tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post6896782646501918132..comments2024-03-17T14:10:05.912-05:00Comments on The Chuck Cowdery Blog: Jack Daniel's And TTB Redefine Neutral Spirits, Or Do They?Chuck Cowderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-31413308596427750242017-08-30T23:46:21.394-05:002017-08-30T23:46:21.394-05:00This need not have been an issue---except that JD ...This need not have been an issue---except that JD did not want to accept the closest analogy. Brandy, the other widely ranging spirit class, made of fruit, not grain, is defined as a fruit spirit (less than 190 Proof), and aged in wood. If not aged for at least two years, it must be labeled "Immature Brandy."<br /><br />So Jack could have called the spirit in question "Immature Whiskey" in conformance to an existing practice. Yeah, like they were going to do that.<br /><br />I would accept "Unaged Whiskey", but grudgingly, since the definition clearly states "aged in an oak barrel". How can it be whiskey if it is not aged?<br /><br />The other way to avoid this entire brouhaha (well, maybe not) would be to classify it as "Special Product"---which it is because it doesn't fit the existing definitions of classes.<br /><br />Of the three possibilities, I'd choose "Special Product", because it really says nothing and leaves the definition moot.<br /><br />Hoke Hardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16237562923949274059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-62256092147440395552013-08-13T14:00:09.749-05:002013-08-13T14:00:09.749-05:00In case you needed another reason why the TTB need...In case you needed another reason why the TTB needs to update these regs, consider the fact that makers of barrel-aged gin can't advertise their gin as barrel-aged. <br /><br />http://matthew-rowley.blogspot.com/2013/08/not-so-fast-barrel-aged-gin-hits-snag.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-25537879874913404852013-08-11T14:36:55.993-05:002013-08-11T14:36:55.993-05:00TTB doesn't reply directly, but Jack Daniel...TTB doesn't reply directly, but Jack Daniel's changed their label. See this post from January.<br />http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2013/01/jack-daniels-rye-now-spirit-distilled.htmlChuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-10039102581507280242013-08-11T11:06:28.906-05:002013-08-11T11:06:28.906-05:00It has been 10 months since the last post. Did the...It has been 10 months since the last post. Did the TTB ever reply?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-68109931525457602172012-10-10T20:47:22.505-05:002012-10-10T20:47:22.505-05:00To be fair, nearly-neutral Canadian whiskey is age...To be fair, nearly-neutral Canadian whiskey is aged a minimum of three years, unlike GNS.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-22493039184152111822012-10-10T11:48:22.770-05:002012-10-10T11:48:22.770-05:00As always, great stuff Cowdery, thank you!
To fur...As always, great stuff Cowdery, thank you!<br /><br />To further muddy the white waters (pun intended), let's not also forget Canadian Whiskey. Davin de Kergommeaux in his book of the same name (CW) swears up and down that Canadian Whiskey is not, I repeat NOT made with GNS (grain neutral spirits) - which as you mentioned is distilled at 95% (190 proof). <br /><br />Yet in the book he also details how Alberta Distillers (and others) DO use what is called "Canadian Whiskey Spirits" (CWS) which is distilled at around 94.5%!<br /><br />Technically NOT GNS, but practically - it's as neutral as you can get without being vodka or GNS. And in this case a whole class of spirits - Canadian Whiskey - therefore is what amounts to vodka flavored with a bit of flavoring whiskies (which are distilled closer to 70%).<br /><br />Thanks for exposing yet another big chunk of hypocrisy in the world of spirits. Most commentators won't touch these subject. Thank god that you do!Capn Jimbo's Rum Projecthttp://rumproject.com/rumforum/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-73126405009416750442012-10-09T19:45:35.440-05:002012-10-09T19:45:35.440-05:00"Spirit Specialty" is the catch-all. You..."Spirit Specialty" is the catch-all. You can see why JD wouldn't like that.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-32080294977053169092012-10-09T10:01:13.637-05:002012-10-09T10:01:13.637-05:00The TTB is caught in the rub here, and they're...The TTB is caught in the rub here, and they're doing what they can. I have one question, and one Modest Proposal.<br /><br />My question: when is the "right" time for re-writing the law? Setting aside the lack of political modivation, of course. I see lots of change in the marketplace these days: the acceptance of flavored whiskies (Red Stag, etc.) is a surprise to the purists, as is the rise of unaged and under-aged whiskies. Start-ups (as they do in all markets) will innovate with disregard to existing notions. I'm not sure that the dust has settled with respect to how the whiskey shelf is changing, so I don't know when the labeling rules should be re-written. There are good arguments on both sides of the now vs. later question.<br /><br />So here's my Modest Proposal: seeing as how the definition of the word whiskey can already be bent to include additives such as distilled orange juice, I don't see the purity of the word as something that has to be protected. Although it's an integral part of the character of whiskey, I'm perfectly happy removing the wood aging requirement from the definition. We'll be fine without it.<br /><br />Tim Dellinger Tim Dellingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-20543623314808695562012-10-09T08:41:23.617-05:002012-10-09T08:41:23.617-05:00Chuck, I definitely follow you. But what is it, in...Chuck, I definitely follow you. But <i>what</i> is it, in your opinion? Do the regulations have a catch-all category for something that doesn't meet any of the above requirements?Bradley J. Weidemannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14433507225417322800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-63821471521004363722012-10-09T07:40:40.280-05:002012-10-09T07:40:40.280-05:00Chuck, do you have ideas as to why BF might have p...Chuck, do you have ideas as to why BF might have pursued this designation? Do you think "neutral spirit" is less scary to people who don't drink whiskey?BMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05036354965069864586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-18189520312991312682012-10-08T21:28:25.532-05:002012-10-08T21:28:25.532-05:00That's the gist of it. Until now, if you wante...That's the gist of it. Until now, if you wanted to sell 'white whiskey,' whether using that name or not, you had to cheat a little by letting it briefly touch wood and thereby earn the 'whiskey' classification. I say 'cheat' because that wood contact, however insignificant, is 'aging,' so technically you can't call that product 'unaged.'<br /><br />There has, however, been a tacit understanding that it's a distinction without a difference. Spirit so 'aged' is not aged in any meaningful sense.<br /><br />I suppose it's admirable that JD refused to cheat, but look where that leaves us? Without a working definition for neutral spirit.<br /><br />I've tried to think of how to classify true white dog but I can't come up with anything. The regs don't admit to the possibility of truly unaged whiskey.<br /><br />But this solution is untenable. Why? Because 140 proof spirit is not neutral.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-76662099947473902782012-10-08T21:22:34.687-05:002012-10-08T21:22:34.687-05:00Right on Chuck. Very interested in the gubbmint...Right on Chuck. Very interested in the gubbmint's response on this one for sure. Stickit too'em. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-9519164527712662862012-10-08T20:38:57.279-05:002012-10-08T20:38:57.279-05:00Chuck,
Thanks. I was wondering about this all wee...Chuck,<br /><br />Thanks. I was wondering about this all weekend - it's clearly not vodka but it's also clearly not whiskey. Isn't it white dog? How is that classified by TTH? (Or has that question not been tested yet ... is this the first "white" pre-whiskey that hasn't been aged even for a second?)<br /><br />BJBJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-83869995270305603092012-10-08T19:44:30.423-05:002012-10-08T19:44:30.423-05:00I don't want any one company rewriting the TTB...I don't want any one company rewriting the TTB laws, but I also strongly feel they need to be updated. There are strange sorts of gaps here and there, and the international exemptions granted to Canada, Ireland, and Scotland need to be included to cover Japan, at least.<br /><br />However, this needs to be done by Act of Congress, not Diageo strongarming a regulatory bureau.The Bitter Fignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-744838506286765822012-10-08T17:45:12.729-05:002012-10-08T17:45:12.729-05:00I'm outraged that a product that is clearly no...I'm outraged that a product that is clearly not a neutral spirit is going to be sold as a neutral spirit. I've heard JD's side and haven't heard TTB's, so the jury is still out on who is responsible for this travesty.<br /><br />If JD had used the touch-and-go technique, putting the distillate in wood for a few minutes, there would be no objection to calling it whiskey, so they seem to have sought this disturbing ruling, despite their protests to the contrary. Their proposed 'unaged whiskey' classification clearly doesn't work, because it contradicts the definition of whiskey, but this outcome is just as nuts.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-88098654387880708882012-10-08T17:35:54.065-05:002012-10-08T17:35:54.065-05:00Chuck-Just to be clear, you are not outraged at Ja...Chuck-Just to be clear, you are not outraged at Jack Daniel's are you? You are upset at the ruling from the govt-right. To me, it almost seems like we need a new catagory-this is not vodka, it is not whiskey. What would you call the product before it is put in an oak barral?jdlnoreply@blogger.com