Are all distilleries owned by the major companies?

[stevemk]

My question comes to whether any independant distillers exist, or if the small batch brands are offerings of the major beverage companies. Not that it would be a negative, but curiosity drives the question of who is hand-crafting the very small batch brands.

[cowdery]

There is a micro-distillery movement but it truly is in its infancy. The products you see on store shelves come from two sources, distillers and bottlers. Distillers have distilleries and make the whiskey they sell. Bottlers buy bulk whiskey made by one of the distillers, which they bottle and sell.

Among distillers, the smallest company probably is Heaven Hill. Some of the bottlers are smaller but so what, since the whiskey they sell is made by one of the larger companies?

If you want to buy whiskey made by a genuinely small company (and, in both cases, it depends on your definition of 'small') your choices are limited to Old Potrero and Forty Creek. However, that could change soon, as several micro-distiller whiskeys are on the horizon.

[stevemk]

There is a micro-distillery movement but it truly is in its infancy. The products you see on store shelves come from two sources, distillers and bottlers. Distillers have distilleries and make the whiskey they sell. Bottlers buy bulk whiskey made by one of the distillers, which they bottle and sell.

Among distillers, the smallest company probably is Heaven Hill. Some of the bottlers are smaller but so what, since the whiskey they sell is made by one of the larger companies?

If you want to buy whiskey made by a genuinely small company (and, in both cases, it depends on your definition of 'small') your choices are limited to Old Potrero and Forty Creek. However, that could change soon, as several micro-distiller whiskeys are on the horizon.

Thanks for the info, in this case "size does not really matter", however I tend to see small independant producers in other beverages creating products in ways established producers may not embrace.

I'd enjoy receiving your on-going thoughts on the subject.

[Strayed]

...The products you see on store shelves come from two sources, distillers and bottlers. Distillers have distilleries and make the whiskey they sell. Bottlers buy bulk whiskey made by one of the distillers, which they bottle and sell... Among distillers, the smallest company probably is Heaven Hill. Some of the bottlers are smaller but so what, since the whiskey they sell is made by one of the larger companies?

I have only the deepest respect for Chuck and the enlightenment he's given to me and so many others. But I have to take issue with him here. I believe the above idea is just clearly wrong. Of course that isn't just Chuck's view; it's widely held. But it shouldn't be. A statement like that implies there is no distinction between, say, KBD's Noah's Mill or Tom Bulleitt's custom-produced bourbon and Food Giant Special Straight Bourbon Whisky. Are we to believe that Even and Drew Kulsveen are buying "bulk whiskey", rather than carefully selecting and matching their barrels? I don't believe that. How about Julian Van Winkle?

If you've been following these things for awhile, have you noticed the recent trend toward "legitimizing" Julian's Old Rip Van Winkle brand, now that he has become associated with Buffalo Trace and whiskey is being distilled specifically for that brand? The fact is that the RVW whiskey we're drinking today was selected by Julian or his son Preston long before their current arrangement. And while it was always popular to attribute Julian's success to some sort of "exclusive" access he had to old Stitzel-Weller stock, that myth is simply false, and it ignores the enormous amount of work (and risk) he undertook to produce the wonderful (and award-winning) products released as Old Rip Van Winkle whiskeys in the past couple of decades. At least some of these we know were NOT Stitzel-Weller whiskey, nor even wheated bourbon at all, and it required the vision and foresight of a genius, along with the raw poker-guts to bet his inheritance on a bunch of old barrels from defunct distilleries that would never again produce that spirit. You don't get a chance to learn from your mistakes in such an enterprise; if something bombs, you're finished. And even when you win, you'd better be scrambling to find a replacement source. Much of what Julian bottled on his little Commonwealth line in Lawrenceburg, was done under contract for other customers, whose brands included the original Black Maple Hill and (new) Michter's (in fact, he had also bottled the old Michters for A. H. Hirsh). If we're expected to consider those as "bulk whiskey", we really need to reexamine what we mean by that term. I suggest such a dismissal is ludicrous, and that Chuck really didn't intend that at all. I'm also confident that Buffalo Trace is producing an outstanding (and perhaps even similar) bourbon for Julian, but to imply that Rip Van Winkle is now just another Buffalo Trace brand slights the genius of that fine whiskey's maker.

I say "maker" because there appears to be some confusion about just who it is that makes the whiskey we pay for. Despite what I expect will be vitreous responses (because these roles and definitions are ambiguously defined and personal loyalties are strong), it's my view that DISTILLERS DON'T MAKE "BOURBON" or "RYE". DISTILLERS make "SPIRITS" (yes, I know the legal definitions; I'm speaking broadly here). The distiller's world is one of grain commerce, and yeasts, and fermentation processes, and the operation of distilling the resulting raw spirits from that mash.

And once they've put that white dog into the barrel and it's been rolled away the distiller's job is done. It doesn't matter whether they're being rolled into the warehouse next door, or onto a truck headed for a customer's warehouse. Or not even barreled at all, but just pumped directly into a railroad tank car. That, by the way, would be what I consider "bulk whiskey". But the customer (I'm thinking here of A. Smith Bowman in Virginia, of course) also considers this whiskey to be just a raw material which they will further distill and age to become 90-proof Virginia Gentleman ("the Fox") -- which is certainly no one's idea of "bulk whiskey". The point is that the skill and artistry of whoever is wearing the DISTILLER cap is in the fermentation and distilling processes themselves, and as far as that role is concerned, the final end-product is the spirit as it comes off the still.

The world of warehouses and storage, of aging and vatting, of doing whatever it takes to transform that spirit, which at this point is little more than very high-quality food-grade industrial solvent, into a product that will be so desireable that folks like us will pay money to drink it, is the world of the RECTIFIER [hear that angry rumbling in the background?]. In many cases, especially in true small-batch and craft distilling operations, the rectifier is just the distiller wearing another of his caps. This image is also popular among the marketers. But the fact is that the whiskey in the bottle I buy is the end-product of an entirely different set of skills and talents. Rectifiers don't need to be distillers, and in fact many of the best have not been. We all know of highly respectible makers of fine whiskey who we consider "Master Distillers", some of whom we know never distilled anything commercially. That doesn't detract from their importance; what distinguishes greatness in this role is their ability to age and select the barrels from which to produce Family Reserve, or Wild Turkey, or Elmer T. Lee, Evan Williams Single Barrel, George T. Stagg, Woodford Reserve, Baker's, Rowan's Creek, Ridgemont, Bulleitt, Maker's Mark, or Old Overholt. And I hold that none of the barrels that make up a bottle of those fine whiskeys that you would see on the store shelf today was selected by the same individual who distilled the basic spirit put into barrels all those many years ago. Elmer Lee "makes" fine bourbon -- no one would deny that; and unless he's finally stopped recently, as far as I know he still personally selects the barrels to be bottled, as well as the barrels to be moved into warehouse H. But it's been decades since Elmer ever distilled any of it. When Craig Beam selects the barrels to use for Elijah Craig 12-year old, he didn't personally distill that whiskey; in fact it's probably all Heaven Hill-distilled bourbon (although it doesn't technically have to be). But you could hardly say he was using "bulk whiskey".

Some of the very best rectifiers were (and are) the marketers. Julian Van Winkle NEVER distilled any of his whiskey (and neither did his father or his grandfather, Pappy), and yet it's now in its fourth generation of being the finest of the best. William L. Weller didn't make whiskey -- he sold whiskey, which he bought from Phillip Stitzel, among others, until they joint-ventured Stitzel-Weller. Weller was highly selective about the whiskey sold under his name. Would that be considered bulk whiskey?. George Garvey Brown didn't distill, either; he was a drug salesman who bottled (and marketed) medicinal alcohol as medicine. In fact, the company that would become Brown-Forman didn't own a distillery during its first 32 years of business. Their flagship brand, Old Forester, was not at all like what we enjoy by that name today; it was a concocted product that could not be legally labeled as straight whiskey. But it was certainly recognized by their medical customers as whiskey of the highest quality, and that quality came from Brown's requirement to his vendor-distillers that it conform to his exacting specifications, especially as concerned packaging. That's hardly my idea of "bulk whiskey"; and I'll bet it isn't Chuck's, either.

Here's a more up-to-date example: Jay Erisman, spirits guru at The Party Source in Bellevue, Kentucky, knows a thing or two about whiskey. Maybe three and four, as well. So, when he had a chance to select a proprietary bottling of Buffalo Trace, he selected a single barrel -- not unlike enthusiasts on this very website have done! But his wasn't for his private consumption; this was for the store. Now, liquor stores have been getting "special bottlings" for years (LeNell could probably confirm that), but they usually consist of a sticker saying "bottled especially for [insert store name]" which they can apply to the bottles of regular product. Same as how you can order "made for" labels yourself. The idea of inviting customers to select a specific barrel to be bottled for them is a fairly new one, and it's not all that common yet. Jay made his selection from among a range of barrels that each had the general characteristics found in the normal Buffalo Trace bourbon, which is the result of dumping a number of barrels together. The individual barrels, however, were far from identical and Jay chose one that he felt to be on one end of the spectrum. One thing that I thought was interesting is that, other than the small sticker saying "bottled for Party Source", he has chosen not to distinguish it in any way. They don't have a special shelf "talker", and the price was actually marked down a dollar from the usual retail. I think the idea is to ensure that the best possible examples of BT are on the shelf, without fanfare, and get people to try it just because it's on sale. Hopefully they'll like it, so that when the price goes back up (but only by a dollar) they'll be happy to continue buying it. And the unit cost of the regular Buffalo Trace will be less.

So technically, the bottles from the single barrel of Buffalo Trace that Jay Erisman hand-picked and the bottles of Rite-Aid Brand Bourbon (if there is such a thing anymore) purchased from whichever distillery got the bid this year are one and the same. That is, they're both house brands. But can they really be lumped together as "bulk" whiskey? I don't think so.

...If you want to buy whiskey made by a genuinely small company (and, in both cases, it depends on your definition of 'small') your choices are limited to Old Potrero and Forty Creek. However, that could change soon, as several micro-distiller whiskeys are on the horizon.

Well, 'soon' may not be the appropriate word here. And it also depends on your definition of 'whiskey'. For some examples of already functioning whiskey micro-distilleries who are currently selling their output commercially through both private and state-run liquor stores, see http://www.ellenjaye.com/wh_index.htm
And for much more information (along with some fascinating images) check out this site... http://www.distilling.com/backissues2002.html

[gillmang]

I read what Chuck wrote as being merely descriptive, not that is implying any value judgments. Chuck would be the last to suggest that, say, Bulleit (which was praised in his newsletter) is inferior to, say, Early Times. Bulk whiskey is any whiskey a distillery is willing to sell to a buyer - which is sometimes a distiller - who will bottle it under its own name, sometimes giving it more aging. There is nothing surprising in that. Chuck was merely trying to explain to someone who might be beguiled by a down home label or funky bottle that the spirit from which the whiskey issued was made by a large organisation. One can praise (rightfully so) the selection and aging skills of many merchants and rectifiers but without the spirit to begin with - spirit capable of being aged into fine whiskey - the merchants and rectifiers would have nothing to sell and rectify. First things first, John.

Gary

[Strayed]

Hi Gary; Of course I only singled out Chuck to respond to because it was his statements that illustrated commonly-held ideas I feel need to be rethought. Chuck is in the enviable, if frustrating (I can only guess), position of being recognized and accepted as an authority by publishers and industry contacts and also by those of us who may question what we're told by those same publications and brand executives. He knows I mean him no harm; I only want to help him make us all think.

As for the distilled spirits, remember that most of the distilleries only produce one or two styles of raw spirit. They don't make grade A and grade B. There is no bulk white dog -- or everything is bulk, however you look at it. There is, of course, bulk finished product, and you can readily find brands that consist of that. But that's in the realm of the rectifier; the raw spirit is same in either case.

[cowdery]

I concede there is a difference between the bulk whiskey buyer who says, "what's the best price you can give me on something I can legally label 'Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey,'" and one who says, "let me taste a few barrels of your best twelve year old."

[bourbonv]

John brings up an interesting point. Since I have heard from distillers that anywhere from 60% to 80% of the flavor comes from the maturation process, it does seem unfair to single out the people who prefer to concentrate on the most important process. My beef here is that I think they are wrong to some degree. The 20% to 40% of the flavor that is found in distilling is still more important than the maturation because you you can ruin good whiskey in the aging process, but if it is bad to start with, then all of the aging in the world can not improve it. The old Hill and Hill plant here in Louisville makes industrial alcohol and when you realise that they get whole barrels of product from every distillery in the state for redistillation, you realise that the distilleries know this fact as well.

That is why I think the microdistilling business is needed so that the consumer can get a chance to taste real old fashioned bourbon distilled at very low proof and put into the barrel at a very low proof. This will be true 19th century whiskey.

As a foot note, John was kind enough to lend me a book he owns that states the regulations for whiskey just after prohibition and in this book the maximum barrel proof is 110. I have not traced the exact date that the barrel proof was raised to 125 but I highly suspect it was with the regulations that defined "Bourbon" as an American spirit in the early 1960's. Warehouse receipts that I have seen from before then are all less than 110 proof. That would also explain the taste shift that John notes as happening in the late 1960's.

Mike Veach

[stevemk]

That is why I think the microdistilling business is needed so that the consumer can get a chance to taste real old fashioned bourbon distilled at very low proof and put into the barrel at a very low proof. This will be true 19th century whiskey.

Thanks to all for an instructive exchange of views.

However, Mike raises an important point. Why is it that an entry from Kentucky has not been made?

[bourbonv]

In a nutshell - taxes and regulations make it very expensive to enter this industry and nobody has decided it would be a good investment. Huber Farms just across the river is distilling brandy and if that becomes sucessful others may venture into microdistilling as well. The other problem with bourbon distilling is that it really takes four years before you can market a decent product and that means tying up capital for an extended period of time and also the need for a bonded warehouse. It is not an investment for someone looking to make a fast buck.

Mike Veach

[NorCalBoozer]

what exactly comprises a "bonded" warehouse today? I understand that the spirits need to be taxed, but how exactly would bonded warehouses be set up on a microdistillery? how is it tracked?

In a nutshell - taxes and regulations make it very expensive to enter this industry and nobody has decided it would be a good investment. Huber Farms just across the river is distilling brandy and if that becomes sucessful others may venture into microdistilling as well. The other problem with bourbon distilling is that it really takes four years before you can market a decent product and that means tying up capital for an extended period of time and also the need for a bonded warehouse. It is not an investment for someone looking to make a fast buck.

Mike Veach

[bourbonv]

I am not sure what all of the regulations are, but bonded warehouses are set up so the government has control of all of the whiskey in these warehouses. In the old days before Regean, there was a governmet gauger on premise that had one of the two keys to the warehouse so it took both the distiller and and the government gauger to unlock the warehouse to get to the whiskey. Now days the government is happy to let the distiller control the entry but very detailed records have to be kept to show the government that everything is legit.

Mike Veach