Bottled in bond

[Kent Wang]

Wikipedia has a short primer about this term, though it's not well referenced and accuracy is uncertain.

Is bottling in bond still a practice? I saw a show on TV about grappa production in Italy and it was done in a government-padlocked warehouse, so the practice is certainly alive somewhere.

I understand the history and motivation of bonding, but it seems that in the modern age, adulteration and other forms of "cheating" by distillers is no longer a problem. For example, you don't see bottled in bond vodka.

The two bonded products that I can think of are Rittenhouse and Laird's. They both make cheaper bottlings that are not bonded. Why is the Rittenhouse 80 proof not bonded? The Wikipedia article states that "bottled-in-bond whiskey must be the product of one distillation season, one distillery and one distiller". Does that mean that in addition to a lower proof, it fails to meet one of the above criteria, or that the distillery just didn't want to go through trouble and expense of having it bonded?

How much does bonding cost? The distillery probably pays the government a fee for its services.

[thirtyoneknots]

Bonded whiskey must also be bottled at 100 proof, so 80 proof whiskey could not be labelled as "bonded" although it may well be aged the same way. In all likelyhood they age everything in the same place and just add more water to make 80 proof than they do for the Bonded. Strange as it seems to us here on a board like this, many consumers do not want their whiskies to be that potent for a variety of reasons and are more likely to buy the 80 proof version of a product if it is available. I think that is the main reason for producing a lower proof version alongside a bonded product, not to skirt any regulations.

Bonded Vodka makes no sense conceptually because the spirit does not require aging.

As I was typing this I got to thinking about how many whiskies are still out there labelled as 'Bottled in Bond'? We have the fan favorites of Rittenhouse and Laird's, as well as a very good candidate for my favorite Bourbon of all time, the Old Grand-dad BIB. Any others out there? It certainly isn't as common as it once was/ought to be.

[TAPrice]

Strange as it seems to us here on a board like this, many consumers do not want their whiskies to be that potent for a variety of reasons and are more likely to buy the 80 proof version of a product if it is available. I think that is the main reason for producing a lower proof version alongside a bonded product, not to skirt any regulations.

Jimmy Russell of Wild Turkey told me they finally produced a lower proof version because some restaurants (assuming national chains) and stores could not carry high-proof spirits.

Are the "bonded" liquors really bonded by the government anymore? Does the ATF still explicitly define what constitutes a bonded spirit?

And is Laird's applejack not only watered down but also mixed with neutral spirits?

[thirtyoneknots]

Strange as it seems to us here on a board like this, many consumers do not want their whiskies to be that potent for a variety of reasons and are more likely to buy the 80 proof version of a product if it is available. I think that is the main reason for producing a lower proof version alongside a bonded product, not to skirt any regulations.

Jimmy Russell of Wild Turkey told me they finally produced a lower proof version because some restaurants (assuming national chains) and stores could not carry high-proof spirits.

Are the "bonded" liquors really bonded by the government anymore? Does the ATF still explicitly define what constitutes a bonded spirit?

And is Laird's applejack not only watered down but also mixed with neutral spirits?

Wild Turkey doesn't explicitly say 'Bottled in Bond' and the proof is 101 not 100, but I've always been curious about that.

Unless there has been some law to supersede the Bottled in Bond Act of 1897 I can't imagine produers would be allowed to use that term on the label without following those rules, so I reckon the Gov't is involved somehow.

And yeah the regular 80 proof applejack is blended with goofyness like apple wine and neutral spirits so even if it was otherwise 'bonded' it wouldn't be 'straight apple brandy'. No idea how this applies to their higher end stuff.

[db_campbell]

As I was typing this I got to thinking about how many whiskies are still out there labelled as 'Bottled in Bond'? We have the fan favorites of Rittenhouse and Laird's, as well as a very good candidate for my favorite Bourbon of all time, the Old Grand-dad BIB. Any others out there? It certainly isn't as common as it once was/ought to be.

Off hand, I know Henry McKenna single barrel to be BiB.

[warrenbobrow]

Old Bourbon was usually bottled in bond to protect the authenticity of the brand. Old Bourbon usually tastes much different than what they call Bourbon today. Kentucky Bourbon is real Bourbon.

[slkinsey]

Kent, I'm not entirely sure what your question is. The Bottled in Bond Act was originally enacted to combat the proliferation of adulterated or otherwise faked bottles of spirits claiming to be something other than what they really were. This may have been especially important in 1897 for American spirits that were now largely consumed out of labeled bottles rather than served or bottled on site out of barrels (someone like Dave would know more about that than I).

But yes, they still keep these things in bonded warehouses, etc. And there some advantages to producing a bonded product if you are shooting for a 100 proof "straight" spirit -- primary among them the fact that the distiller doesn't have to pay excise tax on the spirit as soon as it runs out of the still, but instead pays the excise tax when the aged spirit is removed from the warehouse and bottled for sale. On the other hand, bonded spirits must be the result of one distilling season, one distillery and one distiller -- so there is no possibility of blending for consistency, etc. (which is easier). So some producers of products that might otherwise qualify (Wild Turkey, for example) don't bother bonding their product, presumably because they don't feel that the cachet and tax break make up for the restrictions on their production methods.