...if not the spirit itself. Unlike rogue rum which cheats every way to Sunday, single malt whiskies and bourbon have remained among the true "noble spirits" and for good reason. Both are very tightly regulated as you well know - single malts by the SWS and bourbon by American regulations. The difference?
Although bourbon will never be the real equal of a fine single malt (personal opinion), bourbon is the purer. Here's why. According to the regs, "Bourbon"...
Also unlike single malts it may contain no coloring whatever. I'd like to draw attention to one other important matter: the regs do NOT defined or distinguish "aging" from "finishing". The CFR's don't use or define either of these terms. To them "aging" and "finishing" are both included under the term "storage". Likewise the regs do not used terms like "barrel" or "cask", but rather lump all such containers as, well "containers". Thus "bourbon" MUST be "stored... in charred new oak containers", period, stop."...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."
Cowdery understands this. Indeed he makes this clear insofar as "Early Times" which allows about 20% of the distillate to spend some time in USED containers, this product is thus NOT a bourbon, but is called a Kentucky whiskey. He states:
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/s ... 05ddf3ebf1"Although Early Times is not bourbon in the U.S., it is bourbon in all international markets. The current label was adopted in the early 1980s, if I remember correctly. Before that the brand had a very garish yellow label. It was in a round bottle then too (now it's square).
Brown-Forman, which makes Early Times, calls the U.S. product "Kentucky Whisky." Brown-Forman was the first to use that term, but others have used it since. The resemblance to "Tennessee Whiskey" is obvious and intentional. Brown-Forman also makes Jack Daniel's.
Early Times can't be called bourbon because about 20 percent of it is aged in used barrels. Bourbon must be aged 100 percent in new, charred oak barrels."
However, when Jim Murray pointed out the modern abuse of used, ex-sherry containers to "finish" the spirits (and still call the product "bourbon") as an illegality, Cowdery took great offense and backed the marketing boyz in toto. For example a "super-premium" called "Sherry Signature" not only allows the distilled mash to spend time in used ex-sherry containers, but even ADDS some actual sherry, yet is still features " Straight Bourbon Whiskey" on the label!
How Cowdery on one hand can insist that Early Times cannot be a bourbon due to the use of used containers, while supporting "Sherry Signature's" use of not only used barrels but even added sherry as a legally labelled "straight bourbon" is completely hypocritical. The only difference? That Early Times has chosen to label honestly, while "Sherry Signature" has not. Cowdery's indefensible position seems to be that that if a company labels it so, it must be legal. His only defense is ludicrous and shows no real understanding of the law, via his pithy quip that once made"...you can't unmake bourbon", a nonsensical bumper sticker if there ever once one. Apparently you can designate a stored spirit as bourbon whenever you'd like, and once having done so, no further storage counts.
Flat Ass Bottom Line
Earth to Chuck: the regs are clear, Jim Murray knows it and I agree. Your bumper sticker defense is less than naive. A spirit is not "made" until it leaves the containers(s) for bottling and in the case of bourbon the containers must be "charred new oak", period, as it has for over a hundred years. Sure you can move it from one container to another but only if the latter container is also charred new oak. For example Phil Prichard's "double barreled bourbon" does exactly that (as do a couple others). Otherwise the regs will call it a "whiskey made from bourbon mash".
Try as you might you can't have it both ways. I'll leave it at this. What you know, you know very well indeed but sadly, the opposite is for you, seems rather intolerable. Sorry Charlie...
Unfortunately this became such an issue at Straightbourbon that Cowdery found himself painted into the corner, and lacked the cajones to admit his error, preferring instead to sputter and bluster. A real shame, as I have long respected his expertise in terms of wood and palate. His book "Straight Bourbon" is a must buy, as is his e-book "Small barrels make lousy whisky".
But this time my friend we will agree to disagree, Lighten up, won't you?
