For the first time ever, the whiskey category has the highest number of brands in Impact’s spirits 'Hot Prospect' rankings. Seven whiskey brands earned Hot Prospect honors for 2011, narrowly edging out vodka, which had six.
The winning whiskies are Woodford Reserve Bourbon from Brown-Forman, Pendleton Canadian whisky from Hood River Distillers, Bulleit Bourbon from Diageo North America, Glenmorangie single malt Scotch from Moët Hennessy USA, The Balvenie single malt Scotch from William Grant & Sons USA, Devil’s Cut Bourbon from Beam Inc. and Seagram’s 7 Dark Honey from Diageo North America.
The Hot Prospects designation is for brands that posted at least 15 percent depletions growth in 2011, while also showing consistent growth in 2009 and 2010. Brand volume must be at least 50,000 cases but not more than 200,000 cases. New products can also qualify as Hot Prospects if they pass the 50,000-case mark in their first year.
Also on the list, as a liqueur, is Evan Williams Honey Reserve from Heaven Hill. It is through only the narrowest of technical distinctions that Evan Williams Honey is considered a liqueur while Seagram's 7 Dark Honey is considered whiskey. Both can be found in the American whiskey section of most liquor stores.
That the list includes more bourbons than single malt scotches is notable. That it includes flavored whiskeys at all raises worries about category confusion, but also shows that these products have developed a strong following in a short time. Seagram's 7 Crown, the #1 American Blended Whiskey, has been a moribund brand in a moribund segment, making the rise of Dark Honey a surprise.
Showing posts with label American blended whiskey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American blended whiskey. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Monday, October 18, 2010
Much Ado About Nothing: Cane Neutral Spirits.
There is much weeping and gnashing of teeth in some quarters about something Beam Global recently did. You see, all labels for alcoholic beverages have to be approved by the U.S. Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Companies typically get labels approved way in advance and sometimes on the if-come.
That's what Beam did with labels for three of its blended whiskeys. The United States has this crazy rule, rejected by the rest of the world, that says a mixture of 80 percent vodka and 20 percent whiskey may be sold as blended whiskey. It's crazy but it's the rule, a political compromise made more than 100 years ago.
By vodka I mean neutral spirits. Another equally silly part of the compromise says that if neutral spirits are used, the label must say what kind of neutral spirits they are, i.e., from what raw material they were made. If made from grain it has to say grain neutral spirits. If made from fruit it has to say fruit neutral spirits. If made from potatoes it has to say potato neutral spirits. And if made from sugar cane it has to say cane neutral spirits.
This is true for any beverage that contains neutral spirits, not just blended whiskey. The same rule applies to vodka, gin and most liqueurs. That's all Beam was doing, getting labels approved that say 'cane neutral spirits' instead of 'grain neutral spirits.'
Why might they want to use cane spirits instead of grain spirits? Beam, like most beverage companies, doesn't make its own neutral spirits. Neutral spirits are a commodity, sold strictly on price. Becauses of this, neutral spirits distilleries tend to be where the raw materials are, so the companies that make grain neutral spirits tend to be in Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa; and the companies that make cane neutral spirits tend to be in tropical areas where sugar cane is grown.
Years ago the U.S. government came up with an idea to help fund development in Puerto Rico. Instead of distilleries there paying federal excise tax like all U.S. distilleries do, they pay a special federal tax that goes directly into the budget of the island's government. Eventually the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) got the same deal for its distilleries. Everyone was getting along fine until USVI decided to lure Diageo, the world's largest drinks company, to USVI by rebating half of the tax back to the company.
Since neutral spirits are a commodity this tax advantage gives neutral spirits produced in the islands a significant price advantage over neutral spirits produced in the Midwest, probably more than enough to offset the shipping cost. Since blended whiskeys are themselves extremely price-sensitive, blended whiskey producers such as Beam Global may have no choice but to switch to cane neutral spirits. Vodka, gin and liqueur makers will too.
To those doing the weeping and gnashing, this is a bad thing because "whiskey is supposed to be made from grain." I would argue that whiskey is not supposed to be made by flavoring neutral spirits, but that horse is not just out of the barn, it has died of old age as have all its offspring to seven generations. Since whiskey-flavored vodka can be called blended whiskey, how much can it really matter what kind of neutral spirit it is?
Some weepers and gnashers have compared this to India, which would like the rest of the world to recognize its cane-based imitation scotch as whiskey. Europe and much of the rest of the world is holding fast to the rule that not only must whiskey be made entirely from grain, and not be neutral, it must be aged in wood for at least three years. Morally, the U.S. has less of a leg to stand on but it too refuses India's appeals. Although if the Indians want to sell us very cheap cane neutral spirits we'll be glad to use it in our blended whiskeys, because there is nothing in the rules about U.S. origin either.
I'm all for calling out any producer, big or small, who does something bad for whiskey and whiskey lovers, but this just isn't worthy of our outrage.
That's what Beam did with labels for three of its blended whiskeys. The United States has this crazy rule, rejected by the rest of the world, that says a mixture of 80 percent vodka and 20 percent whiskey may be sold as blended whiskey. It's crazy but it's the rule, a political compromise made more than 100 years ago.
By vodka I mean neutral spirits. Another equally silly part of the compromise says that if neutral spirits are used, the label must say what kind of neutral spirits they are, i.e., from what raw material they were made. If made from grain it has to say grain neutral spirits. If made from fruit it has to say fruit neutral spirits. If made from potatoes it has to say potato neutral spirits. And if made from sugar cane it has to say cane neutral spirits.
This is true for any beverage that contains neutral spirits, not just blended whiskey. The same rule applies to vodka, gin and most liqueurs. That's all Beam was doing, getting labels approved that say 'cane neutral spirits' instead of 'grain neutral spirits.'
Why might they want to use cane spirits instead of grain spirits? Beam, like most beverage companies, doesn't make its own neutral spirits. Neutral spirits are a commodity, sold strictly on price. Becauses of this, neutral spirits distilleries tend to be where the raw materials are, so the companies that make grain neutral spirits tend to be in Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa; and the companies that make cane neutral spirits tend to be in tropical areas where sugar cane is grown.
Years ago the U.S. government came up with an idea to help fund development in Puerto Rico. Instead of distilleries there paying federal excise tax like all U.S. distilleries do, they pay a special federal tax that goes directly into the budget of the island's government. Eventually the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) got the same deal for its distilleries. Everyone was getting along fine until USVI decided to lure Diageo, the world's largest drinks company, to USVI by rebating half of the tax back to the company.
Since neutral spirits are a commodity this tax advantage gives neutral spirits produced in the islands a significant price advantage over neutral spirits produced in the Midwest, probably more than enough to offset the shipping cost. Since blended whiskeys are themselves extremely price-sensitive, blended whiskey producers such as Beam Global may have no choice but to switch to cane neutral spirits. Vodka, gin and liqueur makers will too.
To those doing the weeping and gnashing, this is a bad thing because "whiskey is supposed to be made from grain." I would argue that whiskey is not supposed to be made by flavoring neutral spirits, but that horse is not just out of the barn, it has died of old age as have all its offspring to seven generations. Since whiskey-flavored vodka can be called blended whiskey, how much can it really matter what kind of neutral spirit it is?
Some weepers and gnashers have compared this to India, which would like the rest of the world to recognize its cane-based imitation scotch as whiskey. Europe and much of the rest of the world is holding fast to the rule that not only must whiskey be made entirely from grain, and not be neutral, it must be aged in wood for at least three years. Morally, the U.S. has less of a leg to stand on but it too refuses India's appeals. Although if the Indians want to sell us very cheap cane neutral spirits we'll be glad to use it in our blended whiskeys, because there is nothing in the rules about U.S. origin either.
I'm all for calling out any producer, big or small, who does something bad for whiskey and whiskey lovers, but this just isn't worthy of our outrage.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
U.S. Law Magically Changes Vodka Into Whiskey.
In the United States a blended whiskey can be as much as 80 percent grain neutral spirit (GNS) -- i.e., vodka.
Only in America is a product that is 4/5 vodka considered whiskey. It's not quite water into wine, yet it is magical. (Before anyone blames Obama, the rules have been this way for 101 years.)
To make matters worse, the official type "blended whiskey" applies to mixtures of whiskeys of different types too. So all-whiskey blends and whiskey-spirit blends are both considered blended whiskey under the Treasury Department's rules.
In some cases the rules allow a product to use the class designation -- "whiskey" in this case -- without a type designation. Right now that's not permitted for any blended whiskey. We believe it should be for all blends that contain only whiskey. If everything in the blend is whiskey, no GNS, it could just be labeled "whiskey" and wouldn't have to be labeled "blended whiskey."
The full, modest proposal is in the current issue of The Bourbon Country Reader, Volume 13, Number 1.
Subscriptions to The Bourbon Country Reader are $20/year for U.S. addresses. $24.50 for Canada, and $28.50 for everybody else. It is published six times a year. Well, maybe not, but your subscription always includes six issues. Click here to subscribe with PayPal or any major credit card.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Case For Better American Blends.
On Saturday I wrote about the difference between American blended whiskey and blended whiskey as it is produced in Scotland, Ireland, Canada and most other places where whiskey is made. I recently wrote about this in WHISKY Magazine (Issue No. 87) as well.
I keep thinking that American producers should look seriously into all-whiskey blends, mixing straight whiskey with light whiskey, for example.
The idea is to create an American whiskey product with a lighter taste that's also a good value relative to straight whiskey, one that provides a better drinking experience than current American blended whiskeys which are typically 4/5 vodka.
But please, producers, don't promote it as a type. Create an attractive brand identity and promote that. People buy brands, not types.
Jack Daniel's and Early Times (both Brown-Forman products) have proved that consumers are perfectly happy with "whiskey" as the type. "Kentucky whisky" and "Tennessee whiskey" are terms that appear nowhere in the Federal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits. Legally, they're both just "whiskey."
Similarly, Seagram's Seven (a Diageo product) doesn't seem to suffer from the term "blended whiskey" that must appear on its label. To most people, Seagram's Seven is whiskey, period, despite the fact that it is 3/4 vodka.
The only type of whiskey that requires a modifier is blended whiskey. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe blended whiskey that is 100% whiskey (no NGS) deserves to just be "whiskey," without a modifier.
Why not?
I keep thinking that American producers should look seriously into all-whiskey blends, mixing straight whiskey with light whiskey, for example.
The idea is to create an American whiskey product with a lighter taste that's also a good value relative to straight whiskey, one that provides a better drinking experience than current American blended whiskeys which are typically 4/5 vodka.
But please, producers, don't promote it as a type. Create an attractive brand identity and promote that. People buy brands, not types.
Jack Daniel's and Early Times (both Brown-Forman products) have proved that consumers are perfectly happy with "whiskey" as the type. "Kentucky whisky" and "Tennessee whiskey" are terms that appear nowhere in the Federal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits. Legally, they're both just "whiskey."
Similarly, Seagram's Seven (a Diageo product) doesn't seem to suffer from the term "blended whiskey" that must appear on its label. To most people, Seagram's Seven is whiskey, period, despite the fact that it is 3/4 vodka.
The only type of whiskey that requires a modifier is blended whiskey. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe blended whiskey that is 100% whiskey (no NGS) deserves to just be "whiskey," without a modifier.
Why not?
Friday, June 18, 2010
What's The Difference Between Scotch And Bourbon?
The question I am probably asked more than any other is, "what's the difference between scotch and bourbon?"
Sometimes I start by explaining the difference between blended and single-malt scotch and then draw a parallel to American whiskey. Scotland has blended whiskey and so does the United States. Scottish blends are like American blends and single malt scotch is like bourbon, right?
Not exactly.
You might think everybody at least knows what whiskey is, but there are points of contention there too. Europeans declare that grain spirit aged for less than three years is not whiskey. Indians declare that any spirit that resembles whiskey in appearance and taste is whiskey, even if it’s not made from grain.
What is the real difference between scotch and bourbon? They taste nothing alike, that’s the real difference. Why do they taste nothing alike? The legal regimes under which they operate have a little bit to do with it. But the traditions and aspirations of producers, and the preferences of consumers, are most of it.
Take the difference between Scottish and American blends, for example.
Everybody knows what vodka is and nobody considers it whiskey, even though most vodka is made from grain. It isn’t whiskey because it is distilled to neutrality (generally considered to be 95% alcohol) and not aged.
But, in effect, the United States says vodka is whiskey if you replace at least 1/5 of it with straight whiskey. Then it is blended whiskey (20% straight whiskey, 80% vodka).
Canadians and Europeans get to just about the same place by a different and slightly less magical route. Instead of 95% alcohol they distill their beer to 94.5% alcohol and put it in wood for three years. They call that whiskey and it is found in virtually all of their blends.
So on paper, at least, Scottish, Irish, Canadian, and American blends are almost the same, yet anyone who has tasted both would vehemently disagree. The difference isn’t the 1/2 of 1% neutrality difference, or even those precious three years in wood. It’s that the Scots (and the Irish and Canadians) produce cheap blends but also very fine and expensive blends, and everything in between, while the U.S. produces cheap blends only.
That has nothing to do with rules and regs.
Sometimes I start by explaining the difference between blended and single-malt scotch and then draw a parallel to American whiskey. Scotland has blended whiskey and so does the United States. Scottish blends are like American blends and single malt scotch is like bourbon, right?
Not exactly.
You might think everybody at least knows what whiskey is, but there are points of contention there too. Europeans declare that grain spirit aged for less than three years is not whiskey. Indians declare that any spirit that resembles whiskey in appearance and taste is whiskey, even if it’s not made from grain.
What is the real difference between scotch and bourbon? They taste nothing alike, that’s the real difference. Why do they taste nothing alike? The legal regimes under which they operate have a little bit to do with it. But the traditions and aspirations of producers, and the preferences of consumers, are most of it.
Take the difference between Scottish and American blends, for example.
Everybody knows what vodka is and nobody considers it whiskey, even though most vodka is made from grain. It isn’t whiskey because it is distilled to neutrality (generally considered to be 95% alcohol) and not aged.
But, in effect, the United States says vodka is whiskey if you replace at least 1/5 of it with straight whiskey. Then it is blended whiskey (20% straight whiskey, 80% vodka).
Canadians and Europeans get to just about the same place by a different and slightly less magical route. Instead of 95% alcohol they distill their beer to 94.5% alcohol and put it in wood for three years. They call that whiskey and it is found in virtually all of their blends.
So on paper, at least, Scottish, Irish, Canadian, and American blends are almost the same, yet anyone who has tasted both would vehemently disagree. The difference isn’t the 1/2 of 1% neutrality difference, or even those precious three years in wood. It’s that the Scots (and the Irish and Canadians) produce cheap blends but also very fine and expensive blends, and everything in between, while the U.S. produces cheap blends only.
That has nothing to do with rules and regs.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
What Is Blended Light Whiskey?
In the typically obscure way of whiskey enthusiasts we were talking about light whiskey, a bad idea from the late 1960s. Someone produced a bottle of Four Roses labeled "light whiskey-a blend." I off-handedly opined that it probably was light whiskey blended with GNS (vodka).
It was not.
The reg says, "If 'light whisky' is mixed with less than 20 percent of straight whisky on a proof gallon basis, the mixture shall be designated 'blended light whisky' (light whisky—a blend)."
No GNS.
So I stood corrected, but it reminded me of something else that was pointed out to me recently. You can search Canadian liquor store shelves long and hard, and unless it has been imported from an American bottler you will not find a blended Canadian whisky. Up there they simply call it Canadian whisky.
The U.S. reg says "if such product is a mixture of whiskies, such mixture is 'blended Canadian whisky' (Canadian whisky--a blend)."
Canadian whisky is considered a blend even though it contains no GNS because it contains whiskeys of different types; i.e., corn whiskey, wheat whiskey, malt whiskey, rye whiskey, etc. It's all whiskey, by our definition and theirs, but of different types.
Likewise, blended light whiskey is a mixture of whiskeys, straight whiskey and light whiskey, no GNS. The "less that 20%" is because if it were more than 20% it would simply be "blended whiskey." Blended whiskey is straight whiskey (20% or more) mixed with whiskey (any kind) and/or neutral spirits.
Today, virtually all blends contain the minimum amount of straight whiskey and the rest is GNS, which is the cheapest combination possible under the rules.
Arguably, since it can't contain GNS and must contain some straight whiskey, blended light whiskey would be a more desirable product than either light whiskey or blended whiskey, at least on paper, but perhaps the difference wouldn't be great enough to win many converts.
I keep thinking that if sustained strong demand makes cheap straight 4-year-old bourbon a thing of the past, there might be room at that price point for products that bridge the gap. Stretching a little straight whiskey with light whiskey wouldn't be quite as cheap as a little more straight whiskey cut with GNS, but it would be close and a lot better tasting, at least in theory. It's just theory because nobody makes such a product.
And that's what makes this meditation so obscure.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Seagram's 7 Dark Honey Tastes Good, But Is It Whiskey?
So I poured myself some of the new Seagram's 7 Dark Honey and took a sip. It tastes like honey, orange too. It is plenty sweet and 35.5 percent alcohol.
I think I'll have another.
Seagram's 7 Dark Honey is not a liqueur, it is a flavored whiskey. The difference? In this case, none.
Seagram's, once the world's largest drinks company, no longer exists except as a brand name. Seagram's 7 Crown American Blended Whiskey is a Diageo product. For information about this or any other Diageo products go to thebar.com.
Seagram's 7 Dark Honey follows on the heels of Beam Global's successful launch last year of Red Stag by Jim Beam, which flavors Jim Beam Bourbon with black cherry. Heaven Hill has done the honey thing too with its Evan Williams Honey Reserve, which like Red Stag has a bourbon base. Diageo's more direct answer to Red Stag is its Jeremiah Weed Cherry Mash Flavored Blended Bourbon. Arguably, Diageo started all this with its Captain Morgan Flavored Rum.
There is nothing wrong with a drink tasting good. That is generally the idea. What I don't taste here is any whiskey. I'm not sure that matters.
So, to summarize, Seagram's 7 Dark Honey: tastes good, but not like whiskey.
Seagram's 7 Dark Honey, $16.99/750 ml at Binny's in Chicago.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Who Or What Is Jeremiah Weed?
Consider Jeremiah Weed. The brand, a Diageo product, has been around since the 1960s. (Get it, ‘weed,’ heh heh heh.) It is a bourbon liqueur, which means it combines a little bit of bourbon with other flavors, neutral spirits, and sweetener. It is 50% alcohol. Wild Turkey American Honey, Southern Comfort and Yukon Jack are similar products.
Since the Federal government must approve all labels but has fewer controls on advertising, Diageo can get away with calling Jeremiah Weed ‘bourbon’ in a casual way, at jeremiahweedbourbon.com, for example. It is okay as long as the ‘mandatory copy’ (the small type at the bottom of the page) is accurate.
That original liqueur product has a cult following among American fighter pilots, not a bad endorsement to get, where it functions much like Jagermeister or Malört or just about any tequila, in that it is drunk ceremonially in shots, not because it tastes good, but specifically because it does not. It’s not a big seller, but steady and predictable.
So far, so good, but recently Diageo has decided to see if the brand has legs, so they’ve introduced new Jeremiah Weed-branded products that are classified, not as liqueurs, but as flavored vodka, blended whiskey, and flavored whiskey.
The vodkas are Southern Style Sweet Tea Flavored Vodka, Country Peach Sweet Tea Flavored Vodka, Sweet Tea Flavored Vodka & Bourbon Whiskey, and a ‘Half & Half’ that combines the Sweet Tea flavor with Lemonade. They’re all 35% alcohol. The web site jeremiahweed.com is dedicated to these products, not to the original bourbon liqueur.
Then there are the two new Jeremiah Weed Blended Bourbons. A blended bourbon is half bourbon, half vodka, but entitled to call itself whiskey. The Jeremiah Weed line now includes a blended bourbon and a flavored blended bourbon. Both are 45% alcohol. The flavored version (pictured) is, not surprisingly, cherry flavored.
Since the original Jeremiah Weed is not a big brand, these new expressions seem unlikely to set the world on fire, but they give people who already buy into the Jeremiah Weed image something else to buy, and that’s what line extensions are all about. The philosophy of companies such as Diageo is that consumers buy brands, not categories, so category confusion isn’t their concern.
Maybe they’re right, but I get a lot of “what is this stuff?” questions from consumers.
At least some people want to know what they're drinking.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
And Red Stag By Jim Beam Begat...
...Seagram's 7 Golden Honey.
Seagram's 7 is the leading brand of American Blended Whiskey. It is a Diageo product. (Seagram's no longer exists as a company.)
Jim Beam started this with Red Stag, Jim Beam bourbon flavored with black cherry concentrate, just about a year ago. It has been a huge success so, naturally, others want to try their luck. Seagram's 7, as an inexpensive blend, is a natural vehicle for a flavored whiskey. I haven't had it yet but I'm told the dominant flavors are honey and cinnamon, and it tastes pretty good if you like that sort of thing.
Here's how its makers describe it: "Harness the excitement of the night with blended whiskey with a dark honey finish. Perfect on its own or mixed, tempt your guests with a chilled shot or combine with cola over ice. It’s a whole new smooth."
For more information, go to thebar.com which, just so you know, is a Diageo web site. You can also read about it on LiquorSnob.com.
Seagram's 7 is the leading brand of American Blended Whiskey. It is a Diageo product. (Seagram's no longer exists as a company.)
Jim Beam started this with Red Stag, Jim Beam bourbon flavored with black cherry concentrate, just about a year ago. It has been a huge success so, naturally, others want to try their luck. Seagram's 7, as an inexpensive blend, is a natural vehicle for a flavored whiskey. I haven't had it yet but I'm told the dominant flavors are honey and cinnamon, and it tastes pretty good if you like that sort of thing.
Here's how its makers describe it: "Harness the excitement of the night with blended whiskey with a dark honey finish. Perfect on its own or mixed, tempt your guests with a chilled shot or combine with cola over ice. It’s a whole new smooth."
For more information, go to thebar.com which, just so you know, is a Diageo web site. You can also read about it on LiquorSnob.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
