valid but perhaps to avoid an issue being raised the companies are moving to identify the actual distilling entity on the label where the goods were produced under contract or bought in bulk.

Gary

[shoshani]

What you have described in your first paragraph is exactly what Heaven Hill is doing with Rittenhouse but they are interpreting "produced" to mean "distilled," are using the word "distilled" on their label, and are identifying DSP 354 -- the distillery -- as the point of production. Looking at how someone actually does something is often a pretty good way of getting a feel for what the regulators are requiring.

See, that's the wording on my bottle of now-perhaps-erroneously-labeled Rittenhouse...it says "distilled" by DSP31, not produced. (The code on the back label is L1615 - if anyone knows HH's coding system, it would tell me when it was bottled, which should be four and no more than six years after distillation, which would then make it clear whether it was made in Bardstown or at Early Times.)

By contrast, I've seen BIB Old Taylor bottlings from around 1980 that state on the back of the bottle "Distlled by The Old Taylor Distillery Company DSP Ky. 19 / Distributed by National Distillers Products Co. / Bottled at DSP Ky. 14". I'm assuming that DSP 14 was either Crow or Grand-Dad.

[barturtle]

See, that's the wording on my bottle of now-perhaps-erroneously-labeled Rittenhouse...it says "distilled" by DSP31, not produced. (The code on the back label is L1615 - if anyone knows HH's coding system, it would tell me when it was bottled, which should be four and no more than six years after distillation, which would then make it clear whether it was made in Bardstown or at Early Times.)

June 9, 2005.

[boone]

June 9, 2005.

Not necessarily so...

It could be 1995. You have to compare the bottom bottle date with the julian. Another good indicator of a older experssion would be the label...it's different.

[cowdery]

However Mike mentioned that case some years ago he was familar with where an apparent purchase of bulk goods entered and aged at a distillery's warehouse was considered DSP goods of the receiving distillery.

No reference was made in Mike's account to labeling for BIB purposes.

[Gillman]

That is what I thought he meant or implied since he indicated in a thread called "What Is Bonded Exactly?" that bulk whiskey tanked to a distillery for entering and aging would be given the DSP number of the receiving distillery or plant. If it was given that number, I thought he was saying he understood that number could therefore appear on bottles of its bonded whiskey as being the plant or registered distillery where it was produced. Maybe I misread him, Mike, can you clarify?

Gary

[barturtle]

Not necessarily so...

It could be 1995. You have to compare the bottom bottle date with the julian. Another good indicator of a older experssion would be the label...it's different.

This is true, I used your own code breaker to give this date. I simply assumed he had the current-style front label.

[shoshani]

This is true, I used your own code breaker to give this date. I simply assumed he had the current-style front label.

I'm almost positive that I do. Dark brown label, "Rittenhouse" is in a straight line in serif type; the R and E are larger and the tail of the R connects to the bottom line of the E by a wavy line that also hits the bottom of N, H, and O. A barrel on its side has "Straight RYE Whisky" on its end, with Rye in huge cursive script while "straight" and "whisky" (no e, by the way) in sans-serif caps.

I assume that's enough detail to pinpoint the label. However, the code on the bottom of the bottle (thanks, Bettye Jo, I didn't think to check THAT) is

03 11 091 5 2337

At this point I'm basically trying to determine when the contents were distilled, which at a 2005 bottling I would assume would be 2001. (For reasons way too complex to get into here, but I'll be asked about anyway , I avoid HH products distilled before 1996 or so. Don't take it personally, blame my religion...)