Lomond not from Loch Lomond

Mosstowie 40 yo 1979/2020 (49.8%, Gordon MacPhail ?125th Anniversary?, refill sherry hogshead, cask #20323, 164 bottles) – Glencraig 44 yo 1975/2020 (54.2%, Gordon MacPhail ?125th Anniversary?, refill hogshead, cask #9868, 110 bottles)

Mosstowie 40 yo 1979/2020 (49.8%, Gordon MacPhail ?125th Anniversary?, refill sherry hogshead, cask #20323, 164 bottles) - Glencraig 44 yo 1975/2020 (54.2%, Gordon MacPhail ?125th Anniversary?, refill hogshead, cask #9868, 110 bottles)

More rums, still looking for malternatives

Mauritius 9 yo (42%, Compagnie des Indes, 455 bottles, 2020) – Panama 9 yo (40.6%, El Ron del Artesano, Tawny Port cask, cask #186-16, 346 bottles) – Bonpland ?Rouge VSOP? (40%, OB, Germany, blended rum, +/-2020) – Uitvlugt 30 yo 1989/2020 (55.8%, Silv…

Mauritius 9 yo (42%, Compagnie des Indes, 455 bottles, 2020) - Panama 9 yo (40.6%, El Ron del Artesano, Tawny Port cask, cask #186-16, 346 bottles) - Bonpland ?Rouge VSOP? (40%, OB, Germany, blended rum, +/-2020) - Uitvlugt 30 yo 1989/2020 (55.8%, Silver Seal, Guyana) - Appleton Estate 26 yo 1994/2020 (60%, OB, Hearts Collection, Jamaica, 300 bottles) - Fernandes ?Vat 19? (43%, OB, Trinidad, for Italy, 1960s) - Diamond (Versailles Stills) 16 yo 2004/2020 (58.9%, Tamosi ? Kanaima, Guyana)

Triple Talisker

Talisker 10 yo (45.8%, OB, -/+ 1988) – Talisker 18 yo (45.8%, OB, -/+ 2010) – Talisker 15 yo 2002/2019 (57.3%, OB ?Special Releases?, charred American oak hogsheads)

Talisker 10 yo (45.8%, OB, -/+ 1988) - Talisker 18 yo (45.8%, OB, -/+ 2010) - Talisker 15 yo 2002/2019 (57.3%, OB ?Special Releases?, charred American oak hogsheads)

Little duos, today Pulteney

Pulteney 12 yo 2008/2020 (43%, La Maison du Whisky, Artist Collective, sherry butt recask, 1860 bottles) – Old Pulteney 2006/2019 (51.4%, OB, The W Club Exclusive, cask #1448, 276 bottles)

Pulteney 12 yo 2008/2020 (43%, La Maison du Whisky, Artist Collective, sherry butt recask, 1860 bottles) - Old Pulteney 2006/2019 (51.4%, OB, The W Club Exclusive, cask #1448, 276 bottles)

Today, two Royal Glenuries

Glenury Royal 35 yo 1984/2020 (49.1%, Gordon MacPhail ?125th Anniversary?, cask #2335, sherry butt, 397 bottles) – Glenury Royal 13 yo 1966/1979 (80 proof, Cadenhead, sherry wood, black dumpy)

Glenury Royal 35 yo 1984/2020 (49.1%, Gordon MacPhail ?125th Anniversary?, cask #2335, sherry butt, 397 bottles) - Glenury Royal 13 yo 1966/1979 (80 proof, Cadenhead, sherry wood, black dumpy)

Glen Keith at good speed

Glen Keith 21 yo (43%, OB, batch #GK/001, +/-2019) – Glen Keith 27 yo 1992/2020 (48.4%, Spirits Shop Selection for LMDW, bourbon barrel, cask #120605, 161 bottles) – Glen Keith 1995/2017 ?Forest Fresh? (46%, Wemyss Malts, hogshead, 315 bottles) – Glen …

Glen Keith 21 yo (43%, OB, batch #GK/001, +/-2019) - Glen Keith 27 yo 1992/2020 (48.4%, Spirits Shop Selection for LMDW, bourbon barrel, cask #120605, 161 bottles) - Glen Keith 1995/2017 ?Forest Fresh? (46%, Wemyss Malts, hogshead, 315 bottles) - Glen Keith 24 yo 1993/2018 (49.3%, Gordon MacPhail, Connoisseurs Choice, refill bourbon barrel, cask #18/078, 205 bottles) - Glen Keith 24 yo 1994/2019 (51%, Asta Morris, bourbon, cask #AM129, 179 bottles) - Glen Keith 1993/2018 (55.8%, Or Sileis, Taiwan, Arthurian Tales, sherry hogshead, cask #998, 243 bottles) - Glen Keith 27 yo 1993/2020 (58.4%, Liquid Treasures, From Miles Away, bourbon barrel, cask #8527, 146 bottles) - Glen Keith 21 yo 1996/2018 (51.5%, Douglas Laing, Old Particular, refill butt, cask #DL12575, 244 bottles) - Glen Keith-Glenlivet 42 yo 1973/2015 (45.8%, Cadenhead, Single Cask, bourbon hogshead, 180 bottles)

Fanciful Name Fallacy

Brown Sugar Bourbon?  We all know that Bourbon by code can’t have any coloring or flavorings, so how does this grotesque whiskey exist?  The answer is ‘Brown Sugar Bourbon’ is not Bourbon but a Whiskey Specialty; it’s listed in this product’s COLA application as a fanciful name.  When a spirit type does not fall under … Continue reading “Fanciful Name Fallacy”

Brown Sugar Bourbon?  We all know that Bourbon by code can’t have any coloring or flavorings, so how does this grotesque whiskey exist?  The answer is ‘Brown Sugar Bourbon’ is not Bourbon but a Whiskey Specialty; it’s listed in this product’s COLA application as a fanciful name. 

When a spirit type does not fall under any one clear class/type designation, the TTB encourages the producer to use a fanciful name to describe it.  Most products marketed as ‘Moonshine’ use that word on their label as a fanciful name; it does not exist anywhere in federal code as a class/type.  It’s all marketing trend words.


‘American Single Malt’ does not exist as a class type yet plenty of producers have this listed on their label.  If you check the COLA label on these, you will see they are using this as a fanciful name.  The brand name is Westland and the class/type is the general category of Whiskey.  This is simply Westland Whiskey with American Single Malt squeezed in between.

The TTB describes a fanciful name as “a term used in addition to the brand name for the purposes of further identifying a product”.  The TTB also states that product labels should not be misleading.  In the case of American Single Malt, I think it’s fair to say it correctly identifies the whiskey and provides a consumer with a better understanding of the product in the bottle, which is a whiskey derived from malted barley produced at a single distillery in the USA.

But what about Brown Sugar Bourbon?  First they are using an actual class/type whiskey, Bourbon, in their fanciful name.  That does not help a consumer further identify the product, it does the opposite and creates consumer confusion – is this a Bourbon distilled from brown sugar?

They use the term not once but twice and in a much larger font than the actual statement of composition which is ‘Bourbon whiskey with natural brown sugar & cinnamon flavors & caramel color’.  I asked the TTB about this and their response was “they look at labels in their entirety when determining whether a label is compliant (including whether it may be misleading to the consumer).” This is also bottled at 60 proof.  Bourbon by code has to be bottled at 80 proof.  So the statement of composition should also include diluted with water.  How far can a spirit go away from being Bourbon and the TTB allow a statement of composition to cover all?  My fanciful name in large type will be Marzipan Bourbon. In the small print statement of composition it will be listed as Bourbon with 60% GNS added with coconut nibs, marzipan and caramel coloring diluted with water to 40 proof. We will see if Fred Minnick will include this in one of his tastings.

Label artwork courtesy of Todd Grube.

The Scotch Whiskey Association would never allow whiskey with these types of flavors added to be marketed as Scotch.  In the USA we have the TTB that enforces what defines Bourbon. By allowing products like this into the market they are lowering the bar for what consumers think of bourbon and long term my opinion is that will have detrimental effects.

Fanciful Name Fallacy

Brown Sugar Bourbon?  We all know that Bourbon by code can’t have any coloring or flavorings, so how does this grotesque whiskey exist?  The answer is ‘Brown Sugar Bourbon’ is not Bourbon but a Whiskey Specialty; it’s listed in this product’s COLA application as a fanciful name.  When a spirit type does not fall under … Continue reading “Fanciful Name Fallacy”

Brown Sugar Bourbon?  We all know that Bourbon by code can’t have any coloring or flavorings, so how does this grotesque whiskey exist?  The answer is ‘Brown Sugar Bourbon’ is not Bourbon but a Whiskey Specialty; it’s listed in this product’s COLA application as a fanciful name. 

When a spirit type does not fall under any one clear class/type designation, the TTB encourages the producer to use a fanciful name to describe it.  Most products marketed as ‘Moonshine’ use that word on their label as a fanciful name; it does not exist anywhere in federal code as a class/type.  It’s all marketing trend words.


‘American Single Malt’ does not exist as a class type yet plenty of producers have this listed on their label.  If you check the COLA label on these, you will see they are using this as a fanciful name.  The brand name is Westland and the class/type is the general category of Whiskey.  This is simply Westland Whiskey with American Single Malt squeezed in between.

The TTB describes a fanciful name as “a term used in addition to the brand name for the purposes of further identifying a product”.  The TTB also states that product labels should not be misleading.  In the case of American Single Malt, I think it’s fair to say it correctly identifies the whiskey and provides a consumer with a better understanding of the product in the bottle, which is a whiskey derived from malted barley produced at a single distillery in the USA.

But what about Brown Sugar Bourbon?  First they are using an actual class/type whiskey, Bourbon, in their fanciful name.  That does not help a consumer further identify the product, it does the opposite and creates consumer confusion – is this a Bourbon distilled from brown sugar?

They use the term not once but twice and in a much larger font than the actual statement of composition which is ‘Bourbon whiskey with natural brown sugar & cinnamon flavors & caramel color’.  I asked the TTB about this and their response was “they look at labels in their entirety when determining whether a label is compliant (including whether it may be misleading to the consumer).” This is also bottled at 60 proof.  Bourbon by code has to be bottled at 80 proof.  So the statement of composition should also include diluted with water.  How far can a spirit go away from being Bourbon and the TTB allow a statement of composition to cover all?  My fanciful name in large type will be Marzipan Bourbon. In the small print statement of composition it will be listed as Bourbon with 60% GNS added with coconut nibs, marzipan and caramel coloring diluted with water to 40 proof. We will see if Fred Minnick will include this in one of his tastings.

Label artwork courtesy of Todd Grube.

The Scotch Whiskey Association would never allow whiskey with these types of flavors added to be marketed as Scotch.  In the USA we have the TTB that enforces what defines Bourbon. By allowing products like this into the market they are lowering the bar for what consumers think of bourbon and long term my opinion is that will have detrimental effects.

Bag of Brackla

Royal Brackla 2007/2019 (46%, Scyfion Choice, Banyuls finish, 150 bottles) – Royal Brackla 13 yo 2007/2020 (48%, La Maison du Whisky, Artist Collective, first fill sherry butt, 1476 bottles) – Royal Brackla 10 yo 2008/2019 (56.3%, Cadenhead, Authentic…

Royal Brackla 2007/2019 (46%, Scyfion Choice, Banyuls finish, 150 bottles) - Royal Brackla 13 yo 2007/2020 (48%, La Maison du Whisky, Artist Collective, first fill sherry butt, 1476 bottles) - Royal Brackla 10 yo 2008/2019 (56.3%, Cadenhead, Authentic Collection, bourbon hogshead, 294 bottles) - Royal Brackla 12 yo 2006/2019 (57.37%, Cadenhead, Small Batch, bourbon hogshead, 1050 bottles)

Another Bowmore frenzy

Bowmore 17 yo 2002/2020 (54.9%, The Character of Islay, The Stories of Wind and Wave) – Bowmore 30 yo (58%, Hunter Laing, The Kinship, Edition #3, oloroso, 256 bottles, 2020) – Bowmore 18 yo 2001/2020 (55.2%, North Star Spirits, hogshead, 190 bottles) …

Bowmore 17 yo 2002/2020 (54.9%, The Character of Islay, The Stories of Wind and Wave) - Bowmore 30 yo (58%, Hunter Laing, The Kinship, Edition #3, oloroso, 256 bottles, 2020) - Bowmore 18 yo 2001/2020 (55.2%, North Star Spirits, hogshead, 190 bottles) - Bowmore 16 yo 2003/2019 (56.6%, Chieftain?s for Or Sileis, Taiwan, barrel, cask #79, 213 bottles) - Bowmore ?Vault Edition? (50.1%, OB, Second Release, 2019) - Bowmore 25 yo (43%, OB, +/-2019) - Bowmore 20 yo 2000/2020 (51.7%, WhiskySponge, 172 bottles)