Comments on: Tuthilltown Spirits and William Grant form alliance

By: This is just the beginning of craft distiller buyouts. Count on it! | What Does John Know?

Sat, 25 Sep 2010 14:14:22 +0000

[...] This past year we saw the Anchor Distilling Co. sold to the Griffin Group. Then we also saw Tuthilltown Spirits “Hudson Whiskey” brand sold to William Grant. [...]

By: WhiskyFest San Francisco | Artisan distillers to share their craft « The WhiskyFest Blog

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:51:25 +0000

[...] William Grant & Sons acquired the Hudson Whiskey brand, but not the distillery as explained on WDJK. Tuthilltown is New York’s first whiskey distillery since prohibition. In addition to whiskey [...]

By: Happy America Day! (plus a Tuthilltown Hudson single malt whiskey review) - The Jewish Single Malt Whisky Society - Scotch Whisky, Bourbon and Whiskey reviews

Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:54:31 +0000

[...] Upstate New York, USA — 46%ABV — 375ml bottle – $40 (no non-USA distribution that I am currently aware of though the Tuthilltown Spirits group is now a proud member of the William Grant & Sons family) [...]

By: JC Skinner

JC Skinner — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:14:32 +0000

Still pleading for special treatment, eh?
Good luck with that.
My advice would be to protect your tradition from countries actually threatening it, by bootlegging or worse, rather than wasting your time trying to convince the EU that non-indigenous producers should have a clear market advantage on the basis that they consider underaged spirit to be whiskey.

By: Ralph Erenzo

Ralph Erenzo — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:02:50 +0000

JC continues to offer a contradictory argument. American Whiskey is “Whiskey”, period, full stop, end of argument. As Chuck says, it is absurd to recognize the factual differences between the various spirits and the histories of EU based and American WHISKEY production.

It is incorrect to say that European drinkers expect that whisky is three years old or it isn’t whisky. EU consumers know nothing more than American consumers in the main, when it comes to the particulars of whiskey production, this argument is a red herring.

Fundamentally, JC argues for the continued recognition of Scotch and Irish whiskys as distinct Types while insisting that American Whiskey is not a distinct Type. This is simply not true. And we all know there is a world of difference when offering new products to the marketplace between calling a product Bourbon Whiskey and calling it “aged grain spirits”.

By: Joe Accuracy

Joe Accuracy — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:26:20 +0000

Clearly a solution would be to drop “straight” Boubon and Rye whiskey Federal designation and adopt the “straight” standard as the definition for all Bourbons and Ryes (ie 2 yr aging minimum; anything less than 4 yr must have an age statement, etc). Not one in a thousand whiskey consumers could tell you what the difference is between a straight bourbon and a bourbon. The “straight” designation has become archaic; simply adopt the straight standard and drop the straight designation. Anything else is a blend or a “spirit” (ie Rye Spirit, Corn Spirit or blended whiskey)– Tuthilltown’s 3 month old stuff included.

By: Andy McKinney

Andy McKinney — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:36 +0000

Gentlemen, there are forums and advocacy groups where each of us can address international trade issues.

Here’s an example (from 1994, so I don’t know whether this remains relevant).

http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/All_Trade_Agreements/exp_002818.asp

Interestingly, this US/EU agreement seems to address the exact issues now being discussed, and the communication between the parties seems very much like arms-length contract negotiation.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:36:25 +0000

I would love to know if any of these people discussing the legalities of the name have actually tried your fine product. Just keep up the good work up the road.

By: JC Skinner

JC Skinner — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:57:31 +0000

No one in Europe is trying to ‘change’ bourbon. Look to New Zealand if that’s your concern.
I take your points, but underaged spirit is already legal for sale in Europe. You just can’t call it whisky, because in Europe we have a thousand year tradition of distilling and that had led to certain consumer expectations, one of which is age.
As has already been explained, this issue has come up before, both in the US and in Britain, going back to the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries.
The EU’s role here is to protect firstly consumers and secondly indigenous distillers and the indigenous distilling tradition.
To achieve the former, the EU acknowledges that European consumers expect something called whiskey to be made from grain, distilled and cask aged for a minimum of three years.
That places a production methodology on indigenous producers which also acts to protect the indigenous traditions here, but also lumps on added costs (storage, evaporation, etc.)
It remains ridiculous to expect the EU to relax those standards for non-EU producers, and it’s never going to happen.
European drinkers would not be happy to be served something called whiskey which by European standards is not old enough. And our indigenous industries would be undercut by cheap and cheerful American spirit claiming to be whisky.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:52:31 +0000

Okay. Everything’s cool here. Gentlemen, as you were.

By: In With Bacchus

In With Bacchus — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:49:00 +0000

JC Skinner,

The big picture and shared traits of both bourbon and European whisky rests only in the fact that they are both distilled and barrel aged. The rest is completely and utterly different. Two years of aging for a bourbon is significantly different than two years of aging for, say, an Islay scotch.

At the crux of things, we start with the barrel. A brand new charred American white oak barrel is bursting with wood sugars and tannins. With the catalyst of a delightfully polar solvent to wash it all away, it readily leaves the barrel imparting extremely strong flavors right away. With a second (or maybe even third / fourth) fill sherry or bourbon barrel, the flavors that we want to be extracted into the whisky aren’t as readily available in the wood and, therefore, take a lot longer to draw out of the wood.

We then have to look at the atmosphere as I’d definitely say that the Kentucky (where a large portion of bourbon is made and, therefore, will be used in example) atmosphere and the Islay atmosphere are completely different. With the higher than average temperatures of the South and the humidity, we see a quick adsorption of those wood sugars/tannins as the distillate is forced into the wood by the heat and the ethanol is kept in the barrel longer by the outer humidity. Also, sea level needs to be taken into effect as well. With a mean elevation of approximately 700 feet, this results in a decreased pressure gradient for the barrel, allowing the ethanol inside to penetrate the wood even easier and far deeper. With an Islay scotch (which are typically stored at or even below sea level) a larger pressure gradient serves to keep the distillate from entering the wood.

To be honest, saying that American Bourbon should adhere to “quality” controls of the EU is like trying your damnedest to turn an apple into an orange. Both are fruits, both are sweet but everything else about them is completely incompatible.

By: Gable Erenzo

Gable Erenzo — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:48:54 +0000

Thank you JC for getting the joke. Sorry to offend you John. Every time I hear the word “surely” I think of the 80s movie classic “Airplane” to which I was referencing. Certainly did not mean it in an aggressive or offensive manner and will try to be more careful in the future. This has been a fascinating thread and regardless of where we all stand, I do think each perspective has valid points. Cheers.

By: JC Skinner

JC Skinner — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:47:02 +0000

I’m all for la difference, and I’m all for artisan distillers too.
I think the current US regulations suit the American market, and permit quality bourbon and other American whiskeys to retail in all important markets too, without degradation of quality or standards. Sure, they could tinker with them, but that’s up to US regulators, and it’s up to American distillers to tell them what regulation they think is valid.
La meme chose for Europe too, needless to say.
All round, more protection for indigenous spirit appellations is needed, I think. Bourbon needs international protection, and I would argue so does Irish potstill, pure potstill, or something of that nature.
Rye is problematic because of the Canadian usage, but perhaps an accommodation could be found there too.
Those seem much more important to me than wrangling over access to the term whiskey for underaged spirits.

By: JC Skinner

JC Skinner — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:41:01 +0000

Take your pick – is it EU regulations or SWA guidelines you object to? Because they’re not the same, and I suspect you know that.
The SWA regulates for its members, which doesn’t even include all Scottish distillers. The EU regulates for the European market.
I’d have thought that a thousands years of whiskey distillation permitted Europeans to decide what gets to be called whiskey in Europe.
The fact that the same rules apply to all is the very definition of a level playing field. What you want is special treatment, and obviously that’s not going to happen.
From an American distilling perspective, I’d be much more concerned about rogue third countries permitting allsorts to use the term bourbon than I would about trying to get the EU to treat American distillers better than they do their own.

By: JC Skinner

JC Skinner — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:37:03 +0000

I took that it the light-hearted fashion it was meant, John.
This is a fascinating discussion and I hope it doesn’t get derailed.