That’s the end of vat…

By Dominic Roskrow

Few companies have done more to further the cause of vatted malt whisky than London-based producer Compass Box. So it was fitting that when the term was consigned to the dustbin of history by the British Government, whisky maker John Glaser and supporters were on hand to mark the occasion.

Assorted Compass Box staff, bloggers, and retailers marched to the British Parliament buildings at Westminster on a warm winter evening to watch Glaser mix the last ever vatted malt on Westminster Bridge as the chimes of midnight rang out from Big Ben, marking the official last time that a whisky can be described as a “vatted malt.”

Vatted malts are a mixture of malts from different distilleries; they are distinct from blended whisky because they contain no grain whisky. But a few years ago the Scotch Whisky Association moved to have the term outlawed, and to have it replaced with the term “blended malt whisky.” Critics of the change, including Glaser and Compass Box, were vociferous in their opposition because they argue that the new term is far too similar to the term ‘blended whisky,’ and it is very difficult to explain to people, particularly in languages other than English.

Many of Compass Box’s most successful whiskies are vatted malts, so John Glaser felt it right to mark the occasion in style. “It was in the Houses of Parliament that a term that was almost as old as whisky itself was outlawed,” he said. “So it was only fitting that it was there that we went to mark the end of vatted malts.”

It says much about how trendy quality whisky is today that the protest began with a party at one of Soho’s most fashionable style bars. Cocktails made with Compass Box whisky were served before Glaser appeared, coincidentally arriving as the DJ put on Black Sabbath’s “Iron Man.”

From there about 20 supporters walked down to the River Thames and on to the bridge at Westminster. As Big Ben rang out the chimes of midnight Glaser mixed and bottled the last-ever “vatted whisky.”  Both vatted malt and vatted grain whiskies were put on sale by Compass Box, but sold out quickly due to huge demand.

Yes, we addressed this issue before here with Amrut from India. Well, here’s another example of your U.S. tax dollars at work.

It’s true that “straight” whiskeys here in the U.S., like straight bourbon and straight rye whiskeys, must be aged in new, charred oak barrels. But it’s ridiculous for our government to require a whisky outside of the U.S. be aged in new charred oak barrels to be called a “single malt,” as described below by the importer of Amrut and (hopefully, some day) The English Whisky Company.

Many of you will recall that last year I wrote lamenting about the TTB’s decision to not allow Amrut to be designated as a “Single Malt Whisky”. After appeals and clarification they relented allowing US consumers to enjoy another Single Malt Whisky.

At Purple Valley Imports we are focused on bringing world class single malts to US consumers and have been working to offer the English Whisky Company Single Malts to the US market.

Well, the powers that be are up to the old tricks again.

We recently presented The English Whisky Company’s Chapter 6 and Chapter 9 to the TTB Beverage Lab for analysis. (Any “Whisky” not from Scotland, Ireland, Canada or the US must go through lab testing).

Although the English Whisky distilled spirits taste, smell and drink like Single Malts the TTB department has deemed that we may call these “Whisky or Whiskey” but not “Single Malt”. Their reasoning? Well, the spirits are not aged in “new oak charred barrels”. 

As all of you are aware the majority of distilleries in Scotland use ex-Bourbon barrels. Bourbon is aged in new oak charred barrels and can only be used once. So, technically whisky is being aged in “new oak charred barrels that have had bourbon pass through them”.

The English Whisky Company, is the first new distillery in England in over a century. Located some 250 miles from Scotland they produce “Single Malt” Whiskies using barley grown and malted in England. (By the way some 60% of the barley used for Scottish Malt Whiskies is grown in England).

Andrew Nelstrop, Managing Director of The English Whisky Company commented: “We use only English barley, malted in England. The whisky we are producing at present was also peated in England. I am not aware of any distillery that can claim they use 100% barley, water and yeast produced in their own country other than ourselves”.

So, here is a small Distillery producing a wonderful dram (can I  call a whisky that isn’t from Scotland a dram?), that the US will not allow to be labeled as “Single Malt”.

Yet, they will allow whiskies from a distillery in Wales (which is much further in distance to Scotland then the English Whisky Company is) to do so.

Well while the rest of the world enjoys The English Whisky Single Malts, the consumers in the US can only dream. 

We are appealing this from here and from the UK. As always we appreciate your support and comments

Cheers,

Raj Sabharwal

There is a lot of activity in the distilled spirits world right now, much of it at the intersection of production, marketing, and government regulation. Tuthilltown’s sale of its Hudson Whiskey line to William Grant & Sons has raised questions about differences between American and European definitions of whiskey, which have nothing to do with how the word is spelled and everything to do with how and for how long the spirit is aged.

Alcoholic beverages also seem prone to myths, some of which die hard. Although bourbon whiskey is strongly associated with Kentucky, for example, there is no law restricting its manufacture to that state. Many people also believe that Kentucky is the only state name that can appear on a bourbon label but that’s false too. There are similar myths about the relationship between bourbon and Tennessee whiskey.

The actual rules can all easily be found in one place, the Code of Federal Regulations, title 27, part 5, subpart C. The rules apply to all products sold inside the United States, whether made here or imported.

The rules don’t restrict what producers can make, just what they can call it.

They can be confusing.

One easy way to understand them is as a hierarchy or winnowing. The legal definition of “alcohol” is very broad. The definition of “whiskey” is more narrow and the definition of “bourbon whiskey” is even more restrictive. Each level incorporates the requirements of the one below.

To simply use the term “whiskey” the spirit has to be made from grain, distilled at less than 190° proof (95% ABV), and stored in oak containers. The rules don’t say anything about the type of oak container (new, used, charred, toasted. etc.), nor barrel entry proof, nor minimum age.

European Union (EU) rules are the same except they require a minimum of three years in wood.

For a product to be labeled “bourbon whiskey” it has to meet tighter requirements. The mash must be at least 51% corn, the distillation proof has to be less than 160° proof (80% ABV), the barrel entry proof has to be less than 125° proof (62.5% ABV), and the oak containers have to be new and charred, but there is still no minimum age specified.

Hence Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey may be just three months old and legal in the USA, while in the EU it can be called bourbon, but not whiskey.

That brings us to “straight bourbon whiskey,” which has to comply with all of the above plus spend at least two years in wood. Why the word “straight” was chosen to mean “aged in wood for at least two years” I cannot explain.

Finishes and infusions are another controversial area. Many people have argued, incorrectly, that Red Stag by Jim Beam forfeited the right to call itself bourbon by adding a maceration of black cherries and other flavors. Some are raising similar concerns about the new Maker’s Mark 46, which spends a little time in what are technically used barrels, with additional un-charred wood surfaces added. 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.”

The purpose of these regulations is not to protect the purity of bourbon, it is to ensure that consumers know exactly what they’re buying.

All joking aside, here are the details, straight from their press release.

VICTORY IN THE GLEN

Glenora Distillers International Limited takes great pride in announcing a Special Edition 15 Year Old GLEN BRETON Single Malt Whisky.

One year ago, on June 11th, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its judgement dismissing the application of the Scotch Whisky Association for leave to appeal in its unsuccessful campaign to oppose the trade-mark registration of Glen Breton, Glenora’s flagship single malt. That decision finally terminated nine years of litigation by the Scotch Whisky Association, involving four levels of appeal in the Trade-marks Opposition Board and the courts.

On November 19^th, 2009, Glen Breton was entered as a registered mark on the Trade-marks Register of Canada. We at Glenora express our deep appreciation for the support and loyal patronage of the many who stood with us to win our cause.

In celebration of the registration of Glen Breton®, and to commemorate our victory in that Opposition, Glenora is releasing a unique bottling of select 15 Year Old Single Malt, the BATTLE OF THE GLEN™ Special Edition.

Lauchie MacLean, President of Glenora, says of this Special Edition Glen Breton,

“As far as we are aware, BATTLE OF THE GLEN is the first and only product created as a result of intellectual property litigation. The packaging and special booklet enclosure chronicle our fight for the inspiration of lovers of fine single malt whisky, and records our struggle for posterity. I am tremendously proud of the work of our people here at Glenora in producing this Special Edition. Glenora also wishes to acknowledge the creative talent of Famous Folks/Creative Communications based in Halifax and Toronto, for concept and development of the presentation box and labeling of the BATTLE OF THE GLEN Special Edition.

With release of this Special Edition Glen Breton, as Cape Bretoners, as Nova Scotians and as Canadians, we also honour all of our families who have gone before us, in courage and with sacrifice, to defend their rights in all just causes.”

We invite you to pour yourself a goodly dram of BATTLE OF THE GLEN, savour the apple and maple of our Cape Breton highlands, and join us in toast to victory for Glen Breton – hard-won, richly deserved.

Glenora has, by its perseverance in craft distilling and the quality of its single malt, now earned a respected position in the world. Glen Breton Rare, Canada’s only single malt whisky, received recognition as one of “Top 50 Spirits 2006” by Wine Enthusiast Magazine.

For further information, please contact:

Lauchie MacLean

President

lmaclean@glenora1.ca

902-468-6516

Bob Scott

Vice President

bscott@glenora1.ca

902-468-6516

Some of the requirements are significant. Do you have any thoughts or comments on these new regulations and its impact on whisky?

1. The Scotch Whisky Regulations (2009/2890) represent a definitive statement on the definition and presentation of Scotch Whisky. Full details of the new law can be found at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20092890_en_1.

 

2. The key provisions of the new law include:

? Five categories of Scotch Whisky are defined for the first time; Single Malt Scotch Whisky, Single Grain Scotch Whisky, Blended Malt Scotch Whisky, Blended Grain Scotch Whisky, and Blended Scotch Whisky.
? These compulsory category sales terms will be required to appear clearly and prominently on all labels.

? A requirement to only bottle Single Malt Scotch Whisky in Scotland.

? New rules to prevent the misleading labelling and marketing of Single Malt Scotch Whiskies.

? A ban on the use of the term ‘Pure Malt’.

? A ban on the use of a distillery name as a brand name on any Scotch Whisky which has not been wholly distilled in the named distillery.

? Protection of five traditional whisky regions of production; Highland, Lowland, Speyside, Islay, and Campbeltown.

? A requirement that Scotch Whisky must be wholly matured in Scotland.

? Clear rules on the use of age statements on packaging.

? Designation of HM Revenue & Customs as the verification authority for Scotch Whisky.

I just received this note from Ashok Chokalingam from Amrut:

When is a Single Malt Whisky not one? The TTB does not recognize “Single Malt” or “Peated Single Malt” as an acceptable designation for Single Malt whiskies produced outside of Scotland. Purple Valley Imports, the importers of Amrut Indian Single Malt Whiskies have been trying to get their products approved for labeling for what it is – Single Malt Whisky. However the TTB does not have a designation for “Single Malt Whisky.” With all of the world class quality Single Malts being produced outside of Scotland isn’t it time for the TTB to acknowledge that “Single Malt” is not unique to Scotland?

So, if they want to bring their single malt whisky into the U.S., they told me they would have to label it as either a “Straight Malt Whisky” or “Malt Whisky.”  (Straight Malt Whisky??) They have argued that a number of non-Scotland whiskies (e.g. Yamazaki from Japan and Penderyn from Wales) can label their whisky as “Single Malt,” but they are not allowed this designation.

Anyone out there know someone at the TTB who can help them label their whisky as what it is, a single malt?

Crazy!