Because the term “Molotov Cocktail” has been so widely used (for at least 70 years), I would have expected somebody to grab onto it and apply it to alcohol beverages sooner. It was not until July of 2011 that somebody grabbed onto it, as in the case of Evil Twin Brewing above. In this case the name relates to the “explosive” and “arrogant” amount of hops in this beer. A few years earlier, Molotov Hoptail had roughly the same idea. Hoptail gets extra points because the brewpub is just down the street and a delightful addition to the neighborhood.

I probably would have expected the term to get applied to something more akin to a traditional “cocktail” and less akin to a traditional beer. But perhaps TTB would have been concerned about the use of cocktail-type language on a spirit that is other than a “recognized cocktail.” TTB has various rules about recognized cocktails, such as pre-mixed margaritas, daiquiris and the like. For example, the BAM says a daiquiri must contain rum and lime, and a margarita must contain Tequila, triple sec and citrus. A few of these cocktails are vaguely reminiscent of the above, at least as to sound: Black Russian, White Russian, Brandy Alexander, Bloody Mary.

Related Posts:

• TTB Products from Majority Muslim Countries (0)
• Good Flags and Bad Flags (0)
• Founding Fathers Beer (0)

Has anyone tried these and lived to tell about it? Some people prefer the organic or biodynamic, Others, apparently, lean toward the toxic or deadly. It is nice to see TTB giving consumers some credit for being able to put things in context, and for recognizing that nobody will force them to buy either one of these products (unlike, say, health insurance or government).

Toxic Sludge is an ale made by Blue Point Brewing Company of Patchogue, New York. Jersey’s Toxic Waste, by contrast, is a distilled spirits specialty made by Strong Spirits, Inc., along with Line Brands of Long Branch, New Jersey. Michael Kanbar, of Strong, explains that Strong Spirits “is a contract bottling facility located in Bardstown, Kentucky, ‘The Distilling Capital of the World,’ and does both small and large runs and can handle specialty packaging projects.”

Related Posts:

• What’s Your Poizin? (1)
• PimpnHo: Almond Flavored Wine (3)
• Pee Like a Racehorse (or an Old Woman) (1)

On this label, the Nova Scotia heritage is pretty big and prominent. Even though the beer is made in downtown St. Louis.

The look is probably saved by the equally big reference to “style,” and the not so big reference to Missouri. Shock Top provides another example of the power of “style.” The label proclaims Belgian in medium-sized letters on the front label, and this is saved by the nearby reference to “style”  — also on the front label of this other beer made in the middle of the U.S.

Related Posts:

• Twistee Rules: Aggregate Packaging (0)
• Napa Vodka (0)
• How Long Until Cuban Rum? (4)

Part of the challenge and complexity is that label rules and trends change often. As recently as a few years ago, TTB would balk about pre-eminently famous people, such as these, on alcohol beverage labels. Founding Fathers Beer is bottled by CBC Latrobe in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. I tend to doubt that TTB would allow a President Obama label, even today (except maybe as a caricature), but George Bush, Bill Clinton and the prior Presidents may well be fair game now or soon.

Related Posts:

• Ugly American Beer (2)
• TTB Products from Majority Muslim Countries (0)
• Obama: Where the Line is Drawn (2)

It’s not every day that you see COLA news on the front page of the newspaper, but it does happen from time to time. On Saturday, The Wall Street Journal featured COLA news on the front page. The story explained that no less than three companies have been trying to use Buffalo Bill as part of their branding — with two of them fighting it out in court. “The two entrepreneurs are fighting in court for the exclusive right to sell beer that trades on the musky aura of adventure surrounding Army-scout-turned-bison-hunter-turned-sharpshooting-showman William F. Cody.”

Eric Bischoff got his first COLA in March of 2011 (and the second one is here). He is a “former professional wrestling icon.”

While Bischoff already has the COLAs and applied for the trademark, it looks like Mike Darby has been selling beer under the Buffalo Bill name since before Bischoff. But “Mr. Darby failed to get federal approval of his label, as required by the law. (Mr. Darby says he thought the brewer and distributor had taken care of that.)” Darby owns a hotel in Cody, Wyoming “built by Buffalo Bill in 1902.” Darby “had to pull his beer from the market” while awaiting label approval.

The third company is affiliated with Bill Owens, but is not interested in fighting over the brand name. The brewery does not even seem to claim trademark on the brand name. The story says Owens has moved on from making beer and now runs a trade group for craft distillers (“It’s much more fun to be involved with people making whiskey, vodka and absinthe, he says.”) This may allow him to avoid a roundhouse kick, a six-shooter, and the swirling lawsuits.

Related Posts:

• Tiger Blood (3)
• The Original Mountain Dew (1)
• Seagram (0)

Some of the Clown Shoes beer labels, such as Tramp Stamp and Lubrication, are leading to lots of controversy. This got us to reading about the graphic designer for both. While we reserve judgment about the labels at issue, the blog post by the label designer for Clown Shoes is so good and vigorous that we wanted to cover it here. The designer of the label on the left is Stacey George. She is based in Massachusetts, and she talks about the issues in a July 6, 2011 post entitled “Sometimes, a Pipe is Just a Pipe.”

“Are Clown Shoes’ labels offensive?” Sure. Why not? Offensive is a subjective term. If you look at the labels and find yourself offended, there you go. Do you have the right to say so? Abso-friggin-lutely! Shout it from the highest mountain, or your Twitter account, or your brothers’ website, whatever your bullhorn is, use it, loud and proud. Here, let me loan you a sandwich board and a bell, you can be offended Town-Crier style, I got your back.

My labels for Clown Shoes—which were named Best Craft Beer Art of 2011 by PourCurator.com—are not illustrated with a sexist intent. For instance, a Tramp Stamp is a tattoo placed on the lower back of a woman to emphasize her sexuality. In Germany, they call it, Arschgeweih, meaning, “Ass Antlers.” Can you imagine if we had named a beer Ass Antlers!? We have nicknames for these tattoos because they have a purpose. The woman who has one is confident in her sexuality and she is enticing the viewer to appreciate her. A woman who is comfortable in her own skin and likes how she looks is a sexy woman. Sexy is not sexist. In fact, sexist is rarely sexy.

As a woman, and an artist, I have a hard time with [the] images being labeled chauvinistic. Chauvinism is an attitude of superiority over the opposite sex. I’m not designing women who are inferior, I’m designing women who celebrate who they are. So, who is bringing the inferiority? The viewer? The offended? It’s a complicated question.

Stacey George probably did not design the wine label on the right. But while we are appreciating Stacey’s work, and thinking about tramps, we wanted to include at least one more tramp-related label. Stamp du Tramp is bottled by Greg & Greg, Inc. of Sebastopol, California.

Related Posts:

• Cycle Buff Beauty Wine (1)
• Wine Without Pretense (0)
• Wicked Wine (0)

For a lively discussion of whether such labels go too far, follow these links about Lubrication (by Clown Shoes).

Related Posts:

• Manly Parts and Booze, Part 5 (0)
• Manly Parts and Booze, Part 4 (1)
• Unspeakable Beer (0)

Here is a lot of chickness. Witness it. Chick light beer is brewed and bottled by Minhas Craft Brewery of Monroe, Wisconsin. The website explains that Chick Beer is:  “The beer for women.  A premium light American lager, Chick is the only beer brand designed for women, who drink 25% of all beer sold in the U.S.”

Over on the right is Skinnygirl which of course is Tequila with natural flavors. Forbes says Beam paid Bethenny Frankel an “eyebrow-singeing $100 million” for the brand a few months ago:

That deal, which features a multi-year payout along with sales from her ever-expanding line of Skinnygirl products, bolstered Frankel’s bank account by an estimated $55 million in the past 12 months, according to sources close to Frankel (she won’t comment on the numbers); TV, we figure, earned her a mere $700,000.

The Chick has about 97 calories per 12 ounces of beer, according to the label. And the Skinnygirl has about the same number of calories, per 4 ounces. Neither appears to have any fat.

Related Posts:

• Punk Bubbles: Do You Prefer the 2004 Stench, or Filth? (2)
• Pink Triangles, Beer, a Bottle of Pride (1)
• Not Your Wife’s Spritzer (2)

A long way from painted urns, or ink on paper, here is another example of innovative, functional, modern, social(?) beverage packaging. My Bud Light encourages the consumer to modify the labeling a little bit. Bud’s press release says:

Message On A Bottle: Bud Light Introduces ‘My Bud Light’ Packaging
New Package Allows Consumers to Add Personal Message on Bottle’s Label

ST. LOUIS (April 1, 2011) – Bud Light, the world’s best-selling beer, is introducing a new way for beer drinkers to personalize their bottles with the brand’s latest packaging innovation, “My Bud Light.”

Beginning April 4, Bud Light 12-oz. bottles will feature the My Bud Light label, which allows adult beer drinkers the unique opportunity to add their own personal touch to the bottle. Using a key or coin, consumers can “write” a message or draw an image on the label.

“This new bottle is one of the many ways we can bring Bud Light’s fun personality to life,” said Mike Sundet, senior director, Bud Light. “Bud Light drinkers are always looking for fun, quirky ways to express themselves, and the My Bud Light bottle offers them a canvas to do just that.”

A Chicago purveyor of other beer-personalization-paraphernalia hastens to add:  “Following BeerTAG’s footprint, the new innovation from Budweiser further confirms the consumer demand for a great beer identification solution.”

Related Posts:

• Tubes of Lemon (0)
• Suck & Blow (0)
• Nude Beer (2)

On or about September 17, 2009, Flying Dog Brewery requested permission to sell Raging Bitch beer in Michigan. About two months later, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission denied the application, asserting: “The Commission finds that the proposed label which includes the brand name ‘Raging Bitch’ contains such language deemed detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public.”

Flying Dog filed a lawsuit last month, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. In a later post, we’ll review the state’s rationale. But for today, we highlight a few of the juiciest portions from the pleadings submitted by Flying Dog (and attorney Alan Gura). The complaint asserts:

Regrettably, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission and its members have taken it upon themselves to control not merely alcoholic beverages, but speech as well. Acting as a censorial board, Defendants wield state authority to impose their personal tastes as a prior restraint against core First Amendment expression that happens to be placed on beer labels.

The supporting memorandum goes on to cite the Staub case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court said:

It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which … makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.

The memorandum argues that the ban is too broad; “preventing all adults from all access to Raging Bitch [in order to protect some children] is hardly a narrowly tailored restriction.” The Butler case calls back from 54 years ago to remind us “by quarantining the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order to shield juvenile innocence. … Surely, this is to burn the house to roast the pig.” The brewer’s memorandum concludes:

The First Amendment is incompatible with the notion that government regulators may sit in judgment of a beer label, scrutinizing it for conformance to their personal views on what sort of expression might disturb delicate sensibilities.

If your tender sensibilities are not yet disturbed, you can find other such labels here.

Related Posts:

• Ugly American Beer (2)
• Protest Wine (1)
• Over Regulated Ale, Part 1 (2)