This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I have to confess that I was rather surprised to see that while there were articles devoted to the different types of American whiskeys, there was no one article that encompassed the whole of the American whiskey industry. The information that I have added here is basically just a cut and paste from the main article on whisky with a couple of pictures tossed in. As such, giving the wealth of information of this topic, the article is woefully inadequate. (Mea culpa) I will try to beef it up in the next few days and I hope that others interested in this topic will do the same. Bottoms up! Hammersbach (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that bourbon whiskey is 51% corn and that straight whiskey is derived from less than 51% of a single grain. At possible odds with this statement is Maker's Marks Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whisky. Is Maker's Mark playing fast and loose with their terminology or does this article need some editing by someone more knowledgeable than myself?
Trrobnett (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by law a bourbon whiskey must contain at least 51% corn while a straight whiskey must contain at least 51% of any single grain. Therefore, if a whiskey can legally be called a bourbon it can also legally be called a straight whiskey. Maker's Mark is basically doubling up on their label. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually. Please read the legal definition carefully. There is no requirement that a "straight whiskey" must contain at least 51% of any single grain. And the regulations do define a category called "straight bourbon whisky" that is distinct from an ordinary "bourbon whiskey". A "straight bourbon whiskey" is a bourbon whiskey that has been aged for 2 years or more. I don't notice any specific length of time that an ordinary "bourbon whiskey" would need to be aged. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a "straight whiskey" cannot contain additives or flavorings or spirits distilled to more than 80% abv, and must be put into the (charred new oak) barrels for aging at a concentration not exceeding 62.5% abv. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S. Code (title 27 part 5, subpart C, section 5.22), it says that bourbon whisky is defined as a type of whisky, and whisky must be bottled at not less than 40% ABV. However, I see that Cougar bourbon whiskey (produced in the U.S. and sold in Australia and advertised as an "authentic sour mash whiskey") is bottled at only 37% ABV. Is the U.S. producer violating the code? Does Australia not recognize the U.S. law that defines bourbon whisky? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think I found the loophole (or at least one relevant loophole). The U.S. regulations include substantial exemptions for products that are made for export rather than for consumption within the United States (C.F.R. Title 27, § 5.1). In fact, it appears that the entire section governing the definition of the "standards of identity" and the truth-in-labelling requirements is exempted from applying to products for export. Also, of course, Australia (and other countries) may make its own rules about what can be called Bourbon, which might conceivably differ from the U.S. rules. This makes me wonder whether people outside the U.S. are really consuming what they think they are consuming when they drink an American whiskey. I wonder whether this also explains why some brands are labelled as Bourbon outside the U.S. but not inside the U.S. – perhaps the product in the bottles is the same but does not actually qualify to be labelled as Bourbon within the U.S. Also, of course, sometimes the product in the bottle may be a different product even when the brand name on the label is the same. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defines "whisky" and not "whiskey" should not this article be renamed and the contents corrected? The only major user of the term whiskey is the Irish. America, Scotland, Canada and most others use the more common term whisky. Even if not renamed, definitions should be corrected to match the CFR. Spectre9 (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. The same CFR you cite readily acknowledges the traditional American spelling of "whiskey" and specifically allows for its usage. Hammersbach (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I believe the actual document dictating the official spelling came from a memo back in 1968 by the ATF, which I had, and lost, a copy of. Either way, the traditional spelling of "whiskey" is authorized. Hammersbach (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK the "Whisky" spelling is only allowed to be used for Scotch whisky whereas "Whiskey" usually denotes American-produced liquor, such as Bourbon. IIRC, if the liquor is not produced in Scotland then it is illegal under UK Trading Standards to call it "Whisky" in the UK - it has to be labelled "Whiskey" with an "e". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.233 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the US regulations refer to "oak" or "new oak" and refer to charring. But is there a capacity limit? For example, there is a 700 L capacity limit for the aging of Canadian whisky. At first glance, I don't see a limit expressed in the US regulations – e.g., in CFR 27 5.21(1)(i). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are correct in that there is no legal limit to barrel size. And there are those micro-distillers that are using small barrels, like Tullithtown, but as far as it seems the only real practical limit is that the few major cooperages that supply the US bourbon industry all make the same standard 53 US gallon size barrel. So this might be one of those cases where the actual practice does more to define the spirit than the regulations. oknazevad (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 4 external links on American whiskey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
