Talk:Bourbon whiskey/Archive 1

America's Native Spirit
While this article does a great job explaining the often misunderstood history of bourbon not being a native spirit, a mention of Applejack in the history section could do well to assist in dispelling the myth of bourbon being the first distilled spirit in America by directly mentioning one that predates it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.56.230 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Theodore J. Who?
The story about Theodore J. Queenan is recently added, without a citation to a source. While my research says it's likely the first distilling in what is now Kentucky was done at Harrodsburg, I haven't heard it specifically attributed to any Theodore J. Queenan. I googled the name and the reference here was the only hit. I didn't delete the story, but I may soon. I'd sure like to see a source. Cowdery (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted it today. Cowdery (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes.., Dant is still around
Does anyone know if the Dant distillery is still in business? If memory serves, it was somewhere near Clermont. Rlquall 19:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have a J.W. Dant distilled in Bardstown, KY at my liquor store. Not sure if it's the original or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PugAchev  (talk • contribs)  18:56, 5 February 2005 (UTC)

Members of the Dant family operated many distilleries, none of which are in operation today. The J.W. Dant brand is owned by Heaven Hill Distillery. The original J. W. Dant Distillery, RD#169, was in Marion County, Kentucky. Cowdery 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Differences between Scotch and Bourbon
Please can someone tell me what makes scotch and bourbon different? is it the malting process or something else?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.239.52  (talk • contribs)  20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many stylistic differences between scotch and bourbon, but the most significant are the grains used and the way they are aged. Single malt scotch is made from 100% malted barley and although grain whiskey (for blended scotch) may use other grains, the distinctive taste of any scotch comes from the malted barley. Bourbon is mostly corn, at least 51% by law and in practice more like 75%, with rye or wheat and a small amount (about 10%) of malted barley. As for aging, bourbon is always aged in new charred oak barrels, whereas scotch usually is aged in used barrels, usually used bourbon barrels, in fact. Cowdery 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

History info is a mess
It looks like there is a significant amount of debate about where exactly bourbon was invented, and the only description of its history is a copyrighted quotation. We shouldn't have such a large quotation, and there should be more backing for this article. Or, at least, there needs to be a better indication that any description of the "true history of bourbon" is debateable, and that most of the history is more legendary than factual.

I could rewrite it, but I don't have the time now. I might come back in a few days to fix it. This article seems to have a good beginning: 

Pageblank 22:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I cleaned it up some and cited the quote, correctly, to my book (although the wording in the book is slightly different than the earlier article originally cited, but those are my words nonetheless). If such a long quote is still stylistically inappropriate, someone can let me know and I'll rewrite it for here and we can cite it but dispense with the quote. Cowdery 22:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. I changed the formatting to use a curly quote template that tends to be a little more readable for long quoted blocks of text like that. I personally don't see a problem with that, so long as you are comfortable with and are legally permitted to release that text under the WP:GFDL license. I know that sometimes publishers restrict the rights of authors and what they can do with their texts once it has been published. If that is the case, it would be better to re-write the section. You should also be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines--not that I see anything wrong with this edit, but since you obviously have a lot of knowledge on the topic, you wouldn't want to run afoul of any rules accidentally. Have a great day! --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb ) 06:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I control all rights to all of my writing and I don't believe I have run afoul of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines. I didn't put the quote here, someone else did, I'm just retroactively granting permission for it to stay and making sure it's cited properly. Cowdery 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone, however, changed "American Revolution" in the quote to "Rebellion of the American Colonies." Very funny. Who changes a direct quote? I changed it back. Cowdery (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Elijah Craig: inventor or not?
OK, so in this article we have this:


 * Some stories about its origins there are not true, such as its purported invention by Baptist minister and distiller Elijah Craig.

But, in the Bourbon County, Kentucky article, we have this:


 * Bourbon whiskey, named for the county, was first distilled within its borders by the Rev. Elijah Craig in the early 19th century.

I'm not an expert in such matters. Which one is correct? References in any debate would be helpful, thanks. --NightMonkey 20:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Elijah Craig was prominent in the founding of a school that was eventually to become (after Craig's death) Georgetown College in Georgetown, KY, which at that time was within the borders of Bourbon County. Later, Scott County was created as a separate county out of a portion of Bourbon County, and Georgetown became its county seat. This connection of E. Craig to Bourbon County is factual. I am a native of this area (and as such I can hardly claim NPOV), and we were always taught that Craig invented bourbon whiskey. Whether he truly invented the process may be open to speculation; on a recent tour of the Woodford Reserve distillery near Versailles I was told a different history. Dismissing outright Craig's claim as untrue, especially without any supporting evidence, seems non-neutral. Of course it may have been a simultaneous application of techniques by multiple, contemporary distillers. --BAW 01:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The durable but unsubstantiated claim that Elijah Craig "invented" bourbon can be traced to Richard Collins and his 1874 History of Kentucky. Collins does not identify Craig by name, but writes that "the first Bourbon Whiskey was made in 1789, at Georgetown, at the fulling mill at the Royal spring." This claim is included, without elaboration or substantiation, on a densely-packed page of "Kentucky Firsts." Since Craig operated "the fulling mill at the Royal spring" in that year, the "invention" is attributed to him. There are several major problems with the claim. First, what made Craig's whiskey different from the other whiskey made in the region? Second, the Georgetown site was never in Bourbon County, so if the place name and the whiskey have to go together, Craig cannot be the originator. In fact, the name "bourbon whiskey" was applied to all whiskey from the region beginning early in the century but the style of whiskey we now call bourbon didn't really evolve until many years later, in about the middle of the century. The Craig claim has been convenient for various people for various reasons, but historically it is completely unsupported. Cowdery 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Insufficiently germane content relocated from the Elijah Craig bourbon page:

Bourbon whiskey derives its name from the general area originally established as Bourbon County, which was originally established as the name of a county in Virginia, in honor of the French royal House of Bourbon family. The naming was a gesture of gratitude, as France had assisted the colonial rebellion in the U.S. revolutionary war against Great Britain. Although the borders and naming of the counties in the area shifted over time, Rev. Craig's distillery site has never actually been in a county named Bourbon County. When founded, the distillery was in the nearby territory of the original Fayette County of Virginia, which had been named in honor of the noted Revolutionary War Gen. Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette (who was a member of the House of Bourbon). Later government actions would name the area as Woodford County in 1788, and then as Scott County in 1792. The area became part of Kentucky when the state was created from part of Virginia in 1792.

As American whiskey authority Charles Kendrick Cowdery has observed, "By the time Bourbon County was formed in 1785, there were dozens if not hundreds of small farmer-distillers making whiskey throughout the region… Ultimately, most of the corn-based whiskey made west of the Alleghenies was called 'bourbon', to distinguish it from the rye-based whiskies that predominated in the East."

24.61.220.85 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Origin of Bourbon, Kentucky versus Virginia, and the area in which bourbon can be made
While there is a Bourbon County Kentucky, Bourbon did not originate there. Bourbon is made in the original Bourbon County, which stretched, from Virginia to what now is Kentucky. Remember Bourbon(the drink) significantly predates the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Bourbon County, Kentucky is named after the original Bourbon (now obsolete) County. Though the boundaries are now politically obsolete it still defines the area in which bourbon can be made. This is why Virginia getleman is still a legitimate Bourbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.70  (talk • contribs)  04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The last part of your statement is factually untrue. Bourbon can be made anywhere in the United States, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the borders of Bourbon County, then or now.  Virginia Gentleman is a bourbon because it's made of a mash of at 51% corn (maize), is distilled to less than 95% abv, put into a new barrel made of white oak that's been charred on the inside for aging at less than 62.5% abv, is bottled at a minimum of 40% abv, and has no coloring, flavoring, or sweetener added.  You could make the same thing in Detroit or even Hawaii and it would still be bourbon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.223.207 (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is noteworthy to this entry that today, bottles of Virginia Gentleman Bourbon (a label owned by the Sazerac company)state that the contents are "distilled in Kentucky and re-distilled in Virginia". This is true. Virginia Gentleman Bourbon is distilled at the Buffalo Trace Distillery in Kentucky (which the Sazerac company owns) and re-distilled at a facility in Northern Virginia. I believe that the Virginia facility was or is owned by the Bowman family, who used to own the Virginia Gentleman brand.CrashRiley (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

History of bourbon as told to me
I am born and raised in Kentucky. Though this does not make me a historian of bourbon, I wanted to tell the history as it was explained to me.

Bourbon was (at first) a clear liquor, looking a lot like vodka. However, at one point, a distiller who made bourbon had a fire in his barn where he stored his barrels, and they were all chared because of this. It was too late in the season, and he used the barrels anyhow to store the bourbon. When they were ready, he put them in the river, and floated them on down. When they got to new orleans, the people flipped over the new liquor. It had a new flavor, and a distinct color due to the chared barrels.

Can anyone else verify this story with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyNephi  (talk • contribs)  06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is one of many popular myths. The main reason whiskey was not aged in the early days was because people were happy to buy it and drink it unaged. The benefits of aging spirits have been known since antiquity and didn't need to be "discovered" in 19th century Kentucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.69.126  (talk • contribs)  10:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But the brown color of burbon. Was this something that came from charred barrels, and accidentally discovered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyNephi   (talk • contribs)  17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Children are told many stories and the above is just that, a story. A nice one, but not true. The benefits of aging spirits in oak were well known, but not generally practiced for economic reasons. Charring barrels was also a familiar practice, to sanitize a barrel so it could be used again. The benefits of aging spirits in charred barrels were also known. In about the middle of the 19th century, Kentucky distillers began to use new charred oak barrels for aging because the combination of a new barrel and charring gave the whiskey the maximum benefit in terms of color and flavor. Yes, all of the color in bourbon comes from the wood. Cowdery 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling - whiskey/whisky
I have noticed that most Bourbon makers spell it whiskey, but not all. Maker's Mark is a notable exception. --rogerd 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on Whiskey, Maker's Mark spells it "whisky" to allude to Scottish heritage, since that's how it's spelled everywhere but America and Ireland. 99.180.87.32 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maker's Mark is not alone. George Dickel and Old Forester also use the "whisky" spelling, and I'm sure there are others. In fact, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (and its Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits) also uses the "whisky" spelling exclusively. –BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add URL to your Link list
As our contribution to Wikipedia's probably unintended, but nevertheless growing, collection of American whiskey folklore and legend, we believe readers would enjoy also visiting our (non-commercial) website dedicated to just that subject, along with documentation of our personal visits to various American whiskey distillery sites, current and defunct. Our URL is...

http://www.ellenjaye.com

Thank you, --Jeffelle 04:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Things that should be added (characteristic sweet flavor and how it is properly drunk)
A couple of things that should probably be added to the article:


 * 1) Bourbon's characteristic "sweet" flavor, in contrast to Scotch, rye, an other forms of whiskey--where does it come from?
 * 2) How is it properly drunk? Adding a little cold water, soda, or neat?

Are there bourbon experts out there who know the answers to these questions? Badagnani 06:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In answer to your questions, the 'sweet' flavor usually comes from being unable to tell the difference between Southern Comfort (which, by virtue of added sugar, isn't even a whisky, let alone bourbon) and actual bourbon. However, depending on how long it's been in those charred white-oak barrels, you may still be able to taste some of the corn (maize), which may invoke notes of sweet corn from the cob, or honeysuckle. But there's no residual sugar after fermentation and distillation, so any 'sweet' sensation is a figment of the taster's imagination. It's normally drunk straight, by the shot or the glass, or in one of two cocktails: Mint Julep or Whiskey sour.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.223.207 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot more than just two cocktails which call for the use of Bourbon, just check good cocktail websites such as cocktaildb.com and you will see it used in Manhattans, Sazeracs (though rye whiskey is more commonly used in Sazeracs), Old Fashioneds and many others. Bourbon and Coke is quite popular (Coca Cola being one of the most popular cocktail mixers in the world). It is often drunk straight ("shots" of Bourbon are common in the United States, for example) with mixers such as Coke, ginger ale, and club soda, or just with water or a little ice. It should also be noted that any whiskey aged in charred new oak barrels can pick up a degree of noticeable sweetness from the oak, which has vanillin. Corn is also a sweet grain, and provides some of that sweet character, whereas rye (for example) adds a spicy aspect to Bourbon. I defer, however, to the considerable expertise of Mr. Cowdery, if I have mis-stated my facts.CrashRiley (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Because bourbon is always aged in new, charred oak barrels it picks up a lot of sugar from the wood so, yes, there is actually sugar in it.Cowdery (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

For tasting purposes, whiskey should be consumed neat or with a little room temperature water. Anything cold makes the taste buds less sensitive. That's for tasting. For drinking, do whatever you like. Cowdery (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rip Van Winkle Photo
This is a purely promotional photo. Discuss. 842U (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Casks of Bourbon Photo
The image I put in was not intended to promote the brand (being a "non-drinker" myself) but was just to show the same idea as the Buffalo Trace Distillery casks that you reworded the caption on. I am even willing to leave it out as I have no intention to promote any brand AND especially any alcholic beverages. I just happen to have taken the factory tour and took some pictures of the facilities. I just thought the casks looked neat stacked up like that and thought that was the way all the bourbon facilities stacked casks. It certainly was not to promote the brand of Four Roses as I have no interest in it. I'll leave your image in of Buffalo Trace Distillery casks however. I will not edit any further on this particular article. --Doug talk 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bourbon must be produced in KY?
We seem to be on the verge of a revision war over this subject, so I hope people who feel compelled to insert once again some statement to the effect that "Bourbon must be produced in Kentucky" will read at least this section of the discussion page before doing so. I am inserting this preface here, but am otherwise leaving the discussion on this topic alone. –Cowdery 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the first I have heard that a true bourbon may be produced outside of Kentucky. Everything I have read previously states that to be called bourbon, the whiskey is required by law to be produced in Kentucky, along with other mandated criteria including standards of proof, aging, and that bourbon use charred (never new) oak barrels in the aging process. - DanDan 17:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Statute?

Would you please provide the current statute which states; that to be called bourbon, it is required to be produced in Kentucky. Many have made this claim, but I have yet to ever see any state or federal code validating this assertion. John Donnchadha 16:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The standards of identity for distilled spirits are contained in Title 27, Section 5 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations. If you look at the regulations, you will see that there is no requirement that bourbon be made in Kentucky. Bourbon may be made anywhere in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.69.126 (talk • contribs)  10:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No!! Bourbon can be made anywhere; however, for it to have a name such as "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey," it must be distilled in Kentucky. No other alcoholic beverage has such a law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs)  06:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "law" to this effect, so the above statement is incorrect. However, all labels for distilled spirits products sold in the United States must be approved in advance by the TTB and they apply, among other things, basic truth in advertising standards, so a bourbon cannot be labeled "Kentucky" bourbon unless it is both distilled in Kentucky and aged there. I believe, however, that after two years it can be shipped out of state to continue aging and still be called "Kentucky" bourbon. This particular false belief, that bourbon can only be made in Kentucky, dies hard. However, even as late as the 1960s there was a large amount of bourbon made in Illinois. In the past, bourbon has been made in Pennsylvania (The A. H. Hirsch bourbon, for example), Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and other states. Cowdery 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The federal "Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits" (Title 27, Section 5) addresses "geographical designations" at 5.22(k), but the gist of it is: "Geographical names for distinctive types of distilled spirits shall not be applied to distilled spirits produced in any other place than the particular region indicated by the name." Cowdery 01:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help that the distilleries themselves say this. I visited the Maker's Mark facility a few years back, and distinctly recall that our guide told us that bourbon had to be produced in Kentucky to earn the name. --208.102.55.198 (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"Bourbon can be legally made anywhere in the U.S."?
This is flat-out wrong. At least in Tennessee, and in most of the rest of the Southen U.S., distillation is legal only in a few counties (three, I think, in Tennessee as of now). This is not to say that it does not go on in other counties, of course, just that it does not occur there legally. I think what is meant is that, contrary to a widely-held opinion, there is no federal law restricting the production of bourbon to Kentucky only. (No bourbons are made in Tennessee, however, only two "Tennessee whiskeys" and a rum.) Rlquall 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, each of the whiskey brands currently offered from Tennessee technically satisfies the definition of bourbon. The distillers choose not to market their product this way, which is their privilege, and arguably the application by three by the four Tennessee distillers of the Lincoln County process can fairly be regarded as a distinguishing recipe characteristic that warrants a distinction from bourbon, though there is no reason that distillers outside Tennessee couldn't use this process if they wished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.36.205 (talk • contribs) 20:05, December 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the later portion; in Memphis, there is a desert known as the Tennessee Bourbon Pie. (Unfortunately, no Wiki article for it exists yet, but there's several google links.) This raises questions as to where the Bourbon in the original recipe came from. (Was Bourbon once legally made in TN or has all Bourbon made in TN been moon shining?) Jon 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Must be made in the United States?
I notice that a German whisky company called Höhler produces a whiskey they call "Bourbon Style". Is that a problem? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While I am not a legal expert, and you could probably find small scattered jurisdictions where most normal rules do not fully apply, "bourbon" is defined in U.S. law and enjoys the equivalent of Protected Geographical Status in most other parts of the world. The claim of "Bourbon Style" would seem to indicate the whisky in question was produced in the same manner as a true bourbon but at a location outside the United States.  This is equivalent to sparkling wines using the term méthode traditionnelle to indicate they are made using the same double fermentation process as Champagne. --Allen3 talk 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Searching the Foreign Trade Information System archives, http://www.sice.oas.org, a number of agreements exist with countries outside the United States to recognize bourbon as a "distinctive product of the United States," though I have been unable to find a reliable source listing all countries in one place. The countries that recognize Bourbon include Mexico and Canada (via NAFTA), Colombia, Panama, Peru, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Australia, and Chile. There are other sources on USTR.org that mention deals with the EU, UK, and Brazil. Chucklehammer (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it bourbon if the mash bill contains more than 79% corn? (first discussion)
In order to avoid a reversion war, I'll try to address this here. It has been asserted that a whiskey containing 80% or greater corn in its mash must be labelled 'corn whiskey' and not 'bourbon.' 27 CFR 5.22(b)(1)(i) and (ii) were supplied as evidence.

From 27 CFR 5.22(b)(1): Paragraph (i) concerns itself with the labelling of 'Bourbon whisky', 'rye whisky', 'malt whiskey, and 'rye malt whiskey'. It states that bourbon whisky must be distilled from a mash of more than 50% corn and stored in charred new oak containers.

Paragraph (ii) concerns itself with the labelling of 'corn whisky'. It states that bourbon whisky must be distilled from a mash of more than 80% corn and stored in used or uncharred new oak containers and not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood.

It is clear that a product distilled from a mash with 80% or greater corn content and stored in charred new oak containers qualifies as a bourbon under (b)(1)(i) and does not qualify as a corn whisky under (b)(1)(ii).

Please also see Tasting Suites: Bourbon Tasting with a Purpose by Charles K. Cowdery in which he states "I.W. Harper has a very high percentage of corn in its mash, about 86 percent..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.52.5 (talk • contribs)  16:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, you're right of course! I was confused. And frankly I'm still a bit confused. The regulation appears to leave undefined a) whiskeys more than 80% corn stored in charred barrels and b) whiskeys 51%-80% corn stored in untreated barrels. I wonder if such whiskeys are made, and how they would be classified if they were. Perhaps it's just illegal to use these methods? 65.23.171.130 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whiskey of 80% greater corn stored in charred barrels can be labeled bourbon if the barrels are new, it can be labeled corn whiskey if the barrels are used. It isn't illegal to distill a spirit from a mash of 51%-80% corn and store it in untreated barrels. It just cannot be labeled either bourbon or corn whiskey.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.52.5 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That last message seems a little garbled. Please allow me to rephrase it as follows: Whiskey of 80% or greater corn stored in charred barrels can be labeled bourbon if the barrels are new; it can be labeled as corn whiskey if the barrels are not charred. It isn't illegal to distill a spirit from a mash of 51%-79% corn and store it in uncharred barrels (or in used charred barrels), or to distill a spirit of 80%-100% corn and store it in used charred barrels. It just cannot be labeled either as bourbon or corn whiskey. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it bourbon if the mash bill contains more than 79% corn? (second discussion)
Is it true, as the Corn whiskey article states, that bourbon may consist of no more than 79% corn? Badagnani 06:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No. This is a common mistake. The regulations set a minimum, 51%, for the amount of corn in a bourbon mash, but no maximum. Many people assume that if the mash is 80% corn or more, it's not bourbon but corn whiskey. However, the difference between the two is how they are aged. Bourbon must be aged in new, charred oak barrels. For corn whiskey, there is no requirement that it be aged at all but, if it is, it must be aged in new uncharred or used barrels. In other words, if you make whiskey from 80+% corn and aged it in new charred wood, it's bourbon; in new uncharred or used wood, it's corn whiskey. Cowdery 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And even if the barrels are used barrels, they cannot be charred if you're going to call it Corn whiskey. It must be "not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood" to be called Corn whiskey. It might still be whiskey, but it can't be called Corn whiskey (in the U.S.). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a misinterpretation. In fact, when corn whiskey is aged it is almost always aged in used bourbon barrels, which have been formerly charred. Cowdery (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a plain quote of the law, specifically the Federal Register Title 27 › Chapter I › Subchapter A › Part 5 › Subpart C › Section 5.22 on "standards of identity", that corn whiskey must be "not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood." This is according the Cornell University Legal Information Institute at http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.22. If there is some rule saying that used charred wood is not charred wood then a source for it should be given. Colin McLarty (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose that's only a small segment of the actual phrasing. A longer quote is "if stored in oak containers stored at not more than 125° proof in used or uncharred new oak containers and not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood". The sentence doesn't seem crystal clear about whether or not that last phrase ("not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred woood") applies to the part about used containers, or about whether charring before a previous other use is considered "treatment with charred wood". Personally, at this point I trust that Cowdery is familiar with the actual industry practice that is governed by that strangely-written sentence, although it would be nice if we had some source to cite that says that explicitly. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the aging process required or not?
The last bullet point in the beginning of the article (Aged in new American, charred oak barrels for a minimum of two years.) seems to contradict the next paragraph: (Likewise the maturation process is not a legal requirement for a whiskey to be called "bourbon," but it is a legal requirement for "straight bourbon.")

From [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=21224b7c634d83e0fa329bfd18bb85dc&rgn=div8&view=text&node=27:1.0.1.1.3.3.25.2&idno=27 (the first reference) (emphasis mine):

'' (1)(i) “Bourbon whisky”, “rye whisky”, “wheat whisky”, “malt whisky”, or “rye malt whisky” 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.

'' (iii) Whiskies conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, which have been stored in the type of oak containers prescribed, for a period of 2 years or more shall be further designated as “straight”; for example, “straight bourbon whisky”, “straight corn whisky”, and whisky conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, except that it was produced from a fermented mash of less than 51 percent of any one type of grain, and stored for a period of 2 years or more in charred new oak containers shall be designated merely as “straight whisky”. No other whiskies may be designated “straight”. “Straight whisky” includes mixtures of straight whiskies of the same type produced in the same State.''

I didn't edit the article since I'm not really sure if I'm reading this all correctly, but it seems:

Bourbon Whiskey is aged in charred barrels for an undefined period of time.

Straight Bourbon Whiskey is aged in charred barrels for two years or more. 24.21.149.53 (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The rules clearly require that bourbon be aged in new, charred barrels but they don't say for how long. In practice, the minimum appears to be three months. There is a product on the market now called "Baby Bourbon" that is three months old, and the TTB approved that label. Cowdery (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal definition of "straight" bourbon
The issue of straight bourbon, aging and labeling is difficult to understand and explain. Let's get some citations for these suppositions:

—Rfbreeden (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it meets all the other criteria, and has been aged two years, it can be called "straight bourbon."
 * A "duration of aging" label is only required for bourbons aged less than four years -- aged longer and it requires no "duration of aging label.
 * A Straight bourbon isn't required by law to carry a label saying its 'straight boubon'

See above. The citations are all there. The first two points are explicitly in the Standards of Identity, cited throughout this page and in the article. The third point is clear on reading the rules, but it's moot since virtually all bourbons sold are straight bourbon and virtually all of them use the words "straight bourbon" on the label. If you don't see the words "straight bourbon" but you also do not find an age statement, then it must, logically, be straight bourbon since the rules require an age statement for any bourbon less than four years old.Cowdery (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding where it talks about requiring an aging statement if aged less than four years. Is that perhaps in some section other than Sec. 5.22? –BarrelProof (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I found it. It's in Sec. 5.40, not 5.22. I added the correct reference to the article. There are also some requirements there about Bourbon that is not "straight".  It may be a good idea to add a description of those to the article as well. –BarrelProof (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No flavoring allowed? (What about Red Stag?)
I have a bit of a problem with the assertion that "Neither coloring nor flavoring may be added". Does that mean that Red Stag is not really a bourbon, since it contains cherry flavoring? The brand web site seems to say that it is a bourbon (specifically, they call it "a different breed of bourbon"), and Fortune Brands lists it in their web site's list of bourbon brands. I looked at the referenced law document, and did not find a statement saying that no coloring or flavoring can be added. Maybe it's there somewhere in the language, but I found it a bit difficult to read. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Going to the product website and looking at the bottle label shows that the product in question is labeled as "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Infused With Natural Flavors". With such a label, the rest of your question is probably caused by the interaction and different meanings of legal and marketing terminology. --Allen3 talk 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe. But do you actually see anywhere in that says that you can't add color or flavor and call it bourbon? If it's not written there, that line saying "Neither coloring nor flavoring may be added" should be removed from the Bourbon whiskey page. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

After further study and thought, I think the statement is true and should not be removed, even though it may not be explicitly stated in that manner in. I believe that somewhere it says that if you add color or flavor it needs to be called blended whiskey rather than bourbon. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Red Stag notwithstanding, of course. Maybe you can also call it "Bourbon infused with coloring or flavoring" also. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * However, even if you can call Red Stag "Bourbon infused with something", it seems questionable to include Red Stag in a list of bourbon brands, and to call it "a different breed of bourbon" (since that seems to say it is still a kind of bourbon). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after further study, I notice that the statement was not actually entirely true, in the case of a Bourbon labeled as Blended. According to Section 5.22(b)(4), you can still call it a Bourbon if it's at least 51% straight bourbon and is labeled as a blend. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Think of Red Stag as a product with two ingredients. One ingredient is Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, the other ingredient is cherry flavoring. It's no different than a Beam and Cola pre-mix. Putting Cola in the can doesn't render the bourbon un-bourbon. It is simply bourbon with cola.Cowdery (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proof limit numbers - Which is it? (160 proof for distillation vs. 125 proof for aging)
"It is distilled to no more than 160 (U.S.) proof, and aged in new charred oak barrels for at least two years" vs. "Bourbon must be put into the barrels at no more than 125 U.S. proof." These statements seem contradictory. MrZaius talk 16:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

if the text is mostly correct, my guess would be that it leaves the barrels at no more than 125 U.S. proof, and then adjusted to 80–100 proof and bottled.--Edgjerp 10:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm drinking a glass of Booker's at the moment which is legally marked at 126.6 proof, and is also (legally) marketed as a bourbon. the 125 proof limitation is un-cited and flat out wrong. I'd change it, but, i don't really exist. --doesn't exist

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.252.59 (talk • contribs)  02:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the whiskey can come off the still at up to 160 proof, but since it has to go into the barrel at no more than 125 proof, water is added to reduce it to at least that proof. Then water is added again, after aging is completed and the barrels have been dumped, to reduce it to bottling proof. Since a whiskey's proof may rise during aging, barrel-proof whiskeys such as Booker's and George Stagg can exceed 125 proof. Cowdery 22:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal limits on alcohol content
A statement reading: "Some jurisdictions, mostly in the United States, do not allow alcoholic beverages with over 40% alcohol content to be sold. However, the recent trend among distillers has been to return to higher proofs, and even “cask strength” bottlings.'" was removed today, but there are a handful of weak soruces I've been able to find that indicate that Ohio limits grocery store sales of spirits to a maximum of 80 proof. Haven't been able to find anything authoritative enough to put into the article, but it'd be nice to have someone verify that the statement is false before removing it. Ditto on the trend to up the alcohol content. - Restoring and requesting citation. Then we can pop it off in a week or two if no citation can be found or remove it immediately if we can confirm its invalidity. MrZaius talk 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ohio law WRT to spirits sales is peculiar in that distilled spirits bottled at 21% alcohol-by-volume or less may be sold in grocery stores and other general merchandise stores, whereas distilled spirits bottled at more than 21% ABV may be sold only in state controlled liquor stores. The Ohio Liquor Control Board's web site (http://www.liquorcontrol.ohio.gov/liquor.htm) isn't very good, but this information can be teased out of it. So, basically, grocery stores can't sell anything above 42 proof (21% abv), which hardly makes the restored statement true.

Federal law sets a minimum of 80 proof for spirits such as whiskey, same cite as the other "Standards of Identity" mentioned. Whiskey may be bottled and sold at less than 80 proof, but it has to be labeled as "diluted" and, in fact, in Ohio grocery stores you can buy this diluted bourbon, gin, vodka, etc., but in the "state stores" (now agency stores) you can buy all of the normal stuff.

The facts are that all straight whiskey (bourbon, rye, etc.) sold in the United States, with the "diluted" exception noted above, is 80 proof or higher and, in fact, 80 is the most common proof, whereas 100 is "full proof" historically and still common, and there are bourbons sold today at as high as 142 proof (a particular release of George T. Stagg).

I don't know of any US jurisdiction where spirits bottled at more than 40% abv cannot be sold, except for those where no alcohol of any kind can be sold. The only proof-based restriction of which I am aware is the Ohio one cited above. Mr. Ziaus mentions "a handful of weak sources" but doesn't cite any of them. I don't see why you need a citation to delete something that is both wrong and irrelevant, in that even if it was true (which it's not) it wouldn't play a big part in the overall story. Cowdery 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Main thing I was concerned about was that it might be something the original author had a valid source for - all I found were a couple of week blog and forum posts that implied the above. However, if it hasn't been sourced yet, I'd definitely say axe it.  I didn't mean to let it stand for three weeks, but I've been distracted making sure the witches don't take over. ;) MrZaius talk  00:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Purported "health benefits"
will someone a little more experienced than me please either clean remove this section or move the statement about folklore into history.

Unless a scientific paper on the health benefits of a certain type of whiskey can be produced this is not constructive at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.214.63 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I'm going to take the bold step to remove it. Any health claims related to bourbon are exactly the same as the health claims, and health risks, related to every other alcoholic beverage.Cowdery (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A tendancy toward the promotional
This article keeps tending to include gratuitous external links and flowery statements basically promoting bourbon, Kentucky or some other special interest group.

Wikipedia is all about npov. —842U (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit I just made (topic unclear)
is a no-brainer. if there had already been a link to whiskey sorta close to the top I'd a... any objecions plz explain. thxkbai. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 17:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested addition: wheated bourbon section
I was kind of surprised there isn't a section on wheated bourbons, I don't think I have the knowledge or writing skill to add one though. maybe chuck cowdery could? 72.82.0.156 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it merits a whole section, but I think it is worth mentioning. I just added a description of what a wheated bourbon is. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sour Mash
A note on this- Sour Mash has NOTHING to do with the bourbon/ tennessee whiskey distinction. It is merely a process where fermented mash is used to start the fermentation of the next batch. It's commonly used in bourbon and is in no way specific to Tennessee. A mention should probably be retained, but it should not be used as it is in the intro, as that info is completely wrong. If somebody wants to make a note of it somewhere else, they should. But I'm going to go ahead and remove the incorrect bit in the intro.

Signed, -some random IP 128.153.216.204 (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I basically agree. Moreover, it's not only not specific to Tennessee, but it's also not specific to bourbon. Regardless of all that, I don't actually see anything in the current version of the article that conflicts with the facts. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Every major American distillery makes its whiskey using the sour mash process. Most micro-distilleries use the alternative sweet mash process. Sour mash is not a regulated term. Some producers put it on their label, most do not. Cowdery (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Taste/Flavor

 * "Rev. Craig (credited with many Kentucky firsts, e.g., fulling mill, paper mill, ropewalk, etc.) is said to also be the first to age the distillation in charred oak casks, "a process that gives the bourbon its reddish color and unique taste."

It would be great for those who aren't drinkers to know more about this unique taste. The page on Rye whiskey mentions that it has a spicier flavor so it would be useful to have at least a short mention of what the flavor of bourbon is like (especially compared to other whiskies like Scotch whisky or Canadian whisky). Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing antecedent for "Lincoln County process"
A paragraph in the Geographic Origin section begins with "The U.S. regulations defining bourbon do not prohibit the Lincoln County process". However, neither the process nor even Lincoln County is mentioned anywhere else in this article. Either the statement should be removed, or (if significant to the geographic discussion) "Lincoln County process" should be introduced and identified. At the very least, since Lincoln County Process does have its own article, there should be an internal link to it. (My guess is that there probably used to be one, but it got lost during an revision. I'm just feeling too timid today to add the link myself.) Starling2001 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current content of the article is a bit mixed up as the result of various revisions. Part of the problem is the recent change of law, and its special exception for Benjamin Prichard's. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Devil's cut
The text says bourbon retained in the wood of the barrel "is sometimes referred to as the 'devil's cut'." This terminology seems to be recently invented for Jim Beam advertisements. It should probably come out of the article. Colin McLarty (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have removed it. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Devil's Cut" is the name of a specific brand of bourbon and not a generic term $\langle\rangle$. --Allen3 talk 13:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Bourbon's Dirty Little Secret
"(Rvt good faith addition. It's not just MGP that sells wholesale, other major distilleries do as well (even if they sell their own juice too). Such selling isn't really that noteworthy, and the mention of the one producer" Ok but add that rather than remove this well-sourced fact. If if really wasn't "noteworthy" that itself would be noteworthy, btw. If they bother to put it on their labels it must be noteworthy to them. There are also unenforced federal laws. Any unenforced law is noteworthy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Information about labeling has been reverted twice. I am open to a better presentation of the information but not to its removal. There is no policy reason which will support complete removal of well-sourced information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "in general"
For some reason this editor has removed an innocuous edit, and won't explain their rationale. Is there an inherent problem with adding "in general" when associating Bourbon with the south? It is associated with the US as a whole outside of the US, being a "protected brand".That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence works either way. I used to want to include "in general" (and it might have been me that put it there originally), but it doesn't really seem necessary. I do tend to like it because it provides some symmetry with the following phrase "in particular". If the phrase is included, I don't think there should be a comma before the "in general" (and there isn't a comma before "in particular"). As a more substantial issue about that same sentence, I wonder if it's really true that bourbon is especially associated with the South. Kentucky is really more of a border state than a southern state, and almost all of it (about 95%) comes from Kentucky (and that's mostly from the northern part of Kentucky, I think). A lot of what's left comes from MGP of Indiana, which is farther north than that. Depending on your definition of bourbon, there are also some producers in Tennessee, but they don't call it bourbon, and Tennessee is also Upland South, not Deep South. There's practically no bourbon made in the Deep South, so what's the association with the South? Is it consumed more there than in the North? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is particularly about consumption, and a general association of bourbon with southern cuisine and other aspects of southern culture. Yeah, Kentucky is Upland South, but that's still southern in culture, which is the idea being expressed. That said, having both "in general" and "in particular" in the same sentence is pretty redundant and unneeded, so it's fine to leave it out. oknazevad (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)