New Whiskey Labels:

This week's most interesting new labels from the federal TTB database:

Brown-Forman cleared a label for Woodford Reserve Frost Four Wood which appears to be a blend of standard Woodford bourbons finished in port, sherry and maple wood casks that was "flocked during 2013 polar vortex." I was pretty excited to see this as we haven't had a new disaster whiskey in a while.

A label cleared for Teerenpeli Single Malt, the first whiskey I've seen from Finland.

Joseph Magnus, a brand out of Washington DC, cleared a label for an Indiana bourbon (presumably MGP) composed of whiskeys finished in various sherry and Cognac casks.


Note:  The fact that a label appears on the TTB database does not necessarily mean it will be produced.  In addition, some details on the label, such as proof, can change in the final product.

Whiskey Revival: IW Harper 15 year old

Diageo recently revived the old IW Harper label which had disappeared from domestic shelves early this century. The new Harper comes in no age statement and 15 year old expressions, the latter of which was distilled at the new Bernheim distillery which sits on the site of the old Bernheim Distillery where Harper was previously made.

I happen to have an unopened mini bottle of the previous iteration of IW Harper that was bottled for the Bourbon Heritage Collection, so I thought I would take this opportunity to compare the two head to head.

IW Harper 15 year old (New), 43% abv ($75)

The nose has a very nice balance of caramel and rye spice. The palate starts sweet but very quickly turns spicy with rye notes which trail off into the finish.  This is surprisingly spicy given that it is apparently only 6% rye. It may be that some of those spicy notes come from the oak. In any case, it's quite pleasant and sippable.

IW Harper Gold Medal 15 year old (Old), 40% abv.

The nose is medicinal with some raw grain notes. The palate is also quite grainy and that note, almost a new make sort of pure alcohol note, dominates the finish.  I remembered this as being pretty bad, and it still is.

Well, Diageo has managed to do something that's pretty rare these days; they have managed to make a whiskey that is better than it used to be. The new Harper 15 year old is far better than the previous iteration. Is it worth buying at $75? That seems expensive to me for what it is, but to be honest, pretty much everything on the market today seems expensive to me for what it is.

Thanks to John Burlowski for the sample of the new 15 year old.

 

Book Review: Bourbon Curious by Fred Minnick

While we're no longer enjoying a Golden Age of Whiskey, the era we are in now may well be the Golden Age of Whiskey Books. The number and quality of whiskey books has improved by leaps and bounds over the past couple of years, and you don't even have to pay secondary prices to get them.

The latest entry is a fantastic new book by whiskey writer/blogger Fred Minnick: Bourbon Curious: A Simple Tasting Guide for the Savvy Drinker. I have to admit that when I first heard about Minnick's book, I was wary. Minnick is a great writer (this is his third book and his second that is whiskey related), but there are so many whiskey books out there that coming up with something original is a bit of a challenge. Well, I'm happy to report that Minnick has more then met the challenge with a refreshing guide to bourbon that will certainly be valuable to novices but has a serious geek streak running through it.

Bourbon Curious is divided into three major sections. The first fifty pages are basic facts and history of bourbon, the second fifty pages describe bourbon production and the last section, the bulk of the book, includes descriptions and reviews of various bourbons. Again, this all sounds fairly standard, but Minnick takes a rather different approach than most books.

His general description section includes many things most geeks will be familiar with; he takes a myth-buster type approach and has little patience with marketing fluff and back stories.  His history doesn't shy away from scandal, discussing the role of whiskey in the plunder of Native lands, cockfighting and prostitution (something covered in more detail in his previous book Whiskey Women).

His chapter on production goes into greater detail than many such books, starting with the grain. He discusses the various strains of corn, wheat, barley and rye, how and where they are produced, and the issues and controversies surrounding GMO and non-GMO corn. He has a similarly detailed review of water and wood, including the best tree types for barrels (clean below the limbs with four to six feet between knots and 10 to 12 rings per inch).

In his tasting notes section, Minnick divides bourbons into four categories based on flavor: grain (mostly young and craft bourbons); nutmeg (mostly traditional rye recipe); caramel (mostly wheated) and cinnamon (mostly high rye).  I don't necessarily agree with those categorizations, but it's an interesting way to think about it.

In most whiskey books, I don't have much use for the reviews. I've had a lot of whiskey and don't really need someone to tell me what Evan Williams Single Barrel tastes like, but Minnick's reviews are different.  Each one includes detailed information about the whiskey that goes beyond the typical age and proof.  For each whiskey, he describes the type of grain used, where the grains are grown, the type of still used and the type of barrel used for aging.  You don't just learn that Eagle Rare is ten years old and 90 proof but also that it's made from non-GMO corn from Kentucky and Indiana and rye from the Dakotas, that it's double distilled on an 84 inch wide copper still and a doubler, and that it's aged in Missouri Ozark American white oak with a number 4 char. He also includes mashbills, even for many whiskeys that don't publicly disclose them. It's a true geek-fest.

And Minnick has come up with a few sourcing revelations as well.  He reports that Angel's Envy is sourced from three different distilleries, that Cyrus Noble Bourbon was distilled at the old Medley Distillery, and that Michter's is largely sourced from Brown Forman (perhaps explaining why I've never cared for it).

The book closes with a set of brief histories of some major brands which is something I've always wished someone would do.  Some of these brands have been through numerous companies, and it's great to see those histories laid out.

As I noted above, this is a great book for both the novice and the bourbon geek, and make no mistake, it is exclusively about bourbon. There is no rye, no Tennessee Whiskey (save for a brief description of what it is), and definitely no flavored whiskey...just bourbon.

For bourbon fans, this one is a must have. The book publishes next week but is available for pre-order.

Bourbon Curious: A Simple Tasting Guide for the Savvy Drinker by Fred Minnick
Zenith Press ($14)

Thanks to Fred Minnick for providing a copy of his book for review.

The New Rittenhouse 100

Since I reviewed the new Pikesville Rye from Heaven Hill earlier this week, I thought I would check up on Heaven Hill's standard rye offering: Rittenhouse 100.

For many years after a fire demolished the old Bardstown, Kentucky Heaven Hill distillery in 1996, Rittenhouse Rye was made for Heaven Hill by Brown Forman.  Within the last year or two, Heaven Hill's own distillate, from the Bernheim Distillery in Louisville which it purchased after the fire, has started to appear in Rittenhouse bottles. I haven't done a formal review since the Brown Forman days so I thought it would be interesting to have a taste.

Rittenhouse 100, Bottled in Bond, 50% abv ($25)

The nose has honey and spice; it smells like the baking aisle in a market. On the palate, the spice is in the forefront followed by the honey and some more perfume type notes. The finish is slightly bitter with a touch of honey sweetness.

This is quite different than my memories of the Rittenhouse distilled at Brown Forman and not in a good way. The sweet honey notes are a bit too prominent for my tastes. The honey gives it a floral/perfume note that hides some of the spice, and I don't generally like a lot of perfume in my whiskey. It's a very disappointing result for a whiskey that used to be an old standby at a great price.

Pikesville Rye 6 year 110 proof

Heaven Hill recently introduced a new 110 proof, 6 year old version of its Pikesville Rye.  Pikesville is an old Maryland brand long owned by Heaven Hill and made in Kentucky.  For years, it was a very good budget brand. I've always been a fan of Heaven Hill ryes so I'm excited to see how this one measures up.

Pikesville Rye 100 Proof, 6 yo ($50)


This has got a nice, spicy nose with just a touch of honey in the background. The palate starts with bold rye spice and then develops some sweetness. It's a spice bomb with mint, clove and ginger. The finish is sweet and spicy with lots of ginger, but then it turns medicinal and bitter. Oh, and don't add water, it brings out bananas and other, weird fruity notes.

I was hoping to be blown away by this, but it was not to be. It's not at all bad (though the finish is a bit out of balance), but I found it underwhelming. That beings aid, it will make a fine addition to the ryes on the shelf today, and it's good to see a higher proof rye offering.

New Whiskey (and Brandy) Labels

This week's most interesting new labels from the federal TTB database:

MGP of Indiana, the only major distillery that doesn't have any of its own brands, has a new label for a limited release, which would be the second they have done. Metze's Select, named for MGP Master Distiller Greg Metze is a blend of three MGP bourbons: 59% is 2008 low rye (21%) bourbon, 38% 2006 low rye bourbon and 3% 2006 high rye (36%) bourbon. MGP doesn't have its own bottling facility so it is being bottled by an Ohio bottler.

Remy Cointreau cleared a label for Octomore Edition 07.3. It's five years old and 169 ppm.

Edrington cleared a label for The Famous Grouse Smoky Black featuring "rare peated Glenturret."

Pernod Ricard cleared a label for Longmorn Distiller's Choice, a no age statement Longmorn.

Kilchoman cleared a label for a 10th Anniversary release, and while there are a lot of 10s and years on the label, it appears to be NAS.

Duncan Taylor cleared labels for a number of old grain whiskeys including a 42 year old Port Dundas, a 40 year old Girvan, a 27 year old Invergordon and a 23 year old North British.

For all you brandy fans, there have been a lot of interesting new labels lately from Charles Neal, the dean of brandy importers. Neal cleared a range of labels for two Armagnacs I've never seen in the US: Domaine de Jean Bon (five vintages ranging from 1979 to 1999) and Domaine de Maouhum (an XO, 1983 and 1987).  He also cleared a label for a 1964 Leon Beyries Armagnac. UPDATE: According to David Driscoll from K&L, the Jean Bon and Maouhum are K&L exclusives.

Also in the world of brandy, a label cleared for a new Navazos Palazzi expression, a Spanish brandy aged in Amontillado sherry casks. Palazzi's import company also cleared a label for an 18 year old, cask strength Calvados selected by cider baron Eric Bordelet.

Note:  The fact that a label appears on the TTB database does not necessarily mean it will be produced.  In addition, some details on the label, such as proof, can change in the final product.

Sku's Guide to Whisk(e)y Glassware

I've never felt compelled to do a comparison of whiskey glasses, but the other day I received a quite alarming email:

To: Sku

 From: International Federation of Whisk(e)y Bloggers

Dear Sku, the International Federation of Whisk(e)y Bloggers is the international body which regulates the whisk(e)y blogosphere. It has come to the Federation's attention that you have never carried out a comparison of whisk(e)y glassware. Pursuant to the Federation's revenue enhancement agreement with the International Association of Whisk(e)y Glassmakers, every whisk(e)y blogger is required to conduct a comparison of whisk(e)y glassware. Aside from enhancing the revenue of both of our organizations, these comparisons provide an important tool to the whisk(e)y drinking audience, who without our sage advice, would have no idea how to consume whisk(e)y.  

As such, you are hereby required to conduct a whisk(e)y glassware comparison within thirty (30) days of the date of this communication.  Failure to comply will result in the immediate termination of your blog. You have been warned!

Well, I am certainly not one to refuse to comply with important international laws and treaties, so I give you: Sku's Guide to Whisk(e)y Glassware.

Choosing a glass for your whisk(e)y is perhaps the most important decision you will make in your whisk(e)y drinking life. A proper glass can enhance your whisk(e)y experience, while an improper one will destroy it. If you are unwilling to spend at least as much on glassware as you do on whisk(e)y then you can just stop reading right now, because you are doomed to a life of mediocrity.

As part of this review, I tested over 100 whisk(e)y glasses, each with 10 different styles of whisk(e)y so that I could compare the nuances of each whisk(e)y glass experience. From those, I chose the top three performers to feature in this post.

3. The Pint Glass ($4.99)

This glass is the preferred vessel for ales and lagers throughout the world.  I found it had some definite advantages as a whisk(e)y containment device, offering sturdy engineering and a nice grip. While the glass received high marks overall, there are some flaws. For instance, each time I finished a testing session, I felt a bit woozy.  This may be due to toxins present in the glass or some other design defect. I will explore the issue further and report back. 

2. The Whisk(e)y Bottle ($15-$2,500)

As everyone who is not a total idiot knows, a whisk(e)y glass should be tapered at the top to maximize aromas. I found this model to have a wide base and a narrowly tapered opening, and many of them come pre-filled.  I should warn you that while these glasses are quite common, there are wide ranging price differences between similar models.  At one store, I found differences of hundreds of dollars for the exact same glass! In addition, while most bars carry these glasses, I did not find one that would let me use it to actually drink the whisk(e)y.  Honestly, what is the use of carrying these glasses if customers are not allowed to sip from them...just more fetishization of whisk(e)y I suppose. 

1. Pyrex One Quart Bowl ($8.75)

Here it is. The clear winner of this review, and the only whisk(e)y glass you will ever need. It's durable, microwave safe and has a base large enough to stick your whole face into, allowing you tobecome one with the whiskey. And the best thing about this glass is, you don't even have to use your hands.

Well, I hope you found this glassware guide to be really neat.  I'm going to sign off for the night and have a few bowls of whisk(e)y.

Is Jack Daniel's Bourbon? Who Cares!

It happens almost like clockwork.  Every month or two, on some whiskey forum or Facebook group, someone asks if Jack Daniel's is bourbon or asserts that it is or isn't, and a massive flame war breaks out.  I saw one of these on Facebook last week and there must have been 50 comments, all vigorously defending their position and demeaning the idiots who disagreed.  Chuck Cowdery, who must be getting tired of constantly explaining the issue, even responded to it with a post on his blog, yet again laying out the issues very clearly, but I'm sure next month the same argument will happen again.

One strange thing about these debates is that there don't really seem to be any factual disputes. At this point, everyone on whiskey forums seems to understand that bourbon doesn't have to be made in Kentucky, and they mostly seem to understand the Lincoln County Process of sugar maple charcoal filtering that Tennessee Whiskeys go through. The only argument is whether those facts make Jack Daniel's a bourbon. And so people go back and forth about the TTB regulations, the statements in foreign treaties, the Tennessee state law and the various labels that have been approved.  All of this, for some reason, while getting angrier and angrier.

But why? Given that there is no disagreement about how Jack Daniel's and bourbon are made, who cares?  Why is this important at all?  I mean sure, as a lawyer, I can see it as a slightly interesting, very technical legal question but not something to discuss every month and certainly not something to get riled up about. (Although I guess there are a bunch of people out there who get mad when you call Old Rip Van Winkle 10 year old "Pappy" too, so you never can tell).

If you are someone who thinks that whether Jack Daniel's is bourbon or not is important enough to merit this kind of passionate debate (or if you have a theory about why other folks do), please, tell me why.

New Whiskey Labels: Springbank, Ladyburn and More

This week's most interesting new labels from the federal TTB database:

Springbank cleared labels for an 18 year old "fresh rum" cask whiskey and a 19 year old "fresh sherry" cask, a 19 year old refill bourbon  cask, a 20 year old "fresh port" cask and a cask strength 12 year old Longrow finished for a year in "fresh New Zealand Pinot Noir casks." The Springbanks say they are exclusive bottlings for importer Pacific Edge Wine & Spirits while the Longrow will be available worldwide.

William Grant cleared a label for a 42 year old Ladyburn.

Glenlivet cleared a label for a NAS Nadurra finished in peated whiskey casks.

Woodford Reserve cleared labels for what a malt whiskey aged in used barrels and Double Double Oak, a bourbon finished in heavy toasted new oak. They are labeled "Distillery Series," so they could be gift shop items.

Hey Look, it's Old Scenter Bourbon...based on an old family recipe. How unique! Of course, they never tasted the old stuff, but they smartly imagined that it was "the perfect combination of corn, rye, and barley mashed together then aged in wood casks long enough." How long is long enough?  Well, they knew it would probably have to age for "years at a time," but...oh screw it, we'll just bottle six month old MGP.

Note:  The fact that a label appears on the TTB database does not necessarily mean it will be produced.  In addition, some details on the label, such as proof, can change in the final product.

Whiskey Law: Kentucky Whiskey...from Canada

I recently Tweeted about a new label approved for Kentucky Select Club whiskey, a Canadian blend from Houston based Mexcor (I've written previously about these state-themed bottles which were formerly called Crown Club).

Regarding this Canadian Whiskey, I was asked, doesn't the use of the name "Kentucky" on the label violate the Kentucky law stating that any whiskey using Kentucky on the label must be aged in Kentucky for at least a year?  The answer is no, and here is why.

As I've discussed before, Kentucky has a state law regulating the use of the term "Kentucky" on whiskey labels. Kentucky Revised Statute section 244.370 states:

No whiskey produced in Kentucky, except whiskey the barrel containing which is branded "Corn Whiskey" under the internal revenue laws, shall be bottled in Kentucky or removed from this state unless such whiskey has been aged in oak barrels for a period of not less than one (1) full year; provided, however, that whiskey aged less than one (1) year may be removed from the state and bottled, or bottled in Kentucky, if the word "Kentucky" or any word or phrase implying Kentucky origin does not appear on the front label or elsewhere on the retail container or package except in the name and address of the distiller as required by federal regulation. For violations of this section, the department shall revoke the permit of the licensee from whose warehouse or premises such whiskey shall have been removed or in which such whiskey shall have been bottled.

Notice that the law begins with the phrase "No whiskey produced in Kentucky." Kentucky  Club is produced in Canada, not Kentucky.  Therefore, it is presumably exempt from this law.  Why would Kentucky leave such a giant loophole in its law?  Well, keep in mind that the state of Kentucky, like all states, only has the power to legislate within its borders. It has no ability to regulate activities outside of the state. Of course, if it so desired, Kentucky could extend this law to include not just whiskey produced in Kentucky but whiskey sold there as well, but for now, the law does not appear to do that, so Kentuckians may have to deal with Kentucky whiskey from Canada on their shelves.

While it may not violate Kentucky law, there are also TTB regulations which prohibit misleading labels which convey an erroneous impression as to the whiskey's origin, though presumably, in this case, since the TTB approved the label, they found no such erroneous impression. 27 CFR § 5.34(a).

Stop Fetishizing Whiskey!

I spend a fair amount of time criticizing whiskey producers for some of their practices that hurt the whiskey world, but we consumers sometimes deserve some criticism as well. One problem that has become particularly acute within the last few years is the fetishization or even idolization of certain whiskeys. People become so enmeshed in the crazy whiskey world, especially the secondary market, that they forget that whiskey is simply a beverage.  When it becomes more than a beverage, it hurts those of us who just want to enjoy a drink.

Whiskey fans are paying too much for whiskey, and I'm not talking about rare, older bottles that might justify ridiculous prices. There are people who are literally paying thousands of dollars, sometimes many thousands, for bottles that were on the shelf for less than $100 ten years ago.  Others are willing to pay 200% mark ups on current releases that they can't find. If you are doing this, please stop. It's bad for you, and it's bad for whiskey.

Here's the problem with spending this amount of money on a beverage. First, it makes it less likely that you will ever drink the whiskey. If you start to spend big money, you inevitably start to think about monetary value, and the resale value of an opened bottle of whiskey is exactly zero. This means that you are more likely to hold onto it without ever drinking it. So congratulations, you are the owner of a beverage that you will never drink. How grand!

Now, some folks are simply speculating on the whiskey market and hoping to turn a profit. Some of them will, but at that point, it's not really whiskey anymore in any real sense. It's just a nameless, fungible commodity.  It might as well be soy beans, cattle futures, beanie babies or whatever.  The transition of whiskey from a beverage to an investment commodity is something that has hurt what once was a hobby about enjoying beverages. What's good for speculators is almost always bad for actual whiskey drinkers.

Second, even if you plan to drink the whiskey as soon as you get it, it is still a mistake to spend thousands of dollars on a bottle. Simply put, no whiskey is that good, and you will very likely be disappointed. Most of the sexy bottles (Pappy, A.H. Hirsch, Port Ellen, Brora) are quite good, but they aren't thousands of dollars good. I suppose if you're a tycoon and a few thousand dollars here and there is nothing to you, you won't be disappointed, but for the rest of us, spending a mortgage payment's worth of dough on a whiskey is almost always a bad idea.

But wait, if people are paying this much for whiskeys, they must be that good, right?  The market has spoken!  The problem is that whiskey idolization combined with the secondary market has created a vicious circle of fetishization. When you pay big money for whiskey, there is no advantage to admitting that it wasn't worth it. For one thing, you feel like an idiot, and for another, widespread criticism could reduce the value of the whiskey for future sales (since, as noted above, you are unlikely to actually drink it), so criticizing a whiskey you overpaid for is a lose/lose situation.  

So this is my plea to everyone to stop.  Stop spending thousands of dollars on bottles of whiskey. It's not worth it, and it's bad for whiskey!

Whiskey Law: Distilled from Mash

Under the United States federal regulations defining classes of spirits, bourbon, rye whiskey, malt whiskey and wheat whiskey must be stored in charred new oak containers.  But what happens if you make what would be a bourbon or a rye and store it in used barrels?  Then it becomes a different type of whiskey, known as a "whiskey distilled from bourbon (or rye, or wheat or malt) mash."

Under the TTB regulations, whiskey distilled from bourbon (or rye, or wheat or malt) mash is defined as "whisky produced in the United States at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored in used oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type." 27 CFR § 5.22(b)(2).

Sounds simple enough: if you age it in new, charred barrels, it's bourbon; if you age it in used barrels, it's whiskey distilled from a bourbon mash. However, there is one additional complication: corn whiskey. Corn whiskey is a whiskey made from a mash of at least 80% corn that is unaged or aged in used or uncharred barrels, so a bourbon mash that is 80% corn and aged in used barrels would potentially qualify as both corn whiskey and whiskey distilled from bourbon mash. The regulations address this by stating that "Whisky conforming to the standard of identity for corn whisky must be designated corn whisky." 27 CFR § 5.22(b)(2).

To summarize, a whiskey composed of at least 51% rye, wheat or malt whiskey aged in used barrels is a "whiskey distilled from (rye, wheat or malt) mash." A whiskey composed of at least 51% but less than 80% corn and aged in used barrels is a "whiskey distilled from bourbon mash," and a whiskey composed of at least 80% corn and aged in used barrels is a corn whiskey.

Got it?