Back in the late 1800s, American whiskey was booming. Alongside distilleries, there were rectifiers — non-distiller producers that mixed low-quality spirit or minimally aged whiskey with additives to mimic the effects of barrel aging and make their products appear to be something they weren’t. Distillers that were making true whiskey — from a fermented mash of grains, distilled, and then aged in barrels, with nothing added — grew increasingly frustrated at being forced to compete with a sector that defrauded consumers. So they lobbied the government to intervene, and in 1897, the Bottled-in-Bond Act became law.
Often hailed as the first consumer protection law in the United States, the act established a category of whiskey called bottled-in-bond. Brands could apply the designation if the whiskey met certain criteria, including being distilled in a single season (spring, January to June; or fall, July to December) by the same distiller at the same distillery; stored for at least four years in wooden containers; proofed to 50 percent ABV; and “unaltered from [its] original condition or character by the addition or subtraction of any substance other than by filtration, chill proofing, or other physical treatments.”
More regulation to clarify and safeguard the identity of “real” whiskey would follow over the next few decades, but the Bottled-in-Bond Act was a watershed event. Consumers learned that “bottled-in-bond” was an instantly recognizable sign of authenticity and legitimacy — a mark of trust. Bonded whiskey gained a reputation for quality and a ubiquity that faded only when the fortunes of the category fell in the latter part of the 20th century and whiskey overall declined in popularity. Until 10 or so years ago, the few bottled-in-bond whiskeys still available were made solely by legacy distillers such as Heaven Hill, Sazerac, Brown-Forman, and the James B. Beam Distilling Co.
But as whiskey resurged in the past couple of decades, and especially as craft distilleries sought to highlight their difference from both mainstream brands and non-distiller producers, the bottled-in-bond designation once again became a prominent sign of legitimacy, a signal that the whiskey has nothing to hide. It doesn’t promise that the flavor will be good — that’s a matter of taste — but it does guarantee a level of implied trust, and transparency about what’s in the bottle.
Most of the time, anyway.
In the past few years, a number of bottled-in-bond brands have popped up with a name on the front label that doesn’t match that of the actual production facility. Sometimes the whiskey has been contract-distilled to the brand owner’s specifications; other times it comes from barrels that were simply purchased from a broker or the likes of mega-supplier MGP. Legally speaking, these examples are the same as a bottled-in-bond whiskey that was made in-house at a single distillery and bears that name on its label. But is their intent true to the original law?
“If they were being truly transparent, they would identify and, indeed, celebrate the actual producer,” says Chuck Cowdery, a bourbon historian and attorney, noting that “the whole point of bottled-in-bond is transparency.”
Still, Cowdery says, if the brand is abiding by the rules set out by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), that satisfies him. “It’s in their interest to follow them, since they are trying to benefit from the designation’s connotations of authenticity,” he notes. “If, however, they try to pretend they made [the whiskey], that’s wrong but also shortsighted.”
Legal Requirements
The TTB’s rules do allow bottled-in-bond whiskey to be produced under contract at one distillery and bottled by another party. But the whiskey in question has to include some important details on its label:
“Domestically manufactured spirits labeled as ‘bottled in bond’ or with some other synonymous statement must bear the real name of the distillery or the trade name under which the distiller distilled and warehoused the spirits, and the number of the distilled spirits plant in which distilled, and the number of the distilled spirits plant in which bottled. The label may also bear the name or trade name of the bottler.”
So both the distiller and bottler have to be identified by their distilled spirits plant (DSP) number, and the distillery must also be named. But there’s a catch: The distillery name can be its actual name or a trade name — and a single distillery can have infinite trade names.
“There were so many non-distiller producers that were out there, people were unsure sometimes of where the whiskey was coming from. We wanted to unequivocally state this is our whiskey: We distilled, barreled, aged, and bottled it.”
Bardstown Bourbon Company makes whiskey for dozens of different brands, all of which may employ a trade name under the distillery’s DSP, which is DSP-KY-20037. It’s part of the business model under which Bardstown operates. The distillery offers clients the ability to “take over” the facility when their products are being made, often from custom mash bills and to unique specifications, and sometimes even with the client’s own master distiller or other staff at the helm.
Master blender Dan Callaway notes that Bardstown helps clients ensure they’re compliant with the TTB’s regulations and labeling rules, but doesn’t dictate whether they use the distillery’s real name or a trade name. “The power is ultimately with the brand of how they want to display it. Some brands want to call out the partnership and really celebrate the Bardstown Bourbon Company; some might do their trade name,” he explains. “But what you have to have regardless is the DSP.”
That information is found on the back label, nearly always in small print (though some brands, like Calumet Farm, buck the trend with a prominent disclosure). Only the savviest — and perhaps most suspicious — consumers would even know to look for such details. It’s not a stretch to say that most whiskey buyers picking up a bottled-in-bond offering will assume that the name on the front is that of the distillery that made it.
Whiskey Set Apart
The government’s general regulations about whiskey production and labeling are much more stringent nowadays than they were in the 19th century, and the circumstances of unscrupulous rectification that motivated the Bottled-in-Bond Act no longer exist. But many contemporary distillers offer bottled-in-bond whiskey as a means of setting themselves apart, especially in relation to competitors that source or contract-distill their products.
This applies even to brands that do both: Bulleit, which was made from sourced whiskey for decades, waited until bourbon from its own Shelbyville, Ky., distillery was ready before releasing a bottled-in-bond product. “That was a critical part of the story,” says Bulleit global brand director Johannah Rogers-Omishore, calling bottled-in-bond “a line in the sand.”
“I could have just put out a bottled-in-bond two years earlier with sourcing, but I didn’t and I wouldn’t have, because that would have been weird to me.”
In Newport, Ky., New Riff Distillery opted to offer only bottled-in-bond products (except for single barrels) from its first release in 2018. “There were so many non-distiller producers that were out there, people were unsure sometimes of where the whiskey was coming from,” says master distiller Brian Sprance, explaining that the company had previously sold OKI, a brand of sourced whiskey, and wanted to be clear that its own distillate, with the New Riff name on the front, was different. “We wanted to unequivocally state this is our whiskey: We distilled, barreled, aged, and bottled it.”
Laws Whiskey House in Denver offers a line of bottled-in-bond bourbon, rye, and other whiskyes alongside straight and barrel-proof expressions. “As a small producer, it was important for us to plant our flag on showing we can meet not just straight whiskey standards, but even higher standards,” says founder Al Laws. “[Bottled-in-bond] was a signal to people that understood what it was that we’re authentic grain to glass.”
Laws contends that selling contract-distilled whiskey as bottled-in-bond, even if it abides by TTB regulations, isn’t in the spirit of the original law. “By the letter of the law you qualify, but I don’t feel that you qualify in intent,” he says. “It’s not the same thing. The Bottled-in-Bond Act was supposed to give consumers comfort that it meant all these things. Just like everything else, it gets chipped away at. … We all have to sell stuff, but there’s also integrity.”
Sourced and Bonded
There are numerous examples of bottled-in-bond whiskeys that aren’t made by the entity emblazoned on the front label: Brother’s Bond, Blue Run, Bushwood, Doc Holliday, Old Fourth, and more. Some are fully compliant with the TTB requirements; some aren’t.
Among the bonded whiskeys that are made with sourced liquid is Mellwood, named for a historic Louisville distillery whose president, R.F. Balke, was a key supporter of the original Bottled-in-Bond Act. “We take that historical context and move it today,” says Kenny Coleman, co-founder of Pursuit Spirits, which bottles the brand. Mellwood Legacy’s label states the DSP of its distillery source — DSP-KY-20041 — but doesn’t include the distillery name, an oversight Coleman says will be corrected on the next label run.
“If you see a bottled-in-bond release, the general assumption of a whiskey consumer who is familiar with the designation is that that distillery made it themselves. Since we’re not a distillery and never will be, we’ll never do a bottled-in-bond release.”
Mellwood’s existence pays homage to the Bottled-in-Bond Act, but Coleman says that he’s not sure most consumers understand the moniker as the mark of transparency it’s intended to be. “We’ve had this discussion on the [Bourbon Pursuit podcast, of which Coleman is co-host] plenty of times: Is bottled-in-bond even important anymore?” he says. “I don’t know. We’d like to think that it is, but the reality is that the mass market probably doesn’t care.”
Meanwhile, Milam & Greene offers a bottled-in-bond bourbon that’s made at Bardstown Bourbon Company, rather than the distillery’s home base in Blanco, Texas; the label uses Milam & Greene as the trade name, under Bardstown’s DSP. CEO and master blender Heather Greene explains that the brand is built on using whiskey from both sources — something it’s open about in its messaging, as most of its products are blends. Milam & Greene master distiller Marlene Holmes oversees the process at Bardstown Bourbon Company during production runs.
“When we discovered we could do a bottled-in-bond [with whiskey laid down at Bardstown], we were pumped about it — it was our whiskey that we put down,” Greene says. “I could have just put out a bottled-in-bond two years earlier with sourcing, but I didn’t and I wouldn’t have, because that would have been weird to me.”
Greene says that knowing there are bottled-in-bond whiskeys derived from purchased barrels from the likes of MGP “rubs me the wrong way, because we can get lumped into that when we are far from that idea.” Even if a brand is following the law with labeling, she says, “the vibe is off.”
The Spirit of the Law
The existence of sourced bottled-in-bond whiskey raises the question of why. The Bottled-in-Bond Act did its job well, conditioning consumers to expect truth from brands, and transparency now pervades American whiskey laws much more deeply than it did 128 years ago. But the bottled-in-bond designation, especially for passionate whiskey fans, still feels set apart from its brethren. It may even justify a higher price, linked to the halo of authenticity. Some brands may just want to take advantage of bottled-in-bond whiskey’s good reputation, even if it means using a barrel broker.
Others say they never will, even with the opportunity to do so. Lost Lantern bottles whiskey from distilleries around the United States, including one that suggested using a bottled-in-bond designation, which co-founders Nora Ganley-Roper and Adam Polonski declined. “If you see a bottled-in-bond release, the general assumption of a whiskey consumer who is familiar with the designation is that that distillery made it themselves,” Polonski says. “Since we’re not a distillery and never will be, we’ll never do a bottled-in-bond release.”
Polonski argues that transparency “sometimes goes beyond just being legally compliant” and should include information for consumers about a whiskey’s origins and production. “The Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897 was originally created to address uncertainty and confusion in the whiskey industry at that time,” he adds. “There is still some of that today, so for us, the spirit of it is about showing that a whiskey was distilled by the place that’s releasing it.”
In the end, while the government has put its imprimatur on sourced bottled-in-bond whiskeys, drinkers get the final say — and modern whiskey culture’s transparency wave shows no signs of abating. “Most times in the whiskey world the truth inevitably bubbles up to the surface,” Sprance says. “It might take a little bit longer, but eventually it shows itself.”
This story is a part of VP Pro, our free platform and newsletter for drinks industry professionals, covering wine, beer, liquor, and beyond. Sign up for VP Pro now!
