Corroborates the provenance-threshold model: regional identity should disclose grain, distillation, transport, maturation, blending, and other material stages instead of relying on one yes-or-no location test.
Greene discusses a Texas mash bill distilled in Kentucky, transported as white whiskey, and matured in Texas, using the example to expose the limits of a single-stage regional label.
One of the things that I think is incredibly important is not to ask ‘Did you?’ but to ask ‘How did you?’ … When you get deeper into questions about provenance or terroir and what it is to be a whiskey and if you’re only looking at it through the tiny lens of distillation, you forget all of the things that happen before and after that point in the process.
Complete-copy PDF sheet 377; displayed ebook p. 337
Complete-copy PDF sheet 377; displayed ebook p. 337
Milam & Greene
Fresh sequential audit2026-09-29: main text1–574 read, all-page visual survey completed. Evidence checked at Complete-copy PDF sheet 377; displayed ebook p. 337. Page numeric field now refers to the complete-copy PDF screen, superseding the184-screen selective capture. Verified means faithful to this2021 source, not independently confirmed current fact.
Operational annotation
The Kentucky-distilled, Texas-matured example exposes the inadequacy of a one-stage test for regional identity. The evidence supports disclosure of grain, distillation, transport, maturation, blending, and other material stages.
Limitation
Greene offers a defensible provenance framework, not a universally accepted legal definition of “Texas whiskey.”
Verified locator
PDF sheet 51; displayed ebook page 337. Visually verified on 2026-08-24.