The
question of what makes something a bourbon vs. a straight bourbon vs. a blend
vs. something else comes up often. A lot of people seem to have ideas that
conflict with each other and they all claim to “know” what they’re talking
about.
I
recently heard a bar tender & self-described “Whiskey Expert” make a claim
that was obviously wrong. More than one, actually, all related to aging and blends
vs. straight. This guy is a bar tender at a popular bar and restaurant in lower
Manhattan that touts its whiskey collection. I asked if he was sure about what
he said, to which he answered, “in my opinion.”
But
you know what? It’s not an opinion. All these terms are well defined by
treaties, laws and regulations and, thanks to the Internet, these regulations
are easy to find. Per the US Government Publishing Office e-CFR (Electronic
Code of Federal Regulations), available at www.ecfr.gov
Let’s
start with the most basic question, “What is whiskey (or whisky, if you
prefer)?”
(b) Class 2; whisky. “Whisky” is an alcoholic distillate from a
fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190° proof in such manner that
the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally
attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers (except that corn whisky need
not be so stored), and bottled at not less than 80° proof, and also includes
mixtures of such distillates for which no specific standards of identity are
prescribed.
What’s
important to note is:
1)
A distiller can use any grain they want to make “whiskey”
2)
Whiskey has to be distilled at less than 190 proof (95% alcohol)
3)
Whiskey (except corn whiskey) needs to be stored in oak containers although it
doesn’t say for how long. And while the type of “container” is not defined, for
our purposes we can assume a 53 gallon barrel.
4)
The barrels do not need to be new or charred, just “oak”. Not any special kind
of oak, just oak.
5)
Whiskey needs to be at least 80 proof when bottled
6)
Whiskey may include “mixtures of such distillates for which no specific
standards of identity are prescribed.”
So
why does all whiskey except corn whiskey need to be stored in oak containers?
One popular theory is that goes back to the practice of small farmer/distillers
(traditionally the largest producers of corn whiskey) using pottery jugs and
bottling their product pretty much straight out of the still. Getting their whiskey
to customers and selling it as quickly as possible for the best possible price per gallon was
important to their survival so storage was not important to them. Their
customers were usually local individuals, not likely to buy full barrels and
barrel storage was seen as an unnecessary expense.
Now
we get into specifics for “bourbon”, “rye”, etc…
(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.
So…
1)
The mash (or beer) fermented to create Bourbon needs to be at least 51% corn,
the mash for Rye needs to be at least 51% Rye, the mash for Wheat Whiskey…
well, you get the idea.
2)
The mash can’t be distilled at higher than 160 proof, a lot lower than the
general whiskey standard
3)
The barrels need to be new and charred on the inside (An aside: in a first
draft I used the terms charred & toasted interchangeably. I was wrong.
Although to lay-people the definitions may seem the same, in the vernacular of
distillers there is a significant difference between a “charred” and a “toasted”
barrel. When the law says “charred” it means “charred” in distiller’s terms. A
thank you to Wade Woodard (https://www.instagram.com/tater.talk/) for bringing this to my attention.
4)
The whiskey needs to be barreled at not more than 125 proof, although lower
would be acceptable.
It’s
worth noting here that more water than alcohol is lost during the aging
process. This is due to the fact that although alcohol is more volatile than
water, the molecules are significantly more complex and larger so more water is
able to soak into and escape the barrel than alcohol. The end result? Proofs
that are often higher than 125 after aging, so called “full proof”.
Ok,
so what’s the difference between “straight whiskey” and “whiskey”?
(iii) Whiskies conforming to the standards prescribed in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section,which have been stored in the
type of oak containers prescribed, for a period of 2 years or more shall be further
designated as “straight”; for example, “straight bourbon whisky”, “straight
corn whisky”, and whisky conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section, except that it was produced from a fermented mash of
less than 51 percent of any one type of grain, and stored for a period of 2
years or more in charred new oak containers shall be designated merely as “straight
whisky”. No other whiskies may be designated “straight”. “Straight whisky”
includes mixtures of straight whiskies of the same type produced in the same
State.
So…
1)
The raw whiskey needs to be stored (aged) in barrels for at least 2 years (not
4 as some people think) to be a “Straight Whiskey”
2)
A product can be a mix of various straight whiskies (called “batching” so as
not to be confused with blends) and still be called “straight whiskey” if it:
a.
Is a mix of other straight whiskies of the same type (that is to say, bourbon
with bourbon, rye with rye, etc….)
b.
All of the straight whiskies used to produce the final product were produced in
the same state (as a practical issue, they’re usually produced by the same
distiller, often at the same facility).
So
straight bourbon can be a mix of bourbons, distilled in different years by different
distillers as long as they were in the same state. I am told historically the rationale
for this was that in the late 19th and early 20th
century, Government inspectors in one state would have no practical way of
knowing if whiskey produced in another state met really met the standards to be
called “straight”. I think the state thing is really about taxes, but I am a
cynical SOB.
Batching
is done for many reasons, primarily the desire to achieve a consistent flavor
profile, and is a time-honored practice. You can assume any whiskey that doesn’t
say “Single Barrel” on it is batched.
“Single
Barrel” is generally considered to be exactly what it says it is, whiskey
bottled from a single barrel, not batched with others.
The
barrels to be used are selected for their exceptional taste and the whiskey is
often bottled at the same proof it was when dumped from the barrel (aka, barrel
proof). There can be significant variation in the product between bottles of
Single Barrel whiskeys, even when they are distilled from the same mash, aged,
bottled and sold under the same name.
The
fact is, “Single Barrel” is not as well defined of a term and that’s a story
for another day. Moving on…
“Wait,”
you say, “What about this aged two years thing? Everybody knows whiskey has to
be aged at least 4 years to be called a straight whiskey?”
(a) Statements of age and percentage for whisky. In the case of
straight whisky bottled in conformity with the bottled in bond labeling
requirements and of domestic or foreign whisky, whether or not mixed or blended,
all of which is 4 years old or more, statements of age and percentage are
optional. As to all other whiskies there shall be stated the following:
(1) In the case of whisky, whether or not mixed or blended but
containing no neutral spirits, the age of the youngest whisky. The age
statement shall read substantially as follows: “___ years old.”
1)
The statement of age is optional for straight whiskey at least 4 years of age
(NAS or No Age Statement products)
2)
So, combined with the previous definition for straight whiskey (aged at least 2
years), we know that whiskey between 2 & 4 years of age can be sold as
straight as long as all other requirements are met and there’s an age statement
on the label. (That statement is usually expressed in months, since “30 Months”
somehow seems more impressive than “2.5 Years”.)
3)
The youngest whiskey used in the mix is what has to be put down as the age. So
a straight whiskey could contain 99% of 10 year old whiskey and 1% of 2 year
old and it would have to be sold as “Straight Whiskey, 2 Years Old”. (Yeah, I
doubt that will happen, too.)
I’ll
talk more about “Bottled in Bond” another time. For now suffice it to say Bottle
in Bond (or BiB) whiskey has to be bottled at 100 proof and is subject to
somewhat more stringent Government oversight. Yes, I know that’s such a massive
simplification that it makes some peoples’ left eye twitch. BiB is a rich
enough topic that it deserves its own write up.
Again,
moving on…
Oddly,
the rules for “Blended Whiskey” seem a bit more complicated. Be warned, there’s
math involved.
(4) “Blended whisky” (whisky—a blend) is a mixture which contains
straight whisky or a blend of straight whiskies at not less than 20 percent on
a proof gallon basis, excluding alcohol derived from added harmless coloring,
flavoring or blending materials, and, separately, or in combination, whisky or neutral
spirits. A blended whisky containing not less than 51 percent on a proof gallon
basis of one of the types of straight whisky shall be further designated by
that specific type of straight whisky; for example, “blended rye whisky” (rye
whisky—a blend).
(5)(i) “A blend of straight whiskies” (blended straight whiskies)
is a mixture of straight whiskies which does not conform to the standard of
identify for “straight whisky.” Products so designated may contain harmless
coloring, flavoring, or blending materials as set forth in 27 CFR 5.23(a).
(ii) “A blend of straight whiskies” (blended straight whiskies)
consisting entirely of one of the types of straight whisky, and not conforming
to the standard for straight whisky, shall be further designated by that specific
type of straight whisky; for example, “a blend of straight rye whiskies”
(blended straight rye whiskies). “A blend of straight whiskies” consisting
entirely of one of the types of straight whisky shall include straight whisky
of the same type which was produced in the same State or by the same proprietor
within the same State, provided that such whisky contains harmless coloring,
flavoring, or blending materials as stated in 27 CFR 5.23(a).
So….
1)
Apparently, you can call something a “Blended Whiskey” if it gains at least 20
proof of its final alcohol from a base of whiskey. Let’s say you have a 750ml
bottle of blended whiskey. If the original whiskey was at 100 proof and Grain Neutral
Spirts (GNS, think unflavored vodka) at 100 proof was added, you could have as little
as 150ml of actual whiskey in the bottle.
2)
You can call something a specific type of blend (ie, “Blended Rye”) if it gains
at least 51 proof of its final alcohol from the base whiskey. So let’s say you
have a 750ml bottle of blended rye. If the original rye was at 100 proof and
GNS at 100 proof was added, you could have as little as 382.5ml of actual rye
in the bottle.
3)
Blends can also include flavored whiskey, but they can’t call it “Straight
Whiskey”. Jim Beam’s work around? Look at the label on Jim Beam Apple. It’s not
sold as bourbon, it’s “Apple Liqueur Infused With Straight Bourbon”. (Legal but
deceptive, IMHO.)
A
few notes.
Some
people seem to think a “sour mash” is a distinct type of whiskey. It’s not, it’s
more a description of a production / quality control method. In fact, many (if
not most) of the older, established bourbons are sour mashes.
There
is nothing that says the base whiskey cannot be filtered prior to aging.
Filtering is, by definition, a subtractive process, not an additive process.
While
bourbon is legally defined as a product of the USA, there is nothing that says
it has to be produced in Kentucky. In fact, a significant portion of the
bourbon on the market today is distilled by a place calledMidwest
Grain Products (MGP) in Indiana. (Another topic for another day.)
Jack
Daniel’s Tennessee Whiskey uses a recipe of 80% corn, 12% barley and 8% rye,
and follows all of the other rules for making bourbon whiskey. There are two
crucial differences between Jack Daniels Sour
Mash
and pretty much any other bourbon.
1)
Jack Daniels goes through a charcoal filtering process (aka “The Lincoln County
Process”) prior to being barreled.
2)
Jack Daniels is produced in the Great State of Tennessee as opposed to the
Great State of Kentucky or the Great State of Indiana any of the other 46 Great States. (Yes, 46 other
Great States. To paraphrase our Governor, “New York was never so great.” Well
maybe it was, it doesn’t feel so great these days. But again, I digress.)
Given
all of that, Jack Daniel’s can really be considered a bourbon, even if many
bourbon drinkers find it not to their liking. (Okay, you’re right, JD Rye is
not bourbon. Smartass.)
The
reality is, Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Whiskey is sold in many nations that, based
on trade agreements and treaties, define Tennessee Whiskey as “bourbon produced
in the State of Tennessee, USA”.
So
it’s technically not incorrect to call Jack Daniel’s bourbon. You can be damn
sure Brown-Forman wants Jack to be considered bourbon by regulators outside of
the USA.
Those
who claim JD is NOT bourbon ultimately hang their hat on the fact that Jack
Daniel’s says they make “Tennessee Whiskey”, not bourbon, and that it’s their
charcoal filtering that distinguishes it from bourbon.
What’s
most important to understand here is this - Whether or not JD is bourbon is a
pointless debate among whiskey drinkers that will NEVER be settled. Don’t
bother to argue your position (pro or con) with someone who disagrees, you won’t
win and life is too short. (Although no matter how you feel about it, you
should feel free to roll your eyes if the person you’re talking to says, “Well,
I took the Jack Daniels Tour and the guide said….”)
I
have decided JD is in a class by itself, Schrödinger’s Whiskey. You’ll never
know if it’s bourbon or not until the moment you actually ask the question and
get an answer. Not only does it depend on who you ask, it often seems to depend
on when the question is asked and answered. Up until that exact point in time,
JD is in a state of whiskey-imposition and is simultaneously bourbon and not
bourbon. And, just like the damn cat, no one really cares.
So
now, my friend, you can shut up your drunk, obnoxious, hipster, brother-in-law
(uncle, son-in-law, cousin, nephew, whatever…) at the next family gathering
when he starts to (incorrectly) explain what makes something a bourbon. That’s
right, thanks to me, you get to be the drunk, obnoxious, know-it-all instead of
him. You’re welcome.
If
you want to see the source material, here are the links:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?
SID=57b5394734f53825e7e126b2cf0883bb&mc=true&node=se27.1.5_122&rgn=div8
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?
SID=57b5394734f53825e7e126b2cf0883bb&mc=true&node=se27.1.5_140&rgn=div8
http://www.jackdaniels.com/en-us/vault/our-mash
In
addition to my mention of Wade Woodard’s help, I should also credit Chuck
Cowdery’s Bourbon,
Straight,
Clay Risen’s American Whiskey, Bourbon and Rye: A Guide to the Nation’s
Favorite Spirit and, of course, Fred Minnik’s Bourbon Curious.
Although
these books were not referenced specifically for this write up, they are great
pieces of writing that helped me better understand and appreciate American whiskey.
All three share space on a shelf in my bar. (No, I won’t provide links to find
them. You know how Google works.)
Buy them. Read them. You won’t
be disappointed.
