Very Rare Old Heaven Hill BIB 10yr

[Gillman]

One of the things I've wondered about is something you once said Chuck, which is that once a whiskey qualifies to be identified under the standards of identity, it must be so-labelled. If a whiskey is a bourbon, say, the maker must say so on the label, and ditto for a straight bourbon (e.g., my bottle of Four Roses Barrel Strength states it is "limited edition single barrel bourbon whiskey" but at the bottom of the bottle a statement also reads, "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey".

If Jack Daniels could call itself bourbon whiskey and indeed straight bourbon whiskey, why does it not have to state this on the label?

I would think it is because the long charcoal leaching process is felt to depart from the standard of identity to make bourbon whiskey. True, it may not be a "flavoring" in the normal sense, but is it a production technique which is felt to depart from the letter and spirit of the (few admittedly) rules which dictate how bourbon is made?

Gary

[Gillman]

If you took a yeasted corn and rye mash, froze it, removed the water, and put the concentrated alcohol in new charred wood for 4 years, can you - or rather, would you be obliged - to call that a bourbon whiskey? I don't have the standards of identity before me. I think they refer to "distillation" and even if they refer to a still, isn't freezing in a vessel one way chemically to fractionate the ethanol?

Now, sure as shooting that isn't a traditional way to make bourbon, and maybe that means, like the Lincoln County process, it takes the product out of the bourbon category but is broad enough to leave it in the whiskey category.

I need to get out my copy of that chapter again.

Gary

[Gillman]

An extract from the standards of identity:

Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

PART 5—LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS

Subpart C—Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits

Browse Previous

§ 5.23 Alteration of class and type.

(a) Additions. (1) The addition of any coloring, flavoring, or blending materials to any class and type of distilled spirits, except as otherwise provided in this section, alters the class and type thereof and the product shall be appropriately redesignated.

(2) There may be added to any class or type of distilled spirits, without changing the class or type thereof, (i) such harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials as are an essential component part of the particular class or type of distilled spirits to which added, and (ii) harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials such as caramel, straight malt or straight rye malt whiskies, fruit juices, sugar, infusion of oak chips when approved by the Administrator, or wine, which are not an essential component part of the particular distilled spirits to which added, but which are customarily employed therein in accordance with established trade usage, if such coloring, flavoring, or blending materials do not total more than 2 1/2 percent by volume of the finished product.

(3) “Harmless coloring, flavoring, and blending materials” shall not include (i) any material which would render the product to which it is added an imitation, or (ii) any material, other than caramel, infusion of oak chips, and sugar, in the case of Cognac brandy; or (iii) any material whatsoever in the case of neutral spirits or straight whiskey, except that vodka may be treated with sugar in an amount not to exceed 2 grams per liter and a trace amount of citric acid.

( Extractions. The removal from any distilled spirits of any constituents to such an extent that the product does not possess the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to that class or type of distilled spirits alters the class and type thereof, and the product shall be appropriately redesignated. In addition, in the case of straight whisky the removal of more than 15 percent of the fixed acids, or volatile acids, or esters, or soluble solids, or higher alcohols, or more than 25 percent of the soluble color, shall be deemed to alter the class or type thereof.

© Exceptions. (1) This section shall not be construed as in any manner modifying the standards of identity for cordials and liqueurs, flavored brandy, flavored gin, flavored rum, flavored vodka, and flavored whisky or as authorizing any product which is defined in §5.22(j), Class 10, as an imitation to be otherwise designated.

(2) [Reserved]

...................................

I think the answer about Tennessee whiskey may be here. Straight whiskey cannot have any coloring or flavoring added (see section 5.23 (a) (3) above). Perhaps, despite what I suggested earlier, the leaching through burned maple charcoal is felt to add flavor. You can do this to whiskey, as I read the rules above, where "established trade usage" allows it and the flavoring added does not exceed 2 1/2% by volume of the finished product. Note that "infusion of oak chips" can be considered flavoring. This sounds similar to the multi-day leaching through a stack of maple charcoal. Alternatively, note the rules in 5.23 ( about extractions. If (I don't know) the "hog tracks" removed by the Lincoln County Process result in more than the stipulated percentage of esters or acids removed, then the product can't be classified as straight whiskey, and if such extraction alters the taste, aroma and other characteristics attributable to, say, bourbon, you can't call it bourbon, it must be redesignated.

I wonder if the practice of viewing Jack Daniels and George Dickel as non-bourbons may result from one or a combination of these interpretations. If so, this would explain, too, why the labels on those products contain no reference to bourbon because, in the labelling section of the SOI, I believe a rule exists requiring a product which meets a standard to be labelled with its name.

Gary

[Gillman]

"(a) Designation of product. The class and type of distilled spirits shall be stated in conformity with §5.22 if defined therein".

The above is from the labelling sections of the SOI.

If Jack Daniels can be viewed as a bourbon, would this not have to be stated on the label?

Another section in the labelling area states that the label must refer to treatment by wood chips where this is done to add "color and flavor". However, I doubt that burned maple charcoal is "wood" or "chips"; second, the Lincoln County process does not add any color, which seems to take it out of this rule. I confess I haven't read all the rules through with reference to this question, but on a quick look, assuming the Lincoln County method added "flavoring", I don't see where this fact must be stated on the label. (If it has to be stated, i.e., where the flavoring added does not exceed 2 1/2 % by volume, this would negate my supposition that JD can't be bourbon due to flavoring added by the maple charcoal because JD bottles do not refer to any flavoring added. I don't think the fact of flavoring being added has to be stated, e.g., a bottle of American (blended) whiskey does not I believe refer to any addition of color or flavor although some brands surely must have some added).

The rules in the standards are complex, even for one who knows a certain amount about whiskey and his way around a statute book. I am just throwing these ideas out, I don't know the answer.

Gary

[Thesh]

Bourbon is very often charcoal filtered. This doesn't seem to count as adding anything to the bourbon. Hell, all bourbon gets something from the wood.

Honestly, I think we should just recognize that tennessee whiskey is so different from bourbon in flavor that we not worry about what is legally what and say tennessee whiskey != bourbon.

[Gillman]

I think the typical bourbon charcoal filtering is simply to remove solids and debris from the whiskey. E.g., say you centrifuged the whiskey, that would have a similar result. The process is too short I think to amount to adding flavoring and the charcoal used is either from the barrels themselves (char pieces that fall into the pierced trough that receives the whiskey for transfer to cistern) or some kind of neutral charcoal which might take out a few fusels if that but not in a way to change the taste or exceed the stipulated percentages of esters and acids, etc., that can be taken out.

It is true that Jack has a distinctive taste but does Dickel have one? Not really, although there is a kind of charcoaly taste common to both (maybe). If so, this might be a flavoring that bourbon doesn't have. If so, that may be why JD and Dickel aren't called bourbon on the label. It is I agree a technical question that seems rather bootless (as you say, Jack and probably George D. have their own taste, let's leave it at that), but one that keeps getting revisited here. While I and others have addressed aspects before (of the law, admitting of course I am no expert in this area), I thought it worthwhile to take another shot at it in case a consensus might emerge, but probably that is unlikely!

Gary

[craigthom]

I'm pretty sure Brown-Forman, at least throught the tour guides, maintains that the Lincoln County process adds nothing to the whiskey. They say it only removes stuff.

I think what Chuck is saying is that this is a "don't ask, don't tell" situation. If anyone at the TTB ever took up the question of whether or not Jack Daniel's is a bourbon and decided it was, then you'd have your situation to deal with.

As it is, nobody in authority thinks about it, so nothing needs to be done. They don't want to be called "bourbon", and the government has no compelling interest in forcing the issue. Whether it really fits the official definition of bourbon is irrelevant to all but us.

[Gillman]

This is entirely possible.

Gary

[cowdery]

One of the things I've wondered about is something you once said Chuck, which is that once a whiskey qualifies to be identified under the standards of identity, it must be so-labelled.

I probably did say that because I once believed it. I no longer do. I believe that at one time, Reagor Motlow feared that the regulations would be so interpreted and he didn't want to label his distillery's product bourbon.

Gary has cited all of the relevant sections of the regulations, and we are all entitled to read and interpret them as we wish. My sole point in the previous post is that the authorities charged with interpreting them officially have never reached the question. The only ruling is a letter from the head of the appropriate division of the Treasury acknowledging that Tennessee whiskey is a type of whiskey distinct from bourbon due to the charcoal filtering process, but that is very different from a product using that process requesting and being denied the bourbon designation.

It is impossible to finish the sentence, "Jack Daniel's can't call itself bourbon because..." You can't finish it because it's never been decided by any entity with the authority to do so that JD can't call itself bourbon.

[jburlowski]

Stu, I've heard that theory, and it might be right. However, it seems to me that a slow filtering through maple charcoal is intended to take away from the whiskey rather than add to it (the pores of the burned wood absorb fusels and other impurities in the new make). Still, the lengthy contact with the burned maple wood might be thought to impart a taste, and this may be so (Jack Daniels seems to have a maple charcoal overlay, maybe residual sugars get into it from the stacks of charcoal).

Gary

By the imparted taste, are you referring to the greasy, oily, sooty residue?

:slappin: :slappin:

[Gillman]

Not oily, but yes a kind of sooty, charcoal taste. It's a light overlay on both Jack and Dickel. I recall Randy Blank once tasting some 70's Dickel with me and he said there's that taste, and he's right. It's a top-note though, not the "main" part of the whiskeys' taste, which otherwise seems quite within the bourbon spectrum of flavors.

Gary

[Stu]

Chuck and Gary,

Thanks, I think I understand it a little better now. Since neither JD nor GD want to be called bourbon, no one really knows if they could be. They probably could be if they wanted. If one of them changed their mind and wanted to be called bourbon, the federal government would have to decide at that time. I appreciate all the help.

Stu

[Gillman]

I am tasting now some of that 70's George Dickel I mentioned. I had two bottles, purchased off the retail shelves of San Francisco last summer. One still has whiskey in it, Doug Phillips has it and kindly put it out again at the last Gazebo (did anyone try it?). The other bottle I have here, half-full. It is good, a little different than Doug's bottle even though the bottles look identical (heavy fluted glass quarts, circa-1970 manufacture).

There does seem a light charcoal-like nose. The taste is dry and sweet at the same time, with a connection to the present Dickels but better IMO. The "vitamins" of the current Dickel is just a faint hint, but there is a dryish caramel taste that unites the whiskeys over this 40 year period. It is smooth and rich and brandy-like, very good stuff.

Gary

[TNbourbon]

...They sought and received permission to use the term Tennessee Whiskey, but you will not find that term in the regulations, nor will you find any official definition of it anywhere...

Chuck, do you consider international trade agreements to be "official definitions"? (Not being coy here, I don't know the answer.) But, the text of virtually all U.S. trade agreements define both bourbon AND Tennessee whiskey as distinctive American products, though they do not define the latter per se. Here's a sample of typical language, duplicated in every recent trade agreement I've come across, from the Dominican Republic/CAFTA treaty:

"...Distinctive Products. The Central American Parties and the Dominican Republic agreed to recognize Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey as “distinctive products” of the United States, meaning these Parties will not permit the sale of any product as Bourbon Whiskey or

Tennessee Whiskey unless it was manufactured in the United States in accordance with applicable laws and regulations..."

http://search.crownpeak.com/cpt_search/result_1?account=1003&q=Tennessee+whiskey&submit.x=8&submit.y=21

[Gillman]

Well, in the broad sense, Tennessee whiskey is "whiskey" (distilled at under 190 proof, from a cereals mash, etc.) distilled and aged in Tennessee. That is enough I think to give these trade agreements meaning, i.e., the non-U.S. parties agree not to sell anything which does not meet that test but that is just a minimum test, it doesn't of course address the issue whether Tennessee Whiskey, or rather the types made by Brown Forman and Diageo, are bourbon.

I am inclining to thinking they probably aren't bourbon, and that while no official determination has been made apparently on the subject, it has been assumed that this is the case by all concerned.

The "extraction" rule, the first part of it which requires redesignation where a class and type of distilled spirit has been treated in a way to alter its distinctive taste and aroma, may be the answer here. I have read that white dog made at Jack Daniels tastes noticeably different after being subjected to the Lincoln County process, it is cleaner and more defined (is one description I recall reading). I would think that even after 2 years in new charred wood, since you start with something "different" than a bourbon white dog, the end result arguably isn't bourbon and must be redesignated, to whiskey (Tennessee being the place it is made, so that term seems unobjectionable).

True, if you took away by "percolation" (this sounds something like the Tennessee method) or any other method, say redistillation, all the taste of the whiskey, you couldn't even call it whiskey. But Dickel and Jack certainly taste of whiskey, no question of that! Essentially they are rectified in an old-fashioned, early 1800's way, but they are still all-whiskey!

This seems to me the more likely position than the argument that flavoring is added (although I suppose it may be a question of "all of the above"). While I feel I can detect a light charcoal overlay in the Tennessee whiskeys, that probably isn't a flavoring within the rules. But the obverse situation of taking something out of the spirits and changing its class and type designation seems more likely to me.

I can see contrary arguments, though. It may be that the extraction rule only applies to the product when it is bourbon, i.e., after two years aging in new charred wood. Except for Gentleman Jack, the JD products aren't subjected at that point to the filtering or percolation process, so the rule may not apply to begin with.

In the end it doesn't matter: JD and Dickel are classic American whiskey types, long-established and well-known amongst generalist and specialist markets. But it is interesting still (I find) to try to figure out the legal background to their designations.

Gary

[cowdery]

I'm very much aware of the trade agreements but they don't define anything. They just protect the names. They don't need to define them because the deal (between us and the other country or countries) is that the other signatory can't use them, period, so what they mean doesn't matter. Then we give the same recognition to something of theirs. Somehow, "California Champagne" got in as a compromise, but you used to see French place names on all of the Gallo wines. The French complained and these kinds of "distinctive product" agreements are the result.

The only point I have been trying to make is that there has never been a ruling on whether or not the Lincoln County Process would disqualify Jack Daniel's from calling itself bourbon. Because of that, everybody's opinion is as good as everybody else's, but nobody is right.

[eprater]

As far as VROHH Bib.....it should have a DSP # on the back of the bottle...if not, check the born on date. The last # of the year is alone before the last set of numbers. ie. xxx-xxxx-#-xxxx

If it is '06 or before, then you have original HH bourbon. I found some of this product in Ky a year ago, and have enjoyed it as some of the best HH bourbon available(in their own label).

I've got a still-unopened bottle that I picked up in Kentucky in the summer of 2002, so must certainly be original HH.

But other than "D.S.P. KY. 31", which doesn't really seem batch-specific, there's no numbering to be found on the bottle. Is that a more recent addition to the label?

-Ethan

[mozilla]

HH has been using a Julian Date for quite some time. It could be on the bottom, in ink(you might need to hold the bottle in different light sources to see it). It might be on the back of the bottle...

If your bottle had a bottle date of 02...then it is certainly a DSP 31 item. I don't think that they actually nunber their batches for this item.

[shoshani]

If I understand you properly Jack Daniel's is by all accounts a true bourbon?

Actually, for some years Jack Daniel's WAS a bourbon.

Tennessee went dry in 1910, and continued to remain dry until 1938, when Lem Motlow got permission to reopen the distillery in Lynchburg. Until that happened, Jack Daniel's - charcoal filtering and all - was being distilled and bottled in Missouri, Alabama, and finally at Schenley's Stagg Distillery in Frankfort, which is now Buffalo Trace.