Through the looking glass darkly...
The regulations can be hard to understand. At times they may seem cumbersome. Often one regulation which seems clear on its face, actually references another regulation which may supercede the first. The regulations are actually pretty clear – but only to a relative few. This is exactly why I hate getting into discussions with the bar stool experts.
I understand the confusion here – the following is intended to clarify just why Jim Murray – and others – have taken their position, specifically when Murray states “...
when you move what was bourbon into another (uncharred or used) barrel it ceases being bourbon”. Others reflect Chuck's position, namely “
once it's bourbon, you can't unchange it”. Both will be quoted later.
To understand this issue there are some key words to understand:
- 1. aging
2. finishing
3. storing
4. containers
5. chips and staves
6. wood treatment
Background
Chuck's (Cowdery) crew believes that “aging” is somehow different from “finishing” and that once the proper mash of at least 51% corn is distilled and aged in “new, charred oak” it now can be (properly) be called bourbon. Cowdery's Zen position is that once achieved, "...
you can't unmake bourbon". They distinguish this from “finishing” which they view as a quickie process to which this “bourbon” is treated. Thus the “bourbon” now can spend some time in say an ex-sherry barrel for a “sherry finish”. For this view to be correct “finishing” must be a different process able to be legally distinguished from “aging” and vice versa.
Murray, et al's view is obviously different. This view is that what the marketing boyz euphemistically call “finishing” is no different than aging, and that if the mash is spends time in anything but “new, charred oak” - it is no longer “bourbon” as defined by the Standards of Identity. For Murray the transfer of the spirit from its original new charred oak barrel to an ex-sherry or rum barrel immediately destroys its identity as bourbon. For this view to be correct, “aging” and “finishing” are simply synonyms for the same process of simply storing the spirit.
Let's start with the CFR's on which we all rely. The Standard of Identity for “Bourbon Whiskey”is simple, clear and unequivocal. You probably think you understand it. Let's see if you do...
§5.22 The standards of identity.
(1)(i) “Bourbon whisky”, “rye whisky”, “wheat whisky”, “malt whisky”, or “rye malt whisky” is whisky produced 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 at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type.
About now you are saying “
BFD, everybody knows that – that's not the issue!”. Simple and clear but has nothing to do with “finishing”, right? Not so fast.
“Aging” and “finishing” do not appear, are not really defined and especially are not distinguished from one another in the CFR. The reason is obvious – these terms are very hard to define and really overlap. What some call "finishing", others call "double aging". Instead the TTB carefully uses a simple word that is much clearer and enforceable: “stored”. Bourbon is neither “aged” nor “finished” in “charred new oak”, it is simply STORED in it.
The term “finished” has no legal meaning which is exactly why the marketing monkeys love to use it. There's nothing like attaching the name of a fine wine in single malt fashion to sell product.
Chuck is well aware of these misleading practices which allow the very same monkeys to misrepresent products like Templeton Rye, who cleverly name drops words like “small batch”, original hometown Prohibition recipe”, “craft distilled” etc. in a blizzard of words that misled most buyers to honestly believe it was distilled by them. As for the non-term “finished”, it's the same phony game.
Bottom line: while the the regulations do address age (in years), they do NOT define or distinguish “aging” from “finishing”. Both “store” the distillate in oak containers which must be “charred, new oak”. When the clearly defined “bourbon” leaves it's “charred, new oak container” it had better be to either a bottle, or to risk losing its legal identity. BTW, do note that the TTB also avoids defining "barrel", cask, butt, tunn, quarter cask, et al and for the same reason they don't define “aging” and “finishing”.
The SID offers no other alternative than “
storage in...a charred, new oak container”. But, but, but we sputter, how 'bout Section 5.39? Next up...
§5.39 Presence of neutral spirits and coloring, flavoring, and blending materials.
(a) Neutral spirits and name of commodity. (...this section concerns the labeling of neutral spirits and is entirely irrelevent)
(b) Coloring materials. (and this one covers the labeling of coloring, also completely irrelevent)
(c) Treatment with wood. The words “colored and flavored with wood (insert chips, slabs, etc., as appropriate)” shall be stated as a part of the class and type designation for whisky and brandy treated, in whole or in part, with wood through percolation, or otherwise, during distillation or storage, other than through contact with the oak container.
“Aha!” you say, “now THIS is where finishing is surely addressed. Even our good man Chuck has argued this point in the past, quoting this evidence:
Chuck:
“Finishes and infusions are another controversial area... Woodford Reserve, Jim Beam, and Buffalo Trace have all used wood finishes, comparable to single malt scotch finished in sherry casks... The best way to understand finishes and flavorings is that just as you can’t un-ring a bell, you can’t un-bourbon a bourbon. What you get when you add something to it is “bourbon and…”
"The official description of Maker’s 46, for example, is “Kentucky bourbon whiskey barrel-finished with oak staves.”
Well that settles it, right? Not really. The comparison to single malt fails on two counts: single malt whiskey has a different SID which does not specify wood, and second, the transfer to sherry barrels violates the SID for bourbon, above. Cowdery's one and only example, the Maker's Mark does not use sherry barrels at all, but rather claims to "barrel-finish with oak staves". Needless to say we all realize - or should - that what appears on any old label is hardly the measure of legality or compliance.
In this regard I'd again offer Chuck's own critical rant on Potemkin Templeton Rye, among many others. He's right. Labelling IS abused. Second, and this is where you have to really read closely – is that both paragraph (c) above refers (read it twice) to “chips, slabs, etc.” - so far so good – but it also clearly states, using the specific legal word “shall”, the following:
“The words 'colored and flavored with wood (insert chips, slabs, etc., as appropriate)' shall be stated.” on the label along with the class and type, in this case “bourbon whiskey”.
When mandatory isn't mandatory...
Maker's marketeering monkeys have taken both artistic and legal license via their dubious and undefined label stating “
barrel-finished with oak staves”! Are you kidding me? “Barrel-finished” with “oak staves”?! This is just more Templeton trickery: “
barrel-finished” wants to imply it's, duh, finished in a barrel. You may think of say an ex-sherry barrel, but no! It's barrel-finished not with a barrel, but with uh, oak staves. Perfectly clear for marketing blather.
How hard would it be to just follow the law and print the mandatory “
colored and flavored with oak staves”? Ouch! But they just couldn't bring themselves to use the dreaded “C” (colored) and “F” (flavored) words. Replace the meaningless and made-up “
barrel-finished” with the mandatory “
colored and flavored” and they've got a winner. Obviously the compliant TTB could care less. But that's not all.
Section 5:39 addresses ONLY the use of “chips, slabs, etc”, either during distillation or when stored in the “container”. It makes clear that this treatment concerns only processes “other than contact with the container”. And what container is that? You know which one; it's already been defined. Chuck's only citation – MM46 - has everything to do with staves but absolutely nothing to do with containers (which are solely addressed in the original definition of bourbon whiskey).
Thus the only bourbons which can be altered and remain "bourbon" are those in which the bourbon remains in their “charred, new oak” containers, into which are inserted chips, staves and the like, and which are then mandated to be labeled “
Bourbon whiskey colored and flavored by oak (chips, staves, etc.).” Any “bourbon” which is transferred to another used or uncharred container - for any reason - no longer meets the SID for “bourbon”, period.
Back to the beginning...
Thus, we've come full circle - the real subject here is not chips or chunks, but remains Murray's assertion: that once the “bourbon” is transferred out of its “charred, new oak container”, to continue being stored in used barrel of any kind, then it is no longer “bourbon” but a “
Whiskey distilled from bourbon mash”.
Murray is absolutely right, notwithstanding misleading labeling, lack of enforcement, and bourbon drinkers who don't seem to care. Remember: when “it's all good” prevails, “it's all bad” is not far behind. Bourbon has been defined narrowly and for the good of all – a truly pure and unaltered spirit with no equal. We need to keep it that way. Unfortunately the Marketey Mouse Club wants to take advantage of bourbons hard earned reputation and respect in the rule bending pursuit of temporary profit. Rum has already been destroyed as a pure spirit thanks to the mega-corporations, and bourbon is now on the same slippery slope.
I defer to Jim Murray for the last word:
“This is of so much concern that there is at least one senior distiller ready to resign if his bosses take the path that leads to obscurification in the meaning, definition and understanding of what was the purest of all the world's whiskeys”.
*******
A personal note:
In closing, I want to make clear my absolute and unwavering admiration and respect for Chuck Cowdery who has always been supportive and more than informative over the years, both publicly and privately. I own his books, and have recommended them often and loudly. No one knows wood and bourbon better, period. He is a man among men, and I applaud him. I'm a true fan.
But here and this time my honored friend, here we will respectfully disagree. I urge you to have the courage to rethink your position. Up spirits!
