Death of Bourbon Dept: Jim Beam Signature series...

What is feckin whiskey doing on the net's leading independent rum website? There's a reason, read on, but it's not my fault! Honest...
Post Reply
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Death of Bourbon Dept: Jim Beam Signature series...

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Jim Beam Signature Craft Series further dilutes the definition, and your wallet...


It first started when a few premiumized spirits start to proclaim their new and exclusive products labelled as "bourbon", but on examination spent additional storage time not in the "new, charred oak" demanded by the standards of identity, but were transferred for storage in ex-sherry barrels. The reason was simple: fine and expensive single malt whiskys have for years have used ex-sherry barrels for part of all of the storage time. Now why do I call this "storage time" and not "aging"?

Aging and Finishing are not defined!

That's right, the US regulations do NOT define or even use the words "finishing" or "aging" or even "double aging". Nor do they specify the size of the barrels. To the TTB "finishing" and/or "aging" need not be defined as both are covered as "storage in a container". For bourbon that "container" MUST be "new, charred oak", period and stop.


Back to the money grubbing marketing monkeys...

The simians really coveted the sales and profits to compete with single malt whisky, where the type of oak is not specified. But since bourbon can only be "stored" in "new, charred oak" they had a little problem. According to the law, as well interpreted by Jim Murray, and frequently by Moi, the second you move the spirit out of new charred oak containers - unless it's to another such container - it is no longer "bourbon" as defined by the SID's.

So what to do?

Just as in rum, the bourbon boyz said well, let's just fudge and cheat. We'll call the additional storage well, uh "finishing", and then call it say "Sherry Finished Signature Bourbon" or some other line of crap. Not to worry, we have a lot of clout over at the agency, they're not all that swift and more than a little lax, to boot. I mean really, look at rum. No one cares, and we can now concoct some super-premium bourbons to finally compete with real single malts.

This my friends is an abomination. Both Murray in his Whisky Bible (2014), and Moi took VERY strong positions against this practice which as both of us saw it was yet another marketing driven slippery slope to yet another premiumized, mixed-drink-in-a-bottle bullshite concoction. Murray cites the regulation which means that any grain spirit stored/aged in USED containers at best, should be labelled "Whisky distilled from bourbon mash". As regards the adding of actual brandy at best? "Brandy Flavored Bourbon", under the regulation for flavored spirits.


It's the law, not that that ever seems to stop these mega-arseholes.

At a well known bourbon website, the resident chubster expert poo-poohed Murray's notion, and relied on his cult followers who - much like the Preacher's monkeys - ganged up on Moi, and which once again led to my "liberation". Mind you, over these years I've learned to argue the issues only and very, very aggressively - but also respectfully, no ad hominems. Thus my liberation was simply based on the notion that they simply couldn't tolerate being competently contradicted.

Before I was silenced, I predicted that bourbon - to me a cherished and extremely pure product (no additives, specified storage/aging, not even coloring) - was now on the same slippery slope that led to rum's demise.

This notion - held by a few other brave souls - was simply laughed off.


But who really gets the last laugh?

I just returned from Total Wine to find yup, some super duper premiumized "bourbons" that - are you sitting - are really flavored products. And not cheap (how about $58 for a 375ml). One Jim Beam "Signature Craft" product was cleverly parsed on the label as a "bourbon", but get this - with added brandy. And this was done openly via clever label parsing.

It's all bullshite, really. Bourbon is well on the way to being rummied up and using the same techniques: same old bourbon, but add flavoring or a quick Plantation style dunk in ex-sherry containers, and voila! Double or triple the price. Premiumization at its' best/worst.

Sad.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Found at Chuck Cowdery's blog...
"Let's face it. The spirits industry could care less whether fine single malts or bourbons retain their decades old standards of identity, ergo the marketing of the word "finished" which has no legal meaning whatever. Bourbon per se must be stored (aged) in new charred barrels, period. I know this has been argued elsewhere but any storage - for even a short time - in any wood counts.

The industry came up with clever evasion of trying to promote "finishing" (storage in say ex-sherry barrels) as somehow not being storage as per the law, and somehow different than aging. This bastardization seems to have continued when many consumers - well duped and trained - are now ready to accept the addition of brandy itself (not just the ex-barrel) as still being a kind of bourbon.

In the view of some, this is simply a redefinition of the F-word: finishing now is flavoring, a clever way of selling what should be labeled as "bourbon flavored with brandy", under the regs for flavored spirits.

Such is life. Drink on..."
A poster after me own hearty...




*******
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... rue&bpli=1
Post Reply