Any plans on a whiskey tasting, or are there not enough crafters in the northwest doing them now?

Good luck on finding much locally produced booze after the state gives it all up. Serves you idiot's right: You'll have to make due with the "national brands" ...

Gee, Arthur, so the only way the "local" (see below why that's in quotes) distilleries can survive is if we also keep the Soviet Liquor Authority intact, with its monopoly retailers and sky-high prices?

In other words, the "local" stuff is such rotgut that no real liquor store will stock it? Wow, you sure have a lot of confidence in the "local" distilleries!

As for "local," I hope people are reading the labels. If they do, they'd find out, for instance, that Fremont Distilling's "Mischief" whisky is imported Canadian whisky. Fremont's contribution is rebottling it in a heavy square bottle with their "Michief" logo.

So much for "local."

Ah, Mister G! Or should I refer to you as "Not2"?

Welcome to the Slog, where free-market talking points do not receive quite as deferential an ear.

Firstly, may I remind you that no one thought the WSLCB perfect, so to claim we were all thrilled with it would be a straw-man argument.

Indeed, perhaps the WSLCB's only unequivocal strong suit was its ability to circumvent the anti-competitive collusion that devotes the majority of liquor-store shelf space around the country to mega-corporate booze.

How can any product compete when it can't get stocked and can't be found?

As for Fremont Mischief's repackaged whiskey: they have been called out on that routinely in the local press and on the internet. As have the small number of other spirits re-distilled from bulk ethanol.

Unsurprisingly, these questionable outliers have received far less attention and praise than the small-batch producers who are making their products from scratch, using local ingredients and experimenting with new twists on familiar favorites.

So stop bitching about your own failure to do due diligence before making a purchase. I seriously doubt that QFC is going to be any more diligent in screening the 15 near-identical corporate bourbons it's going to stock.

OOLA does just fine selling out of the tasting room as far as I know. I buy directly from them. The idea that local distillers are in jeopardy because we threw off the shackles of monopoly is a straw man at best.

Ah, yes, @4. A single tasting room on Capitol Hill is definitely an adequate replacement for statewide distribution for the purposes of building product share and brand recognition.

Jesus, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Distilleries like OOLA will probably now have to contract with a distributor just to get half a toe in the door. The distributor, subject to whopping new taxes under I-1183, will also take a significant cut of profits, thereby raising the final retail price to a dollar amount that will make even the most devoted localvore balk.

Diageo, Pernod-Ricard, Beam Inc, etc. will not face this hurdle.

Um, d.p., Fremont Distillery got a favorable review for their vodka here, so I think it's worthwhile pointing out that their whiskey isn't their whiskey, but someone else's.

As for the Soviet Liquor Authority, you can whine as much as you want, but it's gone as of June. Unless the courts are stupid enough to invalidate I-1183, in which case McKenna's election will be sealed and the Legislature will do what the people told them we wanted.

Distilleries will not necessarily need a contract with a distributor. As part of the destruction of the Soviet Liquor Authority, retailers will be able to deal direct with the producer rather than pay a middleman.

So stop bitching about your own failure to do due diligence before making a purchase. I seriously doubt that QFC is going to be any more diligent in screening the 15 near-identical corporate bourbons it's going to stock.

Geez, I hope QFC stocks 15 bourbons, because that would be a better selection than what's in my Soviet Liquor Authority outlet.

@7, distributor licences are required in order to distribute.

Unless each distillery can afford to purchase its own distributor licence (on top of its manufacture licence) and to micro-manage every part of the distribution process in a way that meets the stringent requirement laid out in I-1183, then it is going to have to fork over a bunch of money to a contractor.

Okay, #8, for purposes of this discussion I'll assume you're being truthful. If I-1183 forces a distiller to use a distributor to sell to a retailer, how is that different from the current (and soon to be shitcanned) requirement that a distiller use a wholesaler to market its products?

And don't spew bullshit here, because I just might check up.

And something else: You put me down for not doing "due diligence" before buying Fremont's non-local whiskey at the Soviet Liquor Authority's outlet. Given that Fremont so clearly plays on the whole "locavore" conceit, does it not trouble you that they slip this under the radar?

Or to put it differently: Whether it be in a Soviet Liquor Authority outlet, or a future private liquor store after June, would I not be justified in approaching so-called "local" spirits with suspicion, and making sure to thoroughly research them on the Internet rather than making an impulse buy?

And if it's the case that these "local" distillers can't really be trusted to walk their talk, then how much interest, let alone loyalty or monopoly subsidy, did these shysters ever deserve to begin with?

And please don't try to divert my questions with some pointless attack on "big corporate liquor," as if two wrongs (in your mind, anyway) would make anything right. I bought Fremont's whiskey (stupidly, I now realize) on faith that they are "local." Now I realize that the "locavore" deal is just as likely to be bullshit as not.

Great way for the "locavore" business to get customers.

d.p., you've nailed it on EVERY point. Mister G's arm gesticulating and expectorating may make his laptop screen a bit hard to read, perhaps that's a part of why he doesn't grasp your points. On the other hand, it could be because he's just another tea-bagging moron.

Hey Arthur, whine all you want. Call me names! Come June, we're going to have a free market in liquor. Your beloved Soviet Liquor Authority will go out of business. The people won, and you lost. Choke on it!

Nah, Arthur, Señor G's alright. He left dozens of comments on the related Seattle Times article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/bu…) under the name "not2." While he's frequently wrong both on the particulars of the privatization process and on the economics, he's at least an entertaining read, and he's willing to admit fault when proven incorrect (a rare occurrence on the internet indeed).

And G:

The Distributors License requirement is in the complete text of I-1183; it's pretty clear-cut. How is it different from the current system? Currently, the producer delivers product directly to the state, which scatters it widely and sells it to the consumer. There is no middle-man.

The new system categorically requires a middle-man -- no tiny distillery will really be able to justify the cost of a Distributors License as well as meet all of the state's requirements to qualify for one -- and therefore ensures two separate mark-ups along the way from the producer to you. 1183 also levies enough in taxes and fees to virtually guarantee that final retail prices are higher than they are today.

...Except as applied to "very large retailers," which are exempted from the middle-man requirement and its associated fees. That's right, Costco wrote itself a nice big loophole, allowing themselves to offer name-brand swill at cut-rate prices that competitors subject to the middle-man requirement won't be able to touch!

It's very much like Amazon's undercutting-by-tax-avoidance or Microsoft's hand-written legislation that calculated its B&O taxes differently from every other company in the state.

But Costco won't be carrying anything that either you or I would want to drink.

As for the Fremont Mischief thing... Didn't the packaging (which Bethany delightfully mocked) clue you in to the fact that they prized douchey marketing over quality or forthrightness? That the whiskey in question was outsourced is basically common knowledge among all who pay the slightest attention to the local distillery revivals. (I knew it, and I'm far from an industry insider or a regular barfly.)

As I've already said, the truly small-batch local spirits far outnumber the deceitful ones, and you're likely to hear much more chatter about the former than the latter. You have every right to generalize from one bad experience and start calling everybody around you a "shyster," but it makes you both incorrect and an asshole.

And for the last time, fair access to shelf space ≠ a "subsidy." A subsidy is what Costco, by not contributing whatsoever to the Distributors License system that their own initiative created, have bought for themselves!

Anyway, thank you for giving me a chance to come back and spell "license" correctly.

Poor, poor d.p., reduced to whining about spelling. Truly the last refuge of an Internet dweeb.

Now, let's take the rest one by one.

1. d.p., are you the flack from the trade association who thanked the Seattle Times for their propaganda? Is that you, the same commenter that cherry-picked through a short list of booze I named and implied they all came from once source?

2. What Fremont Mischief has taught me is that consumers should not trust the "local" spirits thing. I've been fooled once by that conceit, and that's all it will take. They've obviously fooled The Stranger too, given that they hyped Fremont's "local" vodka.

3. When I get some time, I'll look into the distributor issue and post about it. See, I'm only a consumer. I don't like the Soviet Liquor Authority, and I don't like being bullshitted into buying from "local distilleries" that are not local.

4. As for price, we'll see what happens. I'm saving my Soviet Liquor Authority receipts, and am recording (and photographing) shelf prices on booze I don't buy. But my main issue is selection, and when it comes to what I like to drink the Soviet Liquor Authority simply doesn't sell it, unless I want to order an entire caseload.

In any case, poor d.p. will have to find a different way to shill after May. We, the voters of WA State, have decided to kill the Soviet Liquor Authority. I doubt quite strongly that the courts will interfere. Once gone, d.p.'s cherished monopoly will not be returning.

Whine as much as you want, but it's been decided. As for the "local" distilleries, d.p., if you are in fact the one flack in the Seattle Times thread, you need to tell your members to police themselves.

The other day was the first time I tried a so-called "local" distillery, and I got fucked over. Customers remember that kind of shit. And guess what? They remember even more when they're told by the trade association's flack that it was their own fault.

p.s.: I went back to that Seattle Times thread. I don't think d.p. was the flack. He's probably "porcyk," who was just as avid a commenter as me. Apparently, in his mind there is something wrong with commenting itself. I have more to say about this, but will leave it for later, as there are things to do today.

The origin of FM's whiskey is relevant to this discussion, but much less important to me than the fact that it is really horrible. I have no problem with Pendleton importing their goods and adding "Mt. Hood" water to it because I love the final product. The "Mt. Rainier" water in FMW has not made a shitty whiskey palatable.

As far as this discussion goes, the fact that I was "fucked over" by locals is less what this customer will remember - I just won't buy the shite again.

#16, I think it all blends in, pardon the pun. FM whiskey is "Canadian whiskey," which has a recognizable flavor whose basic nature many whiskey drinkers either like or don't like, much as they might like or not like Scotch malts or bourbons.

FM is bottling Canadian whiskey and not labeling it as such. If you read the fine print on the bottle you'll see that it's imported from Canada, but it's still not disclosed that you're getting "Canadian whiskey."

In a different thread here on The Stranger's site, a flack for Fremont claims that their whiskey is "rye," but anyone who drinks "rye," myself among them, will recognize FM whiskey as "Canadian whiskey" and not "rye."

Now, that can start all kinds of arguments, given that a) there is no hard and fast definition of either "rye" or "Canadian," and b) rye was at least at one time a major component of "Canadian," to the point that some people considered the terms virtually synonymous.

Yet, if you taste FM's aged imported rebottled 90-proof whiskey, it's got all the charm and mystery of Canadian Club. It's not even in the same universe as a good rye whisky.

Now, if it was any good, would we care if it was "local"? Yes and no. I'm not wrapped around a tree about localism, but if someone's going to spend the effort that Fremont has in exploiting the locavore shtick, I think I'd be a bit disappointed that it wasn't local even if I liked the stuff.

That it both stinks and is imported, well yeah, it does pack an extra negative punch. And it does bleed over, in my mind, to the other "local" producers. Here you have Fremont hyping locality to the sky, and then slipping this Canadian Club taste-a-like in there, disclosing its non-locality only in the fine print.

Not exactly a great advertisement for "locavore spirits," that's for damn sure.

The new system categorically requires a middle-man -- no tiny distillery will really be able to justify the cost of a Distributors License as well as meet all of the state's requirements to qualify for one

From the new law:

"Any distiller licensed under this title may act as a retailer and/or distributor to retailers selling for consumption on or off the licensed premises of spirits of its own
production."

The annual fee for a distributor's license is $1,300. I read through the whole law, and couldn't find any particularly onerous regulations imposed on distributors. But if a small distillery didn't want to act as a distributor, then it could hire one. But it's not required that they do so.

The bigger issue for a small distillery is maintaining a separate sales force. This is something that every small provider of specialty foods faces. As a drinker, I am not willing to prop up this state's Soviet Liquor Authority because small distilleries don't want to hire sales people and pay $1,300 a year for a distributor's license, or find a distributor who'll carry their products.

Small providers of other specialty foods hire specialty distributors. An old friend of mine is in that business, and makes a good living at it. If other small providers have to do this, then WA State's so-called "world class" "local" (ahem) distilleries should, too.

Sigh, G.

For what it's worth, I was honestly defending you in the first paragraph back there @13. You're misinformed, of course, but you're passionate and the banter was fun.

But now you're just getting meaner with each post. You're getting repetitive, too, which is certainly the greater sin.

Since distilling has essentially only been possible in Washington since 2008, I've found it perplexing that Fremont Mischief has tried to sell an aged whiskey under its own brand. It has made me as distrustful of them as it has made you, though I don't see any need to automatically extend that distrust to the 39 unrelated Washington distilleries.

But isn't it a bit odd that someone who lays claim to the expertise you do would purchase an over-4-years-aged "Washington" whiskey without first checking the fine print?

And yes, I pointed out that nearly all of your favorite Scotch whiskies are are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Diageo plc, which suggests that at some point your tastes were shaped by corporate promotional machinations and by the distortions of shelf-space access you have likely encountered in "free-market" states. I'm sorry for denting the pride you had in yourself as an independently-realized connoisseur.

Also, have you ever bothered to ask someone who lived in the USSR whether your "Soviet Liquor Authority" slur bears any resemblance to reality? Since the choice of thousands of brands (big and small and from all over the world) is slightly superior to "Stolichnaya or Moskovskaya?", my guess is you haven't.

d.p., I do realize how attached you are to your monopoly Soviet Liquor Authority -- even to the point of lying about my tastes in whisky. But then, you are shilling for the so-called "local" distilleries that aren't "local" at all.

Trust me, I'll have no need to check any fine print on Washington-made liquor. Having been burned once, I'll be buying the real thing from now on. And, come June, I'll be doing so in the free market that scares you so much.

p.s.: "The real thing" meaning established brands from honest distilleries. It seems that the so-called "locavores" can't be trusted. Check the gin reviews: Much of what is called "gin" by these shysters isn't even gin. Sorry, but Washington State's producers are not to be trusted.

It seems you abandoned your attempt to promote the falsehood that it's "too expensive" for WA State's "local" distillers to get a distributor's license, after I showed that the license costs all of $1,300. What's the matter, cat got your tongue?

I never claimed "expertise" or to be an "independently realized connoisseur." Even if everything I liked came from distilleries owned by Diageo (which isn't even remotely true), my selection complaint is that your beloved Soviet Liquor Authority doesn't carry what I want to buy, forcing me to go out of state for it.

I am far from the only drinker in WA State with that complaint. I look forward to a much broader selection soon. Costco won't likely be the place for me, but soon enough we'll have a BevMo or a Binny's come in here.

I'll also be interested to see what happens to the Soviet Liquor Authority's locations. I wonder if perhaps a chain will buy a bunch of them, and then start differentiating them. Or maybe one or more of those corner wine shops will buy some of them.

You must pine for those thrilling days of yesteryear when the Soviet Liquor Authority controlled all the wine sales. Funny how much wine (and beer) selection there is right down the street at my local grocer. But somehow, that won't happen with liquor.

Tell me, d.p., are you by chance some union hack who's about to lose his clerk job at one of the Soviet stores?

@21: You named four of your most cherished Scotch brands. Literally all four were Diageo-owned products. You then had to struggle to come up with examples that weren't.

Every American whiskey you named was owned by the Sazerac Company, smaller and independent yet no less established. Apparently their marketing pushes your buttons just right as well.

Ignoring 40 very different distilleries because you got burned by one... is just stupid!

Also, you might want to read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenever before you decide what gin is "supposed" to taste like. The hegemony of the "London Dry" style on the United States mass-market is yet another expression of the corporate illusion of choice to which you seem to be highly suggestible!

And nope, I've got no financial skin in this game. I'd just like to be able to find interesting small-batch spirits and to buy them without an 1183-mandated three-stage mark-up costing dozens of extra dollars!

(Remember that thing about how repetitive you're getting? Way to engage with my negation of your idiotically inaccurate "Soviet" epithet. Just letting you know that you're edging pretty close to mindless-troll territory.)

You didn't negate anything.

Distillers have to contract with a licensed middle-man, or otherwise: pay a fee, hire someone in-house to arrange every single sale and delivery throughout the state, and provide "security" for their product to the state's arbitrary standards. All while fighting against big money for an inch of shelf space.

That amounts to a significant increase in the cost of doing business, with all benefits accrued to the big boys. Like a reverse Robin Hood. Or Republicans.

Distillers have to contract with a licensed middle-man, or otherwise: pay a fee, hire someone in-house to arrange every single sale and delivery throughout the state, and provide "security" for their product to the state's arbitrary standards. All while fighting against big money for an inch of shelf space.

Wow! You mean they have to pay a whole $1,300 a year to get a distributors license? Wow, what a burden! Will that prevent them from importing rotgut whisky, rebottling, and calling it their own?

Sorry, but if you expected this state's liquor consumers to subsidize a bunch of "local" shysters, you were unrealistic. Your buddies will have to do it the old fashioned way from now on. The Soviet Liquor Authority is going away, boo hoo.

I'll be happy to run the horrible risk of your disdain for my liquor preferences, in return for the ability to buy what I want without driving to California, having friends ship from Chicago, or ordering it from London.

The idea that my whisky tastes have been formed by the position on the shelves is laughable. It's exactly the opposite: I have gone through lots of inconvenience to find things that your friends at the Soviet Liquor Authority have refused to put on the shelves.

You and they want to restrict what's on the shelves, in hopes that I'll buy some "local" crap that's not even local. Nice try, but the voters just threw out your monopoly.

Oh, and only in the mind of a shill for the Soviet Liquor Authority would the new law's 27% tax be represented as exceeding the Soviet markup of 52%. It's going to be a real bitch when prices for the major brands decline. It's the worst nightmare for the purveyors of "local" rotgut that's not even local.

Currently, the state buys spirits from distilleries, marks it up by 52 percent and adds taxes and surcharges. On a 750 milliliter bottle of liquor that sells for $15.95, those costs total $9.45. The Liquor Control Board uses the proceeds to finance its enforcement and liquor sales, and sends money to the state and local governments.

If I-1183 were to pass, the markup and surcharges — in this case, $4.39 — would die. In their place, the state would impose fees on retailers and distributors totaling 27 percent — 10 percent of distributors' gross revenues and 17 percent of retailers' gross revenues. The distributor fee drops to 5 percent after two years.

The distributors and retailers would add their own markups to cover their costs and make money.

At the low end, those markups would average 25 percent, according to an analysis the state's Office of Financial Management did on I-1183.

Using that scenario, the new fees plus markups on the same bottle of liquor total $4.09 — and the bottle's total price becomes $15.59, which is 36 cents below what it costs now.

Using the state's high-end scenario — a 45 percent average markup by retailers and distributors — those fees and markups would equal $6.05, and the final price would be $17.95.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/po…
[Emphasis mine.]

So, there you go. Under any reasonably expected industry-standard mark-up, prices will rise.

You can already see this with wine, by the way. The WSLCB sucks at wine, but on the off chance you happen to come across a known favorite bottle at a state store, it will be priced as much as $10 below the same bottle at QFC.

Sorry, missed the key national figure:

...U.S. Internal Revenue Service data that show grocery, beer, wine and liquor stores — which make more than 75 percent of all liquor sales nationwide — mark up all their products by about 32 percent.

27% + 32% = 59%

(And 59% > 52%, genius.)

Of course, that's presuming no significant additional mark-up by the required middle-man with the Distributor License. Uh huh, that's gonna happen...

Of course, that's presuming no significant additional mark-up by the required middle-man with the Distributor License.

Hey ya fuckin' liar, speaking of repetition, telling the same lie over and over doesn't make it true. There is no required middle man.

From the text of the new law:

"Any distiller licensed under this title may act as a retailer and/or distributor to retailers selling for consumption on or off the licensed premises of spirits of its own
production."

As for markups, Costco's is 15% max, and on some stuff it's 7%. So we'll probably see at least some of their liquor prices at 20% or more lower than the Soviet Liquor Authority's, and that's not counting whatever leverage they can apply in bulk purchasing.

Just imagine Costco dealing with Diageo. You'll hate it because you'd rather drink some faux-local rotgut, but when those two evil giants cut a deal on those Scotches I love but couldn't buy at the Soviet Liquor Authority, I just might get price AND selection.

In any case, I'm saving receipts from the Soviet Liquor Authority, and snapping pics of shelf prices. Something tells me you won't be in too many comment threads this fall, talking about how booze prices went up, because I'll be there with contrary proof.

Nah, Arthur, Señor G's alright.

I don't know... I think he sounds very angry, possibly a personality disorder of some kind. Possibly too much whiskey combined with a personality disorder. Maybe a little COCAINE tossed into the equasion. Definatly a potential for violence in that guy, I mean crack open the DSM and go to town...

Looks like at least three big-box liquor chains might come in here. I guess it won't be all Costco, will it? Who knows, maybe one of them will want to sell the "local" rotgut?

Hmm, one of the entrants, Total Wine, says: "We're after someone who enjoys craft wines, craft beers and artisanal spirits." Think they'll carry the "locavore" rotgut? Sure sounds like they'll give it a try, anyway. Look for a "Washington Spirits" selection there.

How much ya wanna bet d.p. and Art will still find a way to object to the change? I don't believe that their defense of the Soviet Liquor Authority has anything to do with "local" spirits, regardless of how "local" those spirits might or might not be.

Arthur @32: G does seem to be getting more deranged by the comment. Prior olive branch withdrawn.

G @33: Actually, I'm thrilled to read that. Does that surprise you?

Now we just have to hope those big-box companies fight the temptation to locate in the unreachable bowels of SoDo (down near UPS), in which case fuck their mothers.

And now we'll get a real test of 1183's effect on pricing. The smart money's still on "higher all around."

Actually, I'm thrilled to read that. Does that surprise you?

Not at all. You already lied a few times in this thread, so I expected it to continue. You'll eventually show your true self.

I mean, look, even using the Seattle Times's linear modeling that allows for no dynamic changes as the market opens up, I showed how Costco can easily cut prices by 20% relative to the Soviet Liquor Authority that you so love.

Your response is to call me "getting more deranged," and to warn that, if the new entrants locate in the wrong places, you'll kick and scream and stamp yer little feet. See ya in the free market!

p.s.: Not to shill for Costco or anything, but I was just there last weekend. Their wild salmon was one-third less than the local grocery store's. I do hope they'll cut a good deal with Diageo, so I can get a good deal on a bottle of the 25-year-old Caol Ila that your Soviet Liquor Authority refuses to carry!

They won't have it, you say? Well then we're even, because neither do your Soviet friends, in which case I can go to BevMo or Total Wine or somewhere else and get it. And you'll be able to find your non-local locavore rotgut, and then we'll both be happy.

You mostly drink alone, don't you?

Not deranged, just tenacious. Not a Republican, but a no-bullshit Democrat. And I never drink alone, in fact. So, d.p., what's your excuse for telling all those lies, anyway? Heroin?

Done with you, G.

No more of your dumb accusations against distillers whose products you've never tried, no more of your skewed and cherry-picked calculations, no more of your laughable pretensions of knowledgeability.

I'm bored with you. Enjoy your drives to Kirkland or SoDo and the uninteresting benders that will no doubt follow.

Thanks, d.p., and welcome to the free market! I know it'll be a new and uncertain experience for you. Change can be quite a challenge, but you'll survive. As for the "local" distilleries, well, they'll survive if they deserve to, standing on their own two feet.

By the way, without telling you exactly where I live, let me idly speculate that the Soviet Liquor Authority outlet in the Interbay just opposite the Whole Paycheck store will still be selling liquor, but under a new name.

I don't expect to be driving to SoDo or Kirkland, although once liquor freedom arrives I do intend to at least browse the stock at Costco. One of the clerks told me that I will probably be surprised at the breadth of selection they'll offer.

It's certainly true on the wine side. I've gotten some interesting wines there. It's not all "Kirkland Chardonnay," that's for sure. Same goes for beer. Lots of variety, including plenty from inside the Pacific Northwest. If the "local" distilleries aren't there, it'll be more a matter of their doing. Maybe they're afraid of the competition?

I told you that I'm done arguing about content. You might do yourself a favor and look up "circular reasoning" sometime.

Pro-tip: Caol Ila is indeed tasty stuff, even in its younger expressions. Insisting that you are too sophisticated to ever entertain the thought of drinking whisky aged less than a quarter-century makes you sound like someone trying to mimic a notion of "sophistication" you read about once in a magazine.

Spouting the names of old and expensive single malts does no more to earn you an aura of discriminating taste than drinking nothing but Chandon does to make a rapper classy.

And good job working "Whole Paycheck" into the thread. You just really love repeating debunked memes, don't you?

Insisting that you are too sophisticated to ever entertain the thought of drinking whisky aged less than a quarter-century makes you sound like someone trying to mimic a notion of "sophistication" you read about once in a magazine.

Huh? Even in the Seattle Times comment thread that you referred to, I listed Clynelish 5-year-old as something I like a lot. In fact, of all the Clynelishes, it's my favorite, especially the version I have that was bottled in 1961. Caol Ila? I've got it from 6 years old to 36 years old, in distillery and independent bottlings.

I don't think old necessarily equals good. I've never at any time said so, or implied it. A good example is Macallan. In general, I think it's overpriced and too well-regarded, and in particular I think the older versions are almost laughable.

I have Macallan 10, 12, 15, 18, and 25 year old at my house. After doing a vertical on those and realizing that the 15 is probably the best but that the 10 and 12 and quite good too (especially with milk cholocate), but that the curve drops rapidly at 18 and really rapidly at 25, I decided against paying something like $600 for a bottle of the 30 year old.

In general, I don't think the lowland or Speysides really benefit from aging. In general, I think aging packs the most punch with the more phenolic malts, i.e., the Islays, the Ornkeys, the West Highlands (although I can't tell the difference between 14-year-old and 32-year-old Oban, both produced before Diageo owned them, by the way), and Isle of Skye.

Same for bourbon. Van Winkle 15-year-old is much better than Van Winkle 20-year-old or Van Winkle 23-year-old. Old whisky is more expensive because of the angel'sd share, and the time value of money, not necessarily because it's any better. It all depends on what's in the bottle.

By the way, when it comes to Van Winkle's 15 year old, I am not alone. There is a virtual cult that surrounds that one. I had no idea until I ran out and then tried to get some more.

I had been telling people that, if they drank Pappy Van Winkle's, they had to get the 15 year old because it is so much better. I decided that on my own. Turned out that a bunch of other people have decided it too, so just try finding it. So now I am nursing my last bottle.

Your comments about Diageo forming my tastes pissed me off, not because I care about Diageo, but because if you had any idea of how I came to be a drinker of Scotch malt, you'd see just how ridiculous you are.

To the author of the Cocktialian (odd name, but kind of cool) it would seem you do not fully understand the Craft Distilled movement. I do agree that to make gin you need to first know how to make a great vodka (you do know that Dry Fly Vodka was the winner of not only the Double Gold Medal award at the World Spirits Competition in 2009 but it was also awarded the best in show award as well... that means out of the 300 vodka's competing that year, DF Vodka was judged the best)
I digress... The Craft Distilling movement is all about developing and bringing to market distinct quality spirits. We are seeing amazing products from a potato whiskey to vodka made with California grapes. However, one of the most exciting aspects (so far) to come out of the movement is the variety of gins on the market. Much like craft brewers have done for beer, Craft Distillers are taking fairly mundane spirits like gin and vodka (I am referring to mass produced versions of gin and vodka… think Bud Light) and producing products that have body, flavor, mouth feel and in the case of gin a huge (almost an unlimited)spectrum of taste profiles.
In what can only be described as “truly entrepreneurial “distillers are creating gins that are not only unique in color (Desert Juniper Gin is green and a distiller on the east coast has one that is purple) but they can have a variety of tastes (some piney, some sweet, some flowery etc.) they have a unique mouth feel and a variety of proofs. The end result is people that hated gin or have never tried the spirit are now discovering, that not only they like gin, but that perhaps there is more to gin than just pine needles.
The list of gins entering the market is astounding and growing every month. Some will survive and other will not. Regardless the end result is, it is a big win for the consumer and for the bartender. Now that bartenders prefer to called Mixoligest (and indeed some deserve to be called that) and the art of making a drink is no longer just pouring a spirit in a glass and adding some soda; bartenders are now crafting drinks around a gins unique taste profile. We are now seeing may bars carry dozens of gins simply because of their differences. In the town I live in (Minneapolis) the cocktail culture is thriving, and small batch craft distilled spirits are a major reason for this success.
Dry Fly is only one of dozens of small batch craft Distilled spirits we are seeing in our market. Clearly some are better than other; however the overall agreement is they are all better than what we had to drink before the Craft Distilling Movement occurred. To Dry Fly, Sun Liquor, Pacific and Sound Spirits distillery I say thank you.
Regarding the taste test, I taste test spirits on a daily basis, some are very structured and other are just with your regular every day people in a bar. When someone says to me something like "what I would drink if I was gonna rob a car." or "Disgusting." I immediately disqualify this person’s perspective and the author of the article should have too. These kind of comments indicate a clear ignorance of the tasting process, as I mentioned earlier there are going to be spirits that are better than others, however I have yet to taste anything that is both Disgusting or what I would drink if I was going to rob a car… whatever that means.
Mark Moland
VP AM Craft Spirits Sales & Marketing.

As long as they don't screw around with Manhattans, I really don't care what they do to other cocktails.

Much like craft brewers have done for beer, Craft Distillers are taking fairly mundane spirits like gin and vodka (I am referring to mass produced versions of gin and vodka… think Bud Light) and producing products that have body, flavor, mouth feel and in the case of gin a huge (almost an unlimited)spectrum of taste profiles.

What craft brewers have mainly done is return to older standards, such as Reiheitsgebot, the 1487 German law limiting the ingredients of beer to water, barley, and hops, later amended to add yeast, wheat, and cane sugar. This was a reaction to the noticeable adulterations implemented by the macro brewers.

While it's true that some brewers have experimented with Belgian-style flavoring, and that the brewers of the Pacific NW have tilted toward very bitter ales in recognition of this region's premier role in hops production, in the main there hasn't been a wholesale movement to redefine beer.

In the end, I doubt the experiments in new styles of "gin" (if you stray too far from juniper at some point it's not really gin) will stick.

The best "artisanal" liquor I've had has come from the California winemakers who have gone into brandy, taking advantage of the French restrictions on the composition of cognac. But their output is still recognizable as brandy.

We'll see what the "locals" here come up with, but at the very least let's hope that they'll be local. The smartest thing the "locavores" could do is form a trade group that would establish and then certify the local origin of ingredients.

To clarify, it wasn't Reinheitsgebot itself that was a reaction to what macro brewers did. The timeline would make that illogical anyway. It was the craft brewers' adoption of Reinheitsgebot that was the reaction to the adulterations of the macro brewers.

As the macro guys strayed too far from the "beerness" of beer, they created an opportunity for others to offer the real thing. In the end, the popularity of real beer, real gin, and classic versions of whiskey -- barley ("Scotch"), corn ("bourbon"), and rye -- will endure.

I'd like to see more whisk(e)y here. Of the stuff I have had (Woodinville clear whisky, and Rogue), it's disgusting. I would like to just buy something local without having to research it, but that hasn't been successful. I can buy an IPA without ever having heard of the brand before and be pretty safe with any choice I make.

I'm a Washington resident and a former Oregon distiller, and will soon be opening a distillery in Seattle, where I've lived for going on 24 years. I'm also a founding member of the Washington Distillers Guild.

I have some strong opinions on several of the issues brought up here—I'm very pro-privatization but was also very much anti-I-1183. But that's what we're stuck with for now and I really don't care to debate opinions.

I'm only posting to correct a few errors and mistaken assumptions I've read here and post some facts for the benefit of those reading who may carry those errors away and repeat them.

All of this is verifiable by reading the text of I-1183 and the subsequent communications posted on the WSLCB site, in discussions on the Washington Distillers Guild forums and appeal to ordinary common sense.

@2: "Good luck on finding much locally produced booze after the state gives it all up"

Numerous grocery chains have already expressed avid interest in having sections devoted to northwest spirits. Distributors have eagerly approached WA distillers, and attended Guild meetings to introduce their companies and invite us to do business with them. It's unlikely in the extreme that once BevMo, Liquor Depot and other large liquor stores open here that they'll ignore local products, that would be foolish. We have Washington wine sections, we'll have Washington spirits sections.

@3: As for "local," I hope people are reading the labels. […]"Mischief" whisky is imported Canadian whisky. So much for "local."

That depends on what you mean by "local." Where I grew up, a "local" business was the mom-n-pop store up the street. Supporting local meant spending money with a locally owned business, not necessarily one that only stocked locally-made items made from locally-made/grown materials/ingredients. Now, there's the newer Slow Food model that not only supports the local business, but seeks to reduce carbon footprints and keep all the revenue as close to home as possible by supporting local businesses that support local businesses that support local businesses… It's a noble and worthy model and one I prefer to employ whenever possible, but sooner or later you're going to want something made somewhere else and that doesn't make you evil. It also doesn't excuse promoting something as being locally produced when it's not.

@5: "OOLA does just fine selling out of the tasting room as far as I know. […] The idea that local distillers are in jeopardy because we threw off the shackles of monopoly is a straw man at best."

That is itself a straw man argument. Local distillers are now burdened—not in danger of extinction—not because of freedom from a state monopoly, but because proper means of transitioning were inadequately specified by I-1183, and because they're faced with a sudden extra burden of cost, either in paying a distributor or paying the state fees for self distribution.

There will be benefits in the new system, but for most distillers this represents a sudden and costly change of business model. I-1183 was not intended to rescue consumers from a monopoly, or to benefit the liquor trade, it was intended to make a great business deal for the retailers who wrote and funded it with $23 million.

@7: "Distilleries will not necessarily need a contract with a distributor. As part of the destruction of the Soviet Liquor Authority, retailers will be able to deal direct with the producer rather than pay a middleman."

This is true, but whether the distiller sells to a distributor, a retailer, or a consumer, the new tax/fee schedules make up for the lost middle man. If you play with the price calculator for Distillers, Distributors, and Off-Premises the WSLCB provides here, you'll get an idea of what we're up against.

@8 & 13: "distributor licences are required in order to distribute." "The Distributors License requirement is in the complete text of I-1183" "The new system categorically requires a middle-man"

While admittedly there is the extra burden of managing distribution and maintaining multiple accounts all over the state instead of one, distillers will not be required to purchase additional licenses for either self-distribution or selling retail, but, according to the new laws will be able to act as retailers and distributors. We will be able to sell directly to consumers, directly to retailers and directly to distributors. The new state fees placed on these transactions unfortunately absorb what would otherwise have been increased profits for the distiller. The state will not relinquish a source of alcohol revenue.

@14: "As for price, we'll see what happens. I'm saving my Soviet Liquor Authority receipts, and am recording (and photographing) shelf prices on booze I don't buy."

You could just go here and take notes.

@17: "a) there is no hard and fast definition of either "rye" or "Canadian," and b) rye was at least at one time a major component of "Canadian," to the point that some people considered the terms virtually synonymous."

That's because Canadian style whisky usually—like American whisky before the advent of bourbon—consists mainly of rye. There is absolutely a hard and fast legal definition of rye whisky, in 27 CFR 5.23 (b)(1)(i):

“Bourbon whisky”, “rye whisky”, “wheat whisky”, “malt whisky”, or “rye malt whisky” is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type."

@20 "Since distilling has essentially only been possible in Washington since 2008,"

This is absolutely false and not even "essentially" true. There has been a distillers permit available in WA since the end of prohibition. I'm looking at the list of federally licensed distillers in WA right now and of those still maintaining a license, six of them were in business before 2008. One of them, Mountain Dome Spirits, a craft distillery even by the newer more restrictive requirements, had state and federal permits and was distilling in 2004. It was definitely possible to have a distillery, it's just that almost no one bothered to really pursue it until Dr. Michael Manz did; may he rest in peace.

The laws which came into effect in 2008 did not create the possibility, they merely brought it to attention of the general public. They also didn't make it any "easier" or cheaper, to open a distillery.

The requirements are precisely the same as they've been for years, except in 2008 a license fee discount and onsite tasting and sales privileges were extended to distillers who chose to use at least 51% WA grown ingredients. This may mislead the average consumer, but any distiller knows that the difference between a $100 license and a $2000 license is a drop in the bucket when looking at the annual budget. That savings can easily be sucked up by the cost difference between Washington corn and Iowa corn in one purchase. (Iowa produces 2187.7 million bushels a year compared to our 27 million bushels).

@22 "Sorry, but Washington State's producers are not to be trusted."

In real logic, we call this the Hasty generalization, an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence: "A person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. He then concludes that there are no adult residents in the town."

@24: "The hegemony of the "London Dry" style on the United States mass-market is yet another expression of the corporate illusion of choice "

Hegemony is a bit dramatic to describe the simple fact that there have been basically only a few styles of "gin" for centuries, primarily: Jenever, Old Tom, Plymouth (yes, once considered a style), and London Dry. Those gins, with London Dry primarily as the standard, are what literally all gin cocktails are built around and what gin connoisseurs have expected from gin for over a century.

This has no more to do with corporate monopoly or illusion of choice than does the similarity in Chardonnays. I sincerely hope no clever entrepreneur decides that we need a Malbec flavored Chard, or "New Western Style Chard".

But a handful of new distillers want to trade on the name Gin without being burdened by learning how to make what anyone—up until six or seven years ago—would ever mistake for gin.

I'm in complete support of cautious innovation. The reason it's important to use caution is that it's easy for enough innovators (aggressively marketed with big PR budgets) to destroy the public's understanding of what a given category actually is and how it's intended to be used in drinks. I write from a decade of experience with absinthe, a spirit that was nearly destroyed in the American mind by ambitious marketers of faux absinthe that tasted like mouthwash, claiming it to be a "different style."

G. Stone
Gnostalgic Spirits Distillery

I'm a Washington resident and a former Oregon distiller, and will soon be opening a distillery in Seattle, where I've lived for going on 24 years. I'm also a founding member of the Washington Distillers Guild.

I have some strong opinions on several of the issues brought up here—I'm very pro-privatization but was also very much anti-I-1183. But that's what we're stuck with for now and I really don't care to debate opinions.

I'm only posting to correct a few errors and mistaken assumptions I've read here and post some facts for the benefit of those reading who may carry those errors away and repeat them.

All of this is verifiable by reading the text of I-1183 and the subsequent communications posted on the WSLCB site, in discussions on the Washington Distillers Guild forums and appeal to ordinary common sense.

@2: "Good luck on finding much locally produced booze after the state gives it all up"

Numerous grocery chains have already expressed avid interest in having sections devoted to northwest spirits. Distributors have eagerly approached WA distillers, and attended Guild meetings to introduce their companies and invite us to do business with them. It's unlikely in the extreme that once BevMo, Liquor Depot and other large liquor stores open here that they'll ignore local products, that would be foolish. We have Washington wine sections, we'll have Washington spirits sections.

@3: As for "local," I hope people are reading the labels. […]"Mischief" whisky is imported Canadian whisky. So much for "local."

That depends on what you mean by "local." Where I grew up, a "local" business was the mom-n-pop store up the street. Supporting local meant spending money with a locally owned business, not necessarily one that only stocked locally-made items made from locally-made/grown materials/ingredients. Now, there's the newer Slow Food model that not only supports the local business, but seeks to reduce carbon footprints and keep all the revenue as close to home as possible by supporting local businesses that support local businesses that support local businesses… It's a noble and worthy model and one I prefer to employ whenever possible, but sooner or later you're going to want something made somewhere else and that doesn't make you evil. It also doesn't excuse promoting something as being locally produced when it's not.

@5: "OOLA does just fine selling out of the tasting room as far as I know. […] The idea that local distillers are in jeopardy because we threw off the shackles of monopoly is a straw man at best."

That is itself a straw man argument. Local distillers are now burdened—not in danger of extinction—not because of freedom from a state monopoly, but because proper means of transitioning were inadequately specified by I-1183, and because they're faced with a sudden extra burden of cost, either in paying a distributor or paying the state fees for self distribution.

There will be benefits in the new system, but for most distillers this represents a sudden and costly change of business model. I-1183 was not intended to rescue consumers from a monopoly, or to benefit the liquor trade, it was intended to make a great business deal for the retailers who wrote and funded it with $23 million.

@7: "Distilleries will not necessarily need a contract with a distributor. As part of the destruction of the Soviet Liquor Authority, retailers will be able to deal direct with the producer rather than pay a middleman."

This is true, but whether the distiller sells to a distributor, a retailer, or a consumer, the new tax/fee schedules make up for the lost middle man. If you play with the price calculator for Distillers, Distributors, and Off-Premises the WSLCB provides here, you'll get an idea of what we're up against.

@8 & 13: "distributor licences are required in order to distribute." "The Distributors License requirement is in the complete text of I-1183" "The new system categorically requires a middle-man"

While admittedly there is the extra burden of managing distribution and maintaining multiple accounts all over the state instead of one, distillers will not be required to purchase additional licenses for either self-distribution or selling retail, but, according to the new laws will be able to act as retailers and distributors. We will be able to sell directly to consumers, directly to retailers and directly to distributors. The new state fees placed on these transactions unfortunately absorb what would otherwise have been increased profits for the distiller. The state will not relinquish a source of alcohol revenue.

@14: "As for price, we'll see what happens. I'm saving my Soviet Liquor Authority receipts, and am recording (and photographing) shelf prices on booze I don't buy."

You could just go here and take notes.

@17: "a) there is no hard and fast definition of either "rye" or "Canadian," and b) rye was at least at one time a major component of "Canadian," to the point that some people considered the terms virtually synonymous."

That's because Canadian style whisky usually—like American whisky before the advent of bourbon—consists mainly of rye. There is absolutely a hard and fast legal definition of rye whisky, in 27 CFR 5.23 (b)(1)(i):

“Bourbon whisky”, “rye whisky”, “wheat whisky”, “malt whisky”, or “rye malt whisky” is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type."

@20 "Since distilling has essentially only been possible in Washington since 2008,"

This is absolutely false and not even "essentially" true. There has been a distillers permit available in WA since the end of prohibition. I'm looking at the list of federally licensed distillers in WA right now and of those still maintaining a license, six of them were in business before 2008. One of them, Mountain Dome Spirits, a craft distillery even by the newer more restrictive requirements, had state and federal permits and was distilling in 2004. It was definitely possible to have a distillery, it's just that almost no one bothered to really pursue it until Dr. Michael Manz did; may he rest in peace.

The laws which came into effect in 2008 did not create the possibility, they merely brought it to attention of the general public. They also didn't make it any "easier" or cheaper, to open a distillery.

The requirements are precisely the same as they've been for years, except in 2008 a license fee discount and onsite tasting and sales privileges were extended to distillers who chose to use at least 51% WA grown ingredients. This may mislead the average consumer, but any distiller knows that the difference between a $100 license and a $2000 license is a drop in the bucket when looking at the annual budget. That savings can easily be sucked up by the cost difference between Washington corn and Iowa corn in one purchase. (Iowa produces 2187.7 million bushels a year compared to our 27 million bushels).

@22 "Sorry, but Washington State's producers are not to be trusted."

In real logic, we call this the Hasty generalization, an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence: "A person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. He then concludes that there are no adult residents in the town."

@24: "The hegemony of the "London Dry" style on the United States mass-market is yet another expression of the corporate illusion of choice "

Hegemony is a bit dramatic to describe the simple fact that there have been basically only a few styles of "gin" for centuries, primarily: Jenever, Old Tom, Plymouth (yes, once considered a style), and London Dry. Those gins, with London Dry primarily as the standard, are what literally all gin cocktails are built around and what gin connoisseurs have expected from gin for over a century.

This has no more to do with corporate monopoly or illusion of choice than does the similarity in Chardonnays. I sincerely hope no clever entrepreneur decides that we need a Malbec flavored Chard, or "New Western Style Chard".

But a handful of new distillers want to trade on the name Gin without being burdened by learning how to make what anyone—up until six or seven years ago—would ever mistake for gin.

I'm in complete support of cautious innovation. The reason it's important to use caution is that it's easy for enough innovators (aggressively marketed with big PR budgets) to destroy the public's understanding of what a given category actually is and how it's intended to be used in drinks. I write from nearly a decade of experience with absinthe, a spirit category that was almost destroyed in the American mind by ambitious marketers of faux absinthe that tasted like mouthwash, claiming it to be a "different style."

G. Stone
Gnostalgic Spirits Distillery

I'm imagining all of you wearing sideways caps and baggy pants, while deep-throating the mic. Thanks for the epic MC Booze Battle!

I-1183 was not intended to rescue consumers from a monopoly, or to benefit the liquor trade, it was intended to make a great business deal for the retailers who wrote and funded it with $23 million.

So much for the holier-than-thou pose about how you "really don't care to debate opinions." Now that you've blown that one out your ass, I only have one question: Did you get a self-distribution license before you did it?

By the way, some prices. The first from the Soviet Liquor Authority; the second from Binny's in Chicago; the third the percentage premium in Seattle. Everything rounded to nearest whole number. All 750ml except as noted. See if you notice anything.

Oban 14 malt: $73, $70, +4%

Walker Blue Label scotch blend: $220, $170, +29%

Walker Red Label: $30, $24, +25%

Talisker 10 malt: $63, $60, +5%

Macallan 15 malt: $84, $80, 5%

Dewars white label Scotch blend: $29, $22, +32%

10 Cane Rum: $30, $30, 0%

Jack Daniels whisky: $25, $23, +9%

Beefeater Gin: $22, $18, +22%

Bombay Sapphire gin: $27, $22, +23%

Hornito Resposado Tequilla: $29, $23, +26%

Finlandia vodka: $18, $15, +20%

Grey Goose vodka 1.75L: $65, $55, +18%

Absolut vodka: $23, $18, +28%

Bulleit bourbon: $30, $30, 0%

Maker's Mark bourbon: $30, $23, +30%

Ri (rye): $44, $40, +10%

Knob Creek bourbon: $37, $25, +48%

Booker's bourbon: $57, $50, +14%

Remy Martin cognac VSOP 375 ml: $22, $22, 0%

There is absolutely a hard and fast legal definition of rye whisky, in 27 CFR 5.23 (b)(1)(i)

Depends on the hard and fast definition of hard and fast. All the law does is specify minimums. That's not really a definition. It leaves plenty of room. Which is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

In real logic, we call this the Hasty generalization, an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence: "A person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. He then concludes that there are no adult residents in the town."

I learned my lesson. I was just at the Soviet Liquor Authority yesterday looking for another bottle of rye, and made sure not to fall into the "locavore" trap again. Call it what you want. Maybe my wallet isn't very logical. It'll be a while before I consider any "local spirits." I don't trust them.

We will be able to sell directly to consumers, directly to retailers and directly to distributors. The new state fees placed on these transactions unfortunately absorb what would otherwise have been increased profits for the distiller. The state will not relinquish a source of alcohol revenue.

Hmm. If you use a distributor after the new law goes into effect, he pays the same taxes you pay if you act as your own distributor, plus he takes his own rake off for being a distributor.

So even after the new law goes into effect, it's potentially cheaper to be your own distributor, depending on the nature of the customer base. Probably no need to go through distribution to sell to Costco, Kroger, Safeway, Albertson, BevMo, or other big chains, but if you want to service bars and smaller merchants, you might use distributors to keep selling costs lower.

In any case, as a customer I am just not buying into the whining from the distilleries. For years, we've been getting screwed by everyone in the chain. I suppose we still will be, but not quite as much, as the comparison between the Soviet Liquor Authority and Binny's will show.

Something I didn't do was a comparison in selection.

"So much for the holier-than-thou pose about how you "really don't care to debate opinions."

Your posts contain a number of red herrings and other fallacies, as well as misleading statements that appeal to emotion but which are largely devoid of fact.

For example, your remark above is argumentum ad hominem, with judgmental language. In non-holier-than-thou street language that means: you're full of shit.

I think maybe you believe your opinions are true, but the snarky, sarcastic language does nothing to strengthen your argument because your confidence is not well-founded.

I didn't say that I wouldn't state an opinion, I'm just not interested in being drawn into an online debate with someone who doesn't possess sufficient facts and has a demonstrated history of irrational assertions. You're entitled to your opinion of course, I merely illustrated that it was a largely uninformed one.

"Now that you've blown that one out your ass, I only have one question: Did you get a self-distribution license before you did it?"

Please see in my previous post: "distillers will not be required to purchase additional licenses for either self-distribution or selling retail".

"By the way, some prices. […] See if you notice anything."

I noticed that you compared current prices in WA—which already has some of the highest alcohol tax/state-markups in the country—with one unrelated state. ( cherry picking)

"All the law does is specify minimums. That's not really a definition. It leaves plenty of room. Which is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned."

Yes, it really is a definition. Rye whisky is "whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent rye and stored at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers." The fact that it's a broader definition than suits your purposes doesn't mean it's not a definition.

"In any case, as a customer I am just not buying into the whining from the distilleries. For years, we've been getting screwed by everyone in the chain. I suppose we still will be, but not quite as much, as the comparison between the Soviet Liquor Authority and Binny's will show." (judgmental language, argumentum ad Lazarum)

What basis do you have for assuming that the local pricing will be similar to Illinois prices?

I gave you and everyone else the tools and information needed to form a more well informed opinion. Good luck.

G. Stone, my "well-informed opinion" is that:

1. The "local" distillers should redirect their energies from whining to making products that we, the customers, might actually want. At your next meeting of the distiller's guild, after you finish discussing how to fix prices, please tell the people at Fremont Mischief to knock it off with the "locavore" shit if they're going to repackage Canadian whisky while only disclosing it in the fine print, because all that kind of thing does is put a question mark over the head of every single "local" distillery among those of us who actually drink, and especially who also buy, whisky. If you people ever expect to enter my wallet again, you'll have your work cut out for you, because there is all kinds of great booze out there, and a whole lot broader selection of it is about to be sold in the stores here.

2. I'll be very, very glad to see Washington's Soviet Liquor Authority go out of business. The state monopoly has done a terrible job, which might be why they'll be exterminated this spring.

3. At the very least, I hope that there'll no longer be a 48% markup on Knob Creek bourbon relative to Chicago, and that I'll finally be able to find a bottle of Miller's gin in the store here next summer.

Yes, I am snarky and sarcastic. How can a drinker be anything other than snarky and sarcastic in a state whose liquor system is as outrageously fucked up as Washington's? I am not really expecting prices to come down very much, but at least I'll be able to buy what I want.

Most prices will probably rise and selection in most places will drop.

Large liquor stores like BevMo will be the best chance for finding a good selection, but QFC and Safeway aren't going to have the selection that even the most poorly-stocked LCB store has now.

We can only hope that some of the existing small stores will be bought by someone with an interest in serving the demand for specialty and currently hard-to-find items.

Large liquor stores like BevMo will be the best chance for finding a good selection, but QFC and Safeway aren't going to have the selection that even the most poorly-stocked LCB store has now.

So I'll shop at QFC and/or Costco for everyday booze, and at the big liquor stores for the specialty stuff. Best of both worlds, I'd say. As for prices, well, we'll see.