The Fate of the Godfather's Legacy?

It's been an interesting time for the Australian whisky industry in the last year or so. While dealing with the ongoing pandemic and all of the associated challenges takes the lion's share of our attention, some rather concerning things have been taking place. Unfortunately these seemingly small issues add up to the very real possibility of dealing significant damage not only to the Australian whisky industry, but specifically the Tasmanian whisky industry - the island that started it all, the genesis state, the spark of life for Australian whisky. If these issues were to reach the global whisky audience in the same way as previous Tasmanian whisky controversies have, then that damage could have an impact on said industries' future growth, both in potential and current export markets, and domestically. Am I helping the situation by writing about these issues and broadcasting them over the internet? Perhaps not, although I don't think that this humble little whisky blog has such a reach or such an audience, but I feel that these issues have gone on too long without being addressed or discussed beyond social media.

Much has been said recently about issues surrounding Japanese whisky, and "Japanese" whisky, and Japanese "whisky" that despite a long history have only recently gained enough attention to actually spur that industry into action in some small - but hopefully growing - way. If I can summarise that controversy in very brief terms, there is very little regulation in Japan surrounding what is and is not whisky, and what is and is not Japanese, and what is and is not Japanese whisky. Imported spirits and whiskies are being labelled as sold as 'Japanese', often with some kanji on the label, and/or an evocative image of a Samurai or Geisha, which is targeting the naïve and/or ignorant and taking advantage of the continuing 'boom' in the demand for Japanese whisky around the world. For more on this I would suggest reading this excellent article written by one of the greatest whisky writers, Mr. Dave Broom. But essentially, through the lack of strict labelling standards, the lack of definitive regulations and the lack of an effective governing body, loopholes have been found and thoroughly exploited. Why am I talking about "Japanese" whisky in this article? Because unfortunately I can draw multiple parallels between those issues & shortcomings with what is happening right now in Australia. Not yet to the same extent, thankfully, but we do seem to be heading in the wrong direction. 

While there are other concerning examples, such as imported whisky that is being passed off as an Australian product, dodgy distilleries going under, processes being patented and more, I'm going to focus my efforts on one particularly concerning set of examples: Lark Distillery, or more specifically now Lark Distilling Co., the ASX-listed company formerly known as Australian Whisky Holdings who purchased the distillery in 2013. Before I do, a disclaimer: this is in no way reflective on the production staff at Lark Distillery, or indeed the other distillery that falls under that same banner, who's name has become something of a four-letter word: Nant. I have had the pleasure of touring both distilleries, and both distillery teams can and do produce great whisky, some of the best in the country in fact, so their hard work should not be discounted by the misdeeds of others. This article also does not consider the quality of the whiskies that we're discussing, it isn't relevant to this discussion. Nor is this reflective on the hard work of Bill Lark, the Godfather of Australian whisky, and the Lark family, all of whom have Tasmanian whisky running through their veins and have put a huge amount of work into both Lark and other brands - Bill was not a one-man show! It was my concern for Bill's legacy and that of the Lark family that initially set the cogs in motion for this article, along with the recent Lifetime Achievement Award that he was awarded at the recent inaugural Australian Whisky Awards. I have only had the pleasure of meeting Bill once in person, all too briefly, but his continued impact on the Australian whisky industry cannot be underestimated. I cannot think of a single more deserving recipient of that award. Aside from his family's hard work with Lark Distillery itself, 'The Godfather' has been and is instrumental in setting up and supporting many successful distilleries both in Tasmania and on mainland Australia, and it's safe to say that without his pioneering efforts the Australian whisky industry would look very different today. I have not consulted Bill in any way before writing this article, and I do not know his personal opinions on these issues. This is merely my personal opinion and personal observations as an outsider looking in, and it seems to me that the distillery, brand and company that carries the Lark name is doing no favours for his legacy. 

What's in a name?

We'll start with the raft of limited release Lark Distilling Co. whiskies that have hit the shelves over the last year or so, including two very recent examples. Firstly, the whisky that the owners have decided to name 'Lark Distilling Co. Legacy' that is pictured above. This is a 19-year old single malt whisky, distilled in Tasmania by Bill Lark. But it was NOT distilled at Lark Distillery. It was distilled at another famous Tasmanian distillery while Bill was consulting there, filled into two single casks, and presumably was matured at Lark Distillery before being bottled by Lark Distilling Co. It could not be labelled as the distillery where it was distilled, nor could it be labelled as a Lark Distillery whisky. So that, folks, is an independent bottling, plain & simple. And I'm not even bothered that these bottlings were priced at $1950 AUD each. I'm bothered that they were marketed as a product of the Lark Distilling Company. Even many stores and resellers, who really should know better, are listing and promoting this bottle as a Lark single malt. Smack-bang in the middle of the bottle's front label, you'll find the words "Tasmanian Single Malt Whisky from the House of Lark". And the company's own marketing material states "containing some of the rarest, oldest single malts to emerge from the House of Lark". Naturally this particular whisky received plenty of media attention, which of course was mostly barely-altered versions of the company's own press release, but this has only really been openly discussed in whisky groups on social media. There's also been a subtle change to the distillery's round logo: no longer "Lark Distillery" as pictured on the cask above, but now "Lark Distilling". So what is "the House of Lark", exactly? It seems to be the brand that is now applied to any whisky product released by Lark Distilling Company, formerly Australian Whisky Holdings, that was not distilled at Lark Distillery. And I'm sure it's legally perfectly acceptable. After all, what's in a name? Well, regardless of what entity owns the legal rights to the name, in this case it just happens to be the surname of the distillery's founder, Bill Lark, and his family, and that name is absolutely synonymous with Lark Distillery. 

This same thing has happened with a number of different 'Lark Distilling' and 'House of Lark' products over the last year or so. When the same company purchased the infamous Nant Distillery in 2017, they also inherited the maturing stock - well, the maturing stock that actually existed and was actually whisky, anyway! Some of this stock continues to be sold as single malt whisky labelled as Nant. But AWH/Lark Distilling Co. have also bottled some whisky distilled at Nant Distillery but labelled under this 'House of Lark' label. And the only hint of the source of these spirits / whiskies is found at the bottom of the front label, where you'll find the words "From our Bothwell distillery" or simply "Bothwell Distillery". There's only one distillery in the small town of Bothwell in central Tasmania, and it's of course owned by Lark Distilling Company, but it's name is Nant. Likewise with Overeem Distillery, which they acquired in 2014 but which was thankfully sold back to the Overeem family in early 2020. The fine print on those particular "House of Lark" bottles? Old Hobart Distillery, the former parent company of the Overeem whisky brand. And sentimentally, what's arguably worse is that the products of the actual Lark Distillery are now labelled as 'Coal Valley Distillery', along with the round "Lark Distilling" logo pictured below. You won't find any mention of Lark Distillery on those bottles, and even the distillery team seem to now refer to themselves as "Coal Valley" or "Coal River". Would it really be that difficult to come up with a new name for this larger group / company? Of course not. Or couldn't they just do separate logos for each distillery's products? Of course they could. But the company would rather continue to benefit from using the Lark name and the history and reputation that it carries. I think it's safe to say that the majority of the target market, even amongst whisky enthusiasts, aren't aware that the Lark family no longer owns or runs the distillery, and that Bill himself is only involved in a minor ambassadorial role and is no longer on the board of directors.

Let's imagine for a second, purely hypothetically of course, that Ardbeg Distillery released a whisky that was distilled at Laphroaig, but they labelled it as "House of Ardbeg" and made a small adjustment to the Ardbeg logo and packaging artwork that most people wouldn't even notice. The internet would explode, all social media sites would collapse under the weight, the world's computer keyboard manufacturers would see their share prices quadruple as the sudden demand for replacements outstripped supply, and there'd be a delay of approximately 13 seconds before the Scotch Whisky Association's lawyers unleashed a torrent of emails and letters and phone calls, and the product would be recalled, lest the distillery owners would be hauled before the courts. That's an extreme example of course, but is also basically what's happening here. If you ask your average whisky drinker / buyer / collector (even one with a spare $1,950-$3,900 lying around) where the above Legacy whisky was made, there's a solid chance that some or most of them are going to tell you it's a Lark whisky. And therein lies the problem! 

That slightly altered Lark 'Distilling' logo has also been applied to a blended malt whisky, pictured above. But it's labelled as "Lark Symphony no. 1, Tasmanian Malt Whisky, and it carries that same round logo that now says "Lark Distilling" rather than "Lark Distillery". It's only in the fine print at the bottom of the label that you'll find the words "The first blended malt from the House of Lark". Going back to our hypothetical example, just imagine that instead of that imaginary single malt, Ardbeg Distillery decided to tip a cask of Laphroaig into a batch of one of their core range whiskies. Of course they would remove the term 'single malt' from the packaging, and they'd give the whisky a pretty new name, and they'd change the "Ardbeg Distillery" logo to "Ardbeg Distilling". Islay's ferries could not safely hold the hordes of pitchfork & torch-wielding peat-heads that would immediately march to the distillery gates thirsty for blood. A very similar thing actually happened around 20 years ago with the Cardhu brand of Scotch whisky, when they suddenly changed from a single malt to a blended malt, then known as a pure malt, with very minor packaging & branding changes, and it did not go well for them. Andrew Derbidge has covered that and Lark Distilling's Symphony blend perfectly well here on his site Whisky and Wisdom, and it's an interesting piece of modern Scotch whisky history.

I'll move on to the latest concerning 'innovation' from the 'House of Lark': a whisky that has been finished in casks that were seasoned with soft drink (soda to the American readers). Specifically Chinotto, which is unfortunately not some exotic type of Italian wine. It's a dark brown carbonated beverage that is made with oranges and flavoured with added herbs, spices and sugar. I had hoped that this was an elaborate April fool's joke, but no, it's real, and it's for sale on the distillery's - sorry, I mean the distilling company's - website. That of course would be entirely illegal in Scotland, since that product would not be able to use or carry the term 'whisky' in any way. I don't want to get into the "regulation stifles innovation" argument here, so I'll sum it up by saying that in my opinion this is taking a very large step too far and in the wrong direction, way beyond using a different type of wood or a hybrid still, or distilling from a hopped beer/wash, all of which are permitted under the Australian regulations. I'm all for exotic cask finishes and wacky experiments, but in my view this product is not whisky and should not be able to use the term. If anything it's closer to a pre-batched barrel-aged cocktail - and there's nothing wrong with those, since they aren't whisky!

If this product is allowed to be labelled as whisky, what's to stop someone using Mountain Dew seasoned casks? How about a single malt whisky finished in coffee seasoned casks? Or red bull? It's only a step behind adding something like honey, chocolate, maple syrup or even straight sugar to your spirit and still calling it whisky. Once again, the distillery / company is not doing anything illegal, they are operating within the very loose and vague Australian regulations - which is really little more than a loose definition from the tax office. The reason that the Scotch Whisky Association governs what casks can and cannot be used for Scotch whisky maturation, and in fact the reason that their whisky regulations exist as a whole and are enforced, is that they want a product labelled as whisky to taste like whisky. It's essentially protecting a brand and that brand's reputation, helping to keep consumer faith in that product for the benefit of the industry. And there is no such governing body in Australia. History in Scotch whisky alone has shown that these measures are necessary to avoid major crises. And those regulations still allow for a huge scope of variety, experimentation and innovation. Why don't we use mezcal, calvados and tequila casks like the Scotch whisky industry is now doing since the cask regulations were widened? How about more white wine barrels or sweet wine casks? Lighter & drier sherry casks? More ale / stout casks? All of those are produced in Australia in large amounts. Why don't we use different yeast varieties, barley varieties, peating levels (and more peat in general!) and spirit cut points? What about using some different still shapes and lyne arm angles, or direct-firing, or worm tub condensers? Thankfully there are some distilleries that are looking into these areas and some that are putting in the hard work and doing things differently, but they're the minority, and most are on the mainland of Australia where there is more variety, rather than in Tasmania. Unfortunately I suspect the answers are quite simple: because it's easier, cheaper, more efficient and commercially safer to just copy what someone else is already doing. Most of our whisky distilleries, particularly those in Tasmania, are still based on the formula that Bill Lark designed and implemented in the 1990s-2000s, from fermentation right through to distillation, including the design of the still or stills themselves. It's easier to set your distillery up using that same formula, using the same equipment and ingredient suppliers, thereby producing a very similar spirit, and you then throw it into a small (often too small) red wine or fortified wine barrel for a couple of years before selling it - often as a single cask bottling so consistency is less important. Then rinse & repeat.     

Since I've mentioned worm tubs above, one final point - and it was the observation that spurred this article, the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will. I had noticed a rather significant change in production at Lark Distillery / Coal River Distillery / Coal Valley Distillery that seems to have gone completely undiscussed or even unnoticed. Since the early days of the distillery in its current guise, Lark has used two copper pot stills, a wash still and a smaller spirit still. Both are similar in shape, but there was one key difference: a worm tub condenser was fitted to the wash still, shown pictured above. Worm tubs are an older, less efficient type of condenser that result in a heavier, weightier, oilier and thicker spirit through faster condensation and reduced copper interaction when compared to the more efficient and far more common shell & tube condensers. To my knowledge, Lark's worm tub condenser was the only one used in the Australian whisky industry, since everyone else uses the shell & tube condensers, as does Lark on their spirit still. I'm sure you've already picked up that I'm using past tense here, because if you venture in to the distillery today you won't find a worm tub condenser. At some point in 2020 it was replaced with a shell & tube condenser, apparently because the worm tub was getting old and was close to leaking. Such a change would have a drastic effect on the low wines that this still produces, and in turn on the new make spirit. For what it's worth, the distillery has altered their processes to allow for this change and to get closer to the original character by changing the temperatures on the condensers and also the cut points on the spirit itself, and I'm sure they've effectively hidden the changes. But if those steps were needed, why not just replace the condenser with another worm tub? I could be wrong, but I suspect the answer goes back to what I talked about above: because it's easier, cheaper and more efficient. A commercial decision, saving on downtime or costs or both, and one that moves away from the formula that Bill & his family, and also the distillery team, have worked with over the years to great success. Which makes that yet another part of the Godfather's legacy that is under threat. 

I still believe that Lark can and do produce great whiskies, many of which belong on the world stage and deserve the accolades that they receive - some of the greatest Australian whiskies ever made have come out of their sheds. As I stated early in this piece, this article does not consider the quality of the whiskies that have been mentioned - good or bad, that's not the issue we're discussing. But I also believe that they should be safeguarding and caretaking the real legacy that is that lifetime of achievement more closely, and that some more respect needs to be given to the family name that is printed on those labels and boxes. 

Cheers!