cowdery wrote:...For example, HH could make a "straight wheat whiskey" because "wheat" happens to be mentioned in the regs, but they can't make a "straight oat whiskey" because "oat" isn't mentioned.
That's EXACTLY what I mean!
...That said, I think a lot of craft distillers are just making excuses. They could petition for regulatory changes, or they could find imaginative ways to innovate within the regs, most most of them would rather just make vodka.
Well... that, too. But I'd like to think that, with our encouragement (and thank you for starting that) maybe the more worthy of them will.
gilmang wrote:...the definitions of whiskey and spirit whiskey and so forth are broad enough to allow for change and experimentation. E.g. what Phillips Union is doing makes perfect sense to me... There is no way I will ever give up on straight bourbon and rye, but no reason to restrict myself to that either.
Phillips Union is marketed as "whiskey" (with an "e", unless the "e" is only on the United States' version). It makes a very good example of a whiskey that uses the flavors from aging in different barrels. I'm not particularly fond of the outcome of their experiments, but that's not the criteria; the fact that they're doing such experiments is. I think maybe the Phillips Union folks are more oriented (or is that "asianized" now?) toward the Canadian flavor profile than I.