Crack in the Arse Dept: SWA attacks Glaser and uh, Truth!

[Capn Jimbo]

Is it time for the SWA to reexamine it's stands?


Let's first praise the Scotch Whisky Association for its dedication to purity and honesty in labeling, once exceeded only by Bourbon (who mandated aging ONLY in new charred oak, and who refused even simple coloring with E150a). Thus the world of whisky was a relatively safe haven and example of truly noble spirits.


But cracks are appearing...

Some years ago the incomparable John Glaser released his Spice Tree Whisky (lovely dram). Now mind you Glaser's creations appear first in his mind, whereupon he takes literally years of searching, testing, aging and blending to achieve the vision. For the most part he succeeds, and brilliantly so. He is an absolute madman when it comes to the art of wood aging. He seeks the best woods, the best casks and in many cases constructs his own barrels. Example: for his "Oak Cross", he replaced the heads of a good ex-bourbon barrel with French oak so that the spirit would be exposed to both American and French Oak simultaneously.

For "Spice Tree" - in similar fashion, he attached expensive inner staves to the interior of the barrels, once a very common historical practice used to refresh or extend tired barrels, as noted by Ralfy in his 2015 New Year's video. Quoting Glaser...

"First launched in 2005, we were forced to discontinue production under a legal threat by the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) for our pioneering use of the highest quality French oak inner staves. This, despite rave reviews from consumers, trade and press."

These "inner staves" became part of the barrel (almost like a barrel with a double layer of wood, like a wooden boat hull). Still the SWA said "Non!", so Glaser withdrew the product, and figured out a new way to achieve his aging goal.

"What is different is the secondary maturation. Rather than using inner stave inserts, as we did for the original Spice Tree, we rack the whisky into barrels with heavily toasted new French oak heads. We have created a method for getting a super heavy toast on the cask heads which imparts a flavour profile similar to the flat staves used for the original Spice Tree.

We use oak with three different levels of toasting on the barrel heads, thus allowing us to blend the resultant whiskies to create additional layers of complexity. This secondary maturation lasts as long as two years".

In sum, he replaced the inner staves with different heads that achieved the same thing. The SWA accepted this.

Meanwhile the strict rules of "Bourbon" - which insist on aging ONLY in charred new oak - were being bypassed by a couple of mega's who started "finishing" the spirit in used sherry and other used ex-wine barrels to greatly alter the product. Never you mind that the reg's do NOT define or refer to either "aging" or "finishing", but consider only "storage" and that storage MUST be - ONLY - in charred new oak.


The Arse Crack Widens

Back to the SWA and our good Mr. John Glaser. And as the Godz are my witness, you simply won't believe this one! I'm fackin serious. This time it didn't have to do with what was or wasn't a barrel, but had to do with - are you sitting down? - it had to do with, well, simple honesty. You read that right. Glaser simply told the absolute, completely transparent, and honest truth about two of his new releases ("Flaming Heart" and "This is not a luxury Whisky").

Flaming Heart:

"The fifteenth-anniversary bottling of Flaming Heart is comprised of 38.5% 14-year-old Caol Ila, 27.1% 30-year-old Caol Ila, 24.1% 20-year old Clynelish and 10.3% seven-year-old blended malt from Clynelish, Teaninich and Dailuaine. Another excellent release from Compass Box, this is sweet and spicy with light smoke."

(Obtained via the Way Back machine from old archives)

Honest facts, completely transparent and a good thing, in fact a wonderful thing, yes? Not according to the SWA


So WTF happened?

Simple. One of Glaser's much larger competitors complained privatedly to the SWA, claiming that the only legal claim Glaser could make would be to list ONLY the age of the youngest whisky, thus forcing Glaser to either release Flaming Heart as an NAS, or at best as "7 years old".

Now do you think for a microsecond that this unnamed competitor really cared that much about the law and such an overly strict interpretation? No fackin way! No!! What the industry was actually afraid of was that this might force them to admit their own contents, no doubt largely dominated by very young whisky.

Compare to Glaser whose blend contained only 10% of a 7 year, with with rest being VERY well aged and VERY expensive.


Flat Ass Bottom Line

Neither Glaser, Dave Broom (and a host of other reviewers) or Ralfy agree with the SWA. Glaser did not try the old ploy of naming or insinuating just the oldest component; to the contrary, he pulled down his shorts and exposed the whole magilla - every distillery, every age, every percentage and TONS of detail insofar as wood and aging.

Total honesty and transparency. And the competition just couldn't have that. Worse yet, the fackin SWA is backing up that unnamed but frightened competitor. It was this event to cause Ralfy to beseech the SWA to reconsider just what quality and labelling is all about.

I couldn't agree more. Stay tuned...

[Capn Jimbo]

Some background...

An article summarizing SWA's tight-arsed issue, namely "under Regulation 12.3 of the Spirit Drinks Regulation No 110/2008, any mention of a maturation period or age could only refer to the ‘youngest alcoholic component’ in a spirit."
https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/news/ ... ks-eu-law/

Per this article the SWA acted upon the complaint of "an unnamed member". Glaser - a good feisty man - did not hesitate to respond:

"We have always told people our recipes,’ Compass Box founder John Glaser told Scotchwhisky.com. ‘We’ve always been open about the distilleries we use, the types of cask we use. In this case, we have been completely transparent on everything, including age."

and...

"We believe Scotch producers should have the freedom, but not the obligation, to disclose all of the components of a blend,’ said Glaser. ‘Consumers have the right to know.

In the past, when consumers asked the question [about what was in a blend], the industry response was: “We can’t tell you, it’s a secret,” which was always marketing bullshit.

If they are now going to say: “We can’t tell you because it’s against the law,” how ridiculous is that? It will make consumers sceptical. It will hurt over time, so we need to look at it as an industry."

[Capn Jimbo]

This issue - the simultaneous trend for NSA cheapening of products, but against truth and full disclosure...


...these trends are huge, important and affect all of us. I believe I can guess the position of our valued members of the Project. But for starters, I urge you to read the strong statement of Scotch Whisky (.com), signed by Dave Broom, et al:

"An open letter to Scotch Whisky Association members from Scotchwhisky.com.

[A Dewar Rattray, Aceo, Adelphi Distillery, Balblair Distillery, Beam Suntory, Ben Nevis Distillery, Berry Bros & Rudd, Blairmhor Distillers, Blairmhor, James Buchanan & Co, Burn Stewart Distillers, James Catto & Co, Chivas Brothers, John Dewar & Sons, Diageo Brands, Diageo Great Britain, Diageo, Diageo Scotland, Edrington, Glen Grant, The Glenmorangie Company, Gordon & MacPhail, J & G Grant, William Grant & Sons, John Haig & Co, Harvey's of Edinburgh International, Highland Distillers, Inver House Distillers, Isle of Arran Distillers, D Johnston & Co (Laphroaig), Justerini & Brooks, Kilchoman Distillery, Kinloch Anderson, Knockdhu Distillery, Douglas Laing & Co, Hunter Laing & Co, The Last Drop Distillers, Loch Lomond Group, London & Scottish International, MacDuff International, Ian MacLeod Distillers, The Malt Whisky Company, Morrison & MacKay, North British Distillery Co, Old St Andrews, Pulteney Distillery Co, R&B Distillers, Peter J Russell & Co, Wm Sanderson & Son, Scotch Malt Whisky Society, Speyburn-Glenlivet Distillery, Stonedean, Wm Teacher & Sons, Tomatin Distillery, United Distillers UK, The Vintage Malt Whisky Company, John Walker & Sons.]

Dear SWA members,

You will hopefully have read about the situation which has arisen concerning Compass Box’s breach of Scotch Whisky Regulations in openly declaring the detailed composition of two of its new products, This Is Not A Luxury Whisky and an anniversary bottling of Flaming Heart:

https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/news/ ... ks-eu-law/

While we fully accept that the SWA was acting in a correct manner in pointing out the breach of the Regulations, we feel that the situation raises a number of important issues.

The legal position, which was clearly set out by SWA director of legal affairs Magnus Cormack, concerns Regulation 12.3 of the Spirit Drinks Regulation No 110/2008.

This provides that a maturation period or age ‘may only be specified in the description, presentation or labelling of a spirit drink where it refers to the youngest alcoholic component’.

‘Presentation’ is defined in Annex 1 point (15) of the Regulation as ‘the terms used on the labelling and on the packaging, including in advertising and sales promotion, in images or such like, as well as on the container, including the bottle and the closure’ (emphasis added by SWA).

This, Mr Cormack goes on to explain, applies to all aged spirits in the European Union and it is therefore repeated in the Scotch Whisky Regulations and in the Technical File for Scotch Whisky.

He also says that neither the UK nor the SWA can derogate from it as it would require agreement by all 28 Member States (as well as the agreement of other spirits sectors).

We do, however, feel that, at a time when Scotch whisky is being assailed on all sides by complaints about the lack of clarity surrounding many new ‘No Age Statement’ (NAS) whiskies, that this is an issue which will not go away.

Our opinion is that having the option to be completely transparent and precise about the composition of these whiskies – including the age of the components and their relative proportions in the final product – would assist greatly in explaining the rationale behind their emergence and creation.

It should, we feel, be seen as a positive development. Laws and regulations, we know, can be changed. We are not asking for a full derogation from the Regulation, but for Scotch distillers to have the option – not the obligation – to be transparent.

We therefore have two questions to you as members of the SWA.

As a point of principle (whether the law can be changed or not), do you feel that distillers and blenders should have the option to fully declare the composition of their whiskies?
If you do agree that greater transparency is needed, would you be willing to ask the SWA to lobby for a clause to be inserted in the Regulation permitting this option to exist for Scotch whisky?

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us using the email addresses given below.

Yours,

Dave Broom, chief engineer [email protected]
Becky Paskin, editor [email protected]
Richard Woodard, magazine editor [email protected]
http:Scotchwhisky.com

My position would go one step further: all distillers should at the least be obliged to identify the ages and percentages of all components of all spirits, blended or not.




*******
https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/news/ ... -industry/

[Capn Jimbo]

Glaser's transparent formulae:


Flaming Heart 5th Edition

• Here’s what Compass Box can no longer tell you, their customers: the 27.1% Caol ila is 30 YO whisky. The 24.1% Clynelish is 20 YO whisky. The 10.3% Highland malt is 7 YO blended malt whisky made up of whisky from Clynelish, Teaninich and Dailuiane; this whisky was finished in very active hybrid casks made up partially of French oak. Finally, the remaining 38.5% of Caol ila is 14 YO whisky.

This Is Not A Luxury Whisky

• The 79% Glen Ord is 19 YO. The 10.1% Strathclyde is 40 YO. The 6.9% Girvan is 40 YO. The 4% of Caol ila is 30 YO.

*******
For complete details on the cooperage:
http://maltactivist.com/2015/11/03/compass-box-vs-swa/
And add the Tomatin Distillery to Glaser's supporters:
http://www.tomatin.com/blog/2015/11/20/ ... =hootsuite

[AK9]

The more the drinker is getting educated, the best it is for the industry.
If you like a blend, why not know the distilleries/ages/cask behind so you can understand better what you like and try to find similar/better expressions (MORE SALES).

I never buy NAS, but when i read that this whisky has a good % of 30yo Caol Ila.. Well what can you say.

[The Black Tot]

I'm not sure I think it's good for them, AK.

What we have is a small number of seekers getting properly educated, and the masses having that famously dangerous little bit of knowledge.

I don't think the public has yet outgrown, for example:

If it's older, it's better
If it's more expensive, it's better
If it's darker, it's better.

I'd love to think that companies were going to get punished for their sins, but look at Diageo - let's take Crown Royal.

They release the "hand selected barrel" of rye, "at barrel proof". Thousands of these come out, all tasting the same, all at 103 proof.

Clearly they're not at barrel proof or else they've got the most uniform rackhouses in the universe who age-drift everything to exactly 103 proof and the same flavor. Let's be real, this is not a hand-selected barrel -it's a very large batch, controlled to 103 proof. Other states now have "hand selected barrels" and they're all magically 103, too.

In my eyes this is serious false advertising. A Hand selected barrel (not "barrels", the language has it in the singular) might get you 200 bottles, and won't be the same proof or flavor as its neighbor, even if fairly tightly selected.

Has anyone bitched? Nope. They're just glad to get some better-flavored CR (which it is, incidentally) without grain neutral spirits mixed in.

In fact, so badly has the public shunned them that their Northern Harvest rye is now Murray's whiskey of the year and they've never done better!

So I don't see this wave of "Educated public" rising up to keep 'em honest.

I think basically you can tell how educated the public is by looking at Diageo's profit margins. If they're making money, the public is not yet educated.

[Capn Jimbo]

"Clearly they're not at barrel proof or else they've got the most uniform rackhouses in the universe who age-drift everything to exactly 103 proof and the same flavor. Let's be real, this is not a hand-selected barrel -it's a very large batch, controlled to 103 proof. Other states now have "hand selected barrels" and they're all magically 103, too. "

Good observation, I missed that one. Thanks for exposing this notion.

[Winston]

"barrel proof" could possibly refer to barrel entry proof. possibly...