Pure Pot Still vs. Single Pot Still.

[John]

Who exactly is insisting that the spirit be renamed Single Pot Still? Is it the US Trade authorities? If so, why not just rename the products to be sold in that territory for them and keep the traditional description as God intended for all right-thinking people!!?
J.

[DavidH]

I was wondering what's not "pure" about Pure Pot Still. I know EU and American laws are touchy about such product claims but I don't see why it wouldn't stand up in this case. There are no additives (assuming there is no caramel in current PPS bottlings).

[IainB]

I suppose if you relate the terms to single malt it makes sense. The term Pure Malt has often been used to describe both single malts and vatted / blended malts.

Pure pot still could, in theory, be pot still whiskey from more than one distillery combined. (Yes I know there's only one....at the moment). So if I bottle Midleton pot still or combine it with some Old Comber, the term is the same. I suppose single pot still would clarify that it's from one distillery.

I know we like the term PPS but I actually think the term single pot still might be of benefit outside of Ireland where no one really knows what PPS is anyway. It sounds closer to "single malt" which people are familiar with as a term. The problem Redbreast / Greenspot sometimes encounter outside (and inside) Ireland is that people will ask if it's a single malt - if its not then they will assume it's a blend. I've encountered this from retailers, never mind the general public.

So I don't think it's the term Pure that's at issue.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Think you hit the nail on the head there Iain ... I'm not overly opposed to it either and as nice as the old term is the new term will as you say go half way towards making PPS (or is that SPS now) a more defined product and protected by law which it has never had.

From talking to some of the IDL guys this has been going on for years and there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in Europe never mind worrying about the states.

[DavidH]

I agree with what you said, Iain, regarding the advantages of the new term. But it was definitely prompted by an issue with the word "pure". A press release from IDL today says:

"The new terminology was prompted by the launch of Redbreast 15 Year Old Pure Pot Still Irish Whiskey in the USA in 2010, wherein the US Trade & Tariff Bureau (TTB) invoked a regulation prohibiting the use of the term ‘pure’ as it pertains to whiskey descriptors."

Checking on that, I think they mean the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

[DavidH]

There are three new posts on my blog now: the new Green Spot, the new Redbreast and Single Pot Still v Pure Pot Still.

http://www.irishwhiskeynotes.com/

[Stephen]

Bottles of Redbreast in O'Briens have the new labeling .... looks nice.

Still old versions available for those that want to hoard !!!!

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Nice scoup David, thanks for letting us know. We had a fair idea this was on the cards. Still not sure what I think on the Greenspot ... a bit wine bottle like but the bottle shape actually looks like it may be unique but I cannot be sure. Probably need to see one in the flesh, won't stop me from drinking it though :lo:. Very smart and slick though and hopefully might breath some new life into the brand. The Redbreast is fairly close to the previous label which is good as it is fairly iconic but the excellent part is the rear label which has some excellent info for the casual shopper.

[Stephen]

Dunno, kinda like the new Greenspot bottle ... modernises the brand somewhat.

Look forward to picking one up, and more importantly looking forward to drinking one.

[John]

A lot of news there David!

A couple of things that I noticed from the articles: Greenspot moving to a cork from twistcap? If that is the case then I'm very happy!

Is the practice of putting the bottle/batch number on the label a new departure for Redbreast - or even Midleton in general?

Cheers,
John.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Hi John, what are you referring to when you say batch code?

[John]

On the reverse of the Redbreast 12yo label, under the Tasting Notes, there is a code starting with an L - to be fair it is only barely visible, but it looks like a batch code?
J.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Hi John, the L code is an industry standard and yes that is the batch code. IDL have only been using it since sometime in the 2000's, I think. The Redbreast 15yo from 2005 has it on the base of the bottle in a black stamp so hard to see against the brown bottle. Cooley latched onto it in the 90's and it is possibly only in general use from that time. You will see the majority of Whiskies whether Irish or Scotch will have this somewhere on the bottle. On the green Jameson Reserve bottles (12yo 18yo etc) you will just about make it out actually stamped or laser printed into the glass near the base of the bottle. In cooley it is usually have theirs on the glass to but it is inked on.

The first number designates the year ... I'm nearly sure it is just the very first number they use hence L1 in the case is 2011. the rest of the code is broken up for line batch identification. So if there is a quality issue with the bottle they can pinpoint when and where it was bottled etc.

As long as you can easily Identify the decade it is a very handy way to date a bottle to a certain year.

[John]

Hi Adrian,
Many thanks but I know the background; the question is; Is this the first time they have put the batch number of a 'mass-produced' product (i.e. not a limited batch) on the label itself?
Cheers,
J.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Hi Adrian,
Many thanks but I know the background; the question is; Is this the first time they have put the batch number of a 'mass-produced' product (i.e. not a limited batch) on the label itself?
Cheers,
J.

Oopps sorry ... was not sure what you were getting at ..

yes you could be right but could not say for sure.

[IainB]

Hi Adrian,
Many thanks but I know the background; the question is; Is this the first time they have put the batch number of a 'mass-produced' product (i.e. not a limited batch) on the label itself?
Cheers,
J.

Depends on what you mean by "mass produced" - They Jameson 18's have always had a batch no. on the front label - JJ18-1, JJ18-2 and so forth.

They're produced in smaller quantities but not a limited batch in the sense that they are always being produced.

[John]

No worries Adrian - the info is good to have on the forum in any respect!

I would regard anything mass produced that is not produced as a small batch or a limited release. I don't think the JJ18 code yields the same level of detail as the regular 'L' code? So, is this a new approach by IDL then?

Anyway, before I get hauled before the 'thread-diversion police', to get back on track. I see on the new Green Spot bottle that the 'Single' has been played down a bit as in 'Single Pot Still' whereas the Redbreast the typeset is uniform for the full description, wonder why that is?
J.

[DavidH]

I see on the new Green Spot bottle that the 'Single' has been played down a bit as in 'Single Pot Still' whereas the Redbreast the typeset is uniform for the full description, wonder why that is?

Perhaps because "single" refers to the distillery and the distillery is not named on the Green Spot bottle (not on the front anyway)?