gillmang wrote:Isn't Jack Daniels a good example? The word bourbon does not appear on the label even though it may well qualify to carry it. The word whiskey does appear, but I wonder, today, how significant even that is.
No, Gary, Jack Daniel's, by law, is not qualified to carry the word bourbon on its label. The famous rejection letter that Reagor Motlow received in the early '40s and turned into the basis for an awesomely successful advertising campaign made that perfectly clear. And the result? Well, it sure doesn't look like not being "qualified" to use the word "bourbon" has hurt their sales any, does it? In fact, if the TTB or ATF or BAT or whatever it is this year were to suddenly decide to allow Lincoln-processed whiskey to be called "bourbon", Brown-Forman probably wouldn't feel it to be worth the cost of re-labeling.
Most JD drinkers don't think it's bourbon anyway... they think it's sour mash instead.
But JD does make a perfect illustration of how little it matters what your product is required to be (or not be) called. Would removing the word "Whiskey" from the label of, say, Old Grand Dad Straight Kentucky Bourbon cause it to lose sales?
Do you even know whether it SAYS whiskey on the front of the label? (uh huh, you had to look, didn't you?)
My point is that we ought to just LET the Scotch Whiskey Ass ociaton have their way and limit the word whisky to only the products they control.
Chuck, are the Indians upset because they think no one will buy Randipoor "Old Elephant" Special Reserve if it doesn't say Whisky on it?
Or is it just the less-principled minority who see their customers only as suckers to whom they must continue selling
CalCutty Sark Whisky, with tartan plaids and bagpipes on the label?