PDA

View Full Version : Michter's Original Sour Mash Whiskey



Gillman
12-27-2012, 03:18
When the original Michter's was operating, it produced something called Michter's Original Sour Mash Whiskey.

This was, to my best recollection, 50% corn, the rest mostly rye with some barley malt. It was apparently 6 years old and generally aged in new charred oak although some reports state that reused barrels were sometimes employed for aging.

Michael Jackson gave it high marks in his landmark World Guide To Whisky, published in the late 1980's.

He called it "gingery" (this was the rye hit surely) and "delightful". I've had some here and there over the years and it was great, like a soft melding of a straight bourbon and rye.

A full page ad in the last New York Times Sunday magazine announces the release of a whiskey of this name. The label on the bottle pictured states Michter's Original Sour Mash Whiskey. I can't see an age statement on the bottle, but you can't see the reverse side of course. It is 86 proof, which is the proof of the original IIRC.

In the lower corner of the page, the producer is called "Michter's American Whiskey Company Kentucky", so clearly it is connected to the company which has been marketing the other Michter expressions in recent years. Presumably the make is sourced in Kentucky.

Taste notes will be appreciated, until I can get my hands on some.

Personally, I like the various releases from the current Michter's outfit, which has no connection to the original Michter's business if I understand correctly what I've read about it other than owning the Michter's trade mark. Those products (variously aged bourbon and rye, and a non-straight American Whiskey) were all good, especially the 10 year old rye, but this is the first time I believe that an attempt has been made to offer a taste similar to what Michter's of Pennsylvania last produced for retail purchase under that brand name (i.e., excepting whiskey produced for the bulk market which it apparently did from time to time include the legendary Hirsch 16 and 20 year old bourbons). The reason I say that is the ad copy states that the brand is being released "for the first time in 23 years", so I'd guess some attempt was made to get at the same palate. This will be interesting.

Gary

tmckenzie
12-27-2012, 03:43
I want to try this as well, and you are correct on the mashbill. Fermented with Beam jug yeast and doubled in a pot still. I am not sure on the backset content, Dick just said they pumped it to it for so many minutes and did not recall the gallonage. I just hope this is not some soured low grade bourbon aged in used barrels, maybe they did their homemork on this one.

Gillman
12-27-2012, 04:11
Tom, I would think it is sourced in some manner since the announcement of setting up a distillery under the Michter's name in Louisville only goes back about a year and half. Even assuming that distillery is up and running, that would not seem enough time to get this new product in the bottle.

Gary

squire
12-27-2012, 21:41
Well, doubled in a doubler which their marketing people insisted on calling a pot still even though it was an ordinary doubler. Of course they did put up a small pot still as a PR gag for the 1976 Bi-centennial and I'm surprised at the number of folks who actually think it was used for the regular run of their whisky.

Gillman
12-28-2012, 01:52
The whiskey was by most reports very good though, and there was some detail about the pot still doubler that differed from what most other people do, either charging it separately or something about the heads and tails - I think Ethan or Chuck could elaborate about this. But no question the claims as made by the old PA business seemed a bit broad in this regard, at least in today's environment, and setting aside that some whiskey was made after 1975 in a true pot still system and sold in the visitor shop, or so I've read.

In the new ad I mentioned, there is no verbal reference to pot stilling as such. The bottle has a depiction of what looks like an ancient pot still on it, but that is just a vague depiction of heritage and I think all the bottles in the line use it.

Gary

tmckenzie
12-28-2012, 04:06
I am pretty sure Dick Stoll told me the whiskey was condensed off the beer still and collected and ran through the pot in a separate operation. Most doublers are continuos in how they work, no true seperation of heads and tails. In a pot like I am told they ran, you would get heads and tails in the traditional manner. That would make for a high proof much lighter whiskey. The process would be not too far removed from what is done at A. Smith Bowman.

Gillman
12-28-2012, 05:03
Well, that's interesting Tom. I was reading a little further into it and found a 2008 discussion on Chuck's blog. He states that it was the apparent intention back in the 50's to set up a true double distillation pot still system but it didn't occur, and also that big distilleries in PA at the time may have dispensed with a second distillation stage, so claiming a pot stilling might have a greater significance in that environment.

Using a doubler is truly to use the second stage of a traditional pot-stilling, it is like the spirit still in that process, but the first stage uses a column for the "stripping" stage due to its efficiency. For me what it comes down to is, Michter's (until that Vendome pot still was put in in 1976 as part of a tourist demonstration project, apparently, and used to distill small amounts of whiskey), was using a process essentially similar to what bourbon-makers were doing for about 100 years, but it chose to market that aspect of it, and others didn't. Anyway that's old history. The current Michter's products are apparently Kentucky-sourced whiskies made in a way typical of their style. For me, what is in the bottle is what counts. I'll give my opinion in due course when I can taste it.

Gary

AaronWF
12-28-2012, 06:09
Personally, I like the various releases from the current Michter's outfit, which has no connection to the original Michter's business if I understand correctly what I've read about it other than owning the Michter's trade mark. Those products (variously aged bourbon and rye, and a non-straight American Whiskey) were all good, especially the 10 year old rye, but this is the first time I believe that an attempt has been made to offer a taste similar to what Michter's of Pennsylvania last produced for retail purchase under that brand name (i.e., excepting whiskey produced for the bulk market which it apparently did from time to time include the legendary Hirsch 16 and 20 year old bourbons). The reason I say that is the ad copy states that the brand is being released "for the first time in 23 years", so I'd guess some attempt was made to get at the same palate. This will be interesting.

Gary

Why do you have the impression that they are trying to recreate any specific taste of the past? From what I've observed, the company is built around a name and a logo, and I would expect any other label they put out to follow suit. Are you saying you think this new label of theirs will contain bourbon with a 50% corn mash bill?

I see no reason to take any copy they publish with anything more than a grain of salt.

Gillman
12-28-2012, 07:31
I assumed it may resemble the original because the ad copy states that the brand is released "for the first time in 23 years" (this from memory but I think that is how it was put). That to me suggested some interest in matching up the tastes. Of course, that may not be the case, it may be just the brand name that is back and the profile is different. Sure, that is possible.

Gary

squire
12-28-2012, 11:41
Gary I doubt the sincerity of someone who advertizes disingenuously to justify the price. This is sourced NPP whisky whose only connection to the original is the brand name.

Gillman
12-28-2012, 12:11
It may be, but why use the name of the one brand Michter's was known for (albeit knowledge of the brand was hardly extensive in its heyday and far less today some 20 years after the expiry of the original business)? The current outfit started in the 90's and had lots of time to commission a whiskey using that mashbill, if it wanted to.

Or maybe there is no connection in the make-up whatever. I'd like to taste it to see though.

Gary

cowdery
12-28-2012, 12:27
I can't imagine why anyone would believe anything Potemkin Michter's says about anything.

Most recently, they have claimed that the first whiskey they sold as Michter's was stock from the real Michter's. While I can't prove that's a false statement, the facts I know make it extremely unlikely and the track record of this company is that they are not to be believed about anything.

Even if they do put some decent whiskey into their bottles, I just can't see doing business with someone I can't trust.

But that's just me, I guess. It is, as they say, a free country.

Gillman
12-28-2012, 12:37
Those opposed to how they market are free to say so, and why, and not to buy this or any brand. As for me, I just want to try it and see what it's like. And they haven't said as such it is a replication of the original, but I think you can infer it, possibly, from the tenor of the ad which is typical of many modern whiskey ads which talk about heritage and pedigree in a vague way.

And if it turns out there is no connection at all in the make-up, I won't feel disappointed, I have no expectation on it one way or the other. (It's a bottle of whiskey at the end of the day and I want to try it).

Maybe someone from the whisky press will call them up and ask them...

Gary

cowdery
12-28-2012, 12:52
Why ask questions of people who you know will lie to you? What makes you think their dishonesty ends with their marketing? Of course they 'infer' that it is a replication of the original, hoping people with bottomless reserves of credulity will drop the dime. Be my guest. Then I'd like to talk to you about a bridge I'm selling.

squire
12-28-2012, 12:54
Precisely Gary, why? Because it is the name they were known for. We consumed a lot of Michters in the mid-late '70s when it showed up here as part of a national sales push. We considered it a Jack Daniels knock off with the black label, white lettering, sour mash buzzwords, etc., a mid to premium brand priced a bit higher than Old Crow but lower than the BIB versions of Forester, Grand Dad, Taylor or Fitzgerald.

In short a good enough though unexceptional whisky. Hard to believe it matured into the justly famous 16 year old expression put out by Hirsch. Then again, perhaps the simple explanation is the correct one. They didn't make that whisky.

So how did Michters grow from a regional to national distribution so quickly? A careful reading of the Original Pot Still Sour Mash label only says the whisky was made in Pennsylvania, not where. Was the Hirsch in fact a Michter distillate and the Original Pot Still brand beefed up with bulk whisky from another supplier. Michter was itself at times a supplier to other brands, surely there were established connections. It would be interesting to review both production and distribution figures.

squire
12-28-2012, 12:57
Gary I was speaking in response to your post, Chuck's just happened to hit two minutes before mine was entered.

cowdery
12-28-2012, 12:59
A. H. Hirsch is bourbon, Michter's Original is not. A. H. Hirsch is 16 to 20 years old, Michter's Original is 4 to 5 years old. I've had both and they're as different as night and day. Both were made at the distillery in Schaefferstown, although the Michter's may have been supplemented by whiskey that was not.

Gillman
12-28-2012, 13:03
Squire, they were known for it but it was hardly a huge seller back then. Very few people today, even in groups like ours, would know what this was. So if they use the same name maybe they intended some taste connection. And maybe they didn't, I can live with that. Simple, end of story, and I'll spend $30.00 or whatever it will cost to see if it tastes like a kind of bourbon-rye mingling. That is all this is (to me) but if people don't want to buy it, that is up to them.

Gary

squire
12-28-2012, 13:10
Certainly Gary and I would hope you know me well enough by now to realize my posts were not directed at either your personal tastes or purchase decisions.

I am growing more mindful of the number of daily visitors and new members to this forum who might be led to buy a brand because of something posted here and not be aware of the facts (it's NPP whisky) that, if known, may have led them to spend their dollars elsewhere.

Gillman
12-28-2012, 13:29
By all means I encourage all views to be aired, whether in agreement to mine or no. As well, I counsel no one to do anything here, but simply explain why I will buy something or not.

Gary

Gillman
12-29-2012, 04:05
Casting around this morning for taste notes or other information on the new product, I found this:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-23/features/sc-food-1221-drink-michters-bourbon-20121223_1_single-barrel-bourbon-kentucky-bourbon-distillers-mash

People can draw their own conclusions.

Gary

Gillman
12-29-2012, 04:33
Here is an interesting taste note from Clay Risen on this product and two others, tasted in a brace:

http://clayrisen.com/

Gary

cowdery
12-29-2012, 15:05
From its introduction in the 1950s, Michter's Original Sour Mash was sold primarily in Pennsylvania. Several unsuccessful attempts to gain adherents outside of Pennsylvania were made. One such was trying to turn it into a Jack Daniel's clone, a strategy followed with much more success by Heaven Hill with Evan Williams, the Ripys with Ezra Brooks, and others. Michter's had what was then a unique privilege of being able to sell its product at the distillery's gift shop and by the end, that's the only place Michter's Original Sour Mash was sold. At the end, it was selling about 10,000 cases a year.

I've tasted it and still have a couple of unopened bottles. It's not bad, but nothing special. I've had better whiskey from some of the decanters they put out. Perhaps it was older. Or perhaps the inevitable oxidation that occurs from a long time in ceramic helped it.

Potemkin Michter's is spending a lot of money and generating a lot of publicity. In a field with many dubious practitioners, they are among the worst. You pay your money and you take your chances. The USA is a free country and so, more or less, is Canada. All of that said, it's hard to say anything bad about the whiskey Potemkin Michter's is putting in its bottles. I would hate to give money to such sleazes, but I won't hesitate to drink the whiskey if it's offered to me.

PaulO
01-01-2013, 09:35
I can appreciate both points of view. Gary is interested to try something new. Chuck is skeptical of people that infer and obfiscate. My own experience is that when a store in Indy had a big display of the new Michters stuff, I couldn't justify $40 for someting from a non-distiller, not very old, and no reviews from folks here. I ended up going home with a couple bottles of single barrel OWA :grin:

squire
01-01-2013, 10:34
Sound choice Paul. In the past I was as eager as anyone to plonk down the cash when something new appeared on the market but not so now. Perhaps it's the cease of restlessness that comes from repeated experience.

While I admire Gary's boundless intellectual curiosity concerning whisky, and his willingness to share his experiences here, for my part I'll stick with what I know.

T Comp
01-01-2013, 11:09
I can appreciate both points of view. Gary is interested to try something new. Chuck is skeptical of people that infer and obfiscate.

I expect nothing less from these two fine gentleman who are schooled in a noble profession ;).

squire
01-01-2013, 11:24
Thanks Thad, I overlooked the noble part.

ethangsmith
01-05-2013, 09:37
Sorry I missed this thread. To answer a few questions and reinforce some comments here:
1. The doubler was used one batch at a time. Dick told me that what came off the column by the end of the day was condensed and put into the doubler for doubling the following day. He said it was a pain because it created a bit of a choke point in the process.
2. There is no possible way the new Michter's bought old Michter's whiskey. The bond had not been paid for many years on any of the whiskey that was aging at Michter's and so when the operation shut down in 1990, three years later the BATF had Dick and several others inventory all the whiskey. When inventory had finished, the BATF came in with large plastic troughs and drilled each barrel while it was still on the rack and used the trough to funnel the whiskey into tanker trucks. Since the bond had not been paid, the government destroyed all the whiskey by redistilling it into other products. For the new Michter's to claim they bought some of it would certainly be impossible and probably their first slip-up they can actually be nailed on. I know of no stocks that left the distillery other than the Hirsch barrels in 1988.
3. So what is this new pot still product? Does this replace the Michter's Unblended American Whiskey they have out now? Will this not taste like crap?

squire
01-05-2013, 09:46
Certainly a violation of Truth in Labeling laws and regulations but I doubt Federal regulators are interested in going on record as defenders of the rights of whisky drinkers.

squire
01-05-2013, 09:51
Whatever it is, it's not pot still either, unless they got it from Woodford, which is unlikely.

ethangsmith
01-05-2013, 15:35
I was thinking the same thing. I know they're doing some touristy distillery thingy down in Louisville with a pot still, but:
1. I haven't heard anything about it actually being built or even under construction.
2. Even if it is complete or near completion, they certainly wouldn't have aged product!

I'm trying to get my hands on a bottle (Or bottles....) of this stuff. If I do, I will do a review versus some of Dick Stoll's finest from Schaefferstown, PA!! I see Party Source lists it, but of course being in PA, I can't get it shipped here (Thank you PLCB blockade.).

cowdery
01-06-2013, 21:32
They're generally smart enough to not make false label claims.

The government didn't redistill anything because the government doesn't operate any stills. They would have given or, if possible, sold it to a redistiller who would have distilled it into neutral spirit, which could have used for anything neutral spirits is used for. The rumor at the time, according to Stoll and others, was racing fuel, which is a possibility, but that may also have been someone's shorthand for GNS. To use it for a beverage, i.e., vodka, the excise would have to be paid so it had to have been used for a non-beverage purpose.

There is always the possibility that there was someone else, like Hirsch, who owned some of that whiskey and had paid the excise on it, and got it out before 2/14/1990. Though possible, it's doubtful because Stoll doesn't remember anything else like that and it's never been mentioned or hinted at by anyone, including Potemkin Michter's, until recently.

ethangsmith
01-07-2013, 03:18
Correct. From what I've been told from a few people the whiskey was taken by tanker to somewhere in Philly where it was redistilled by an industrial alcohols company- maybe Publicker? Tough to say.

squire
01-07-2013, 06:46
Those tanker trucks were driven by Teamsters, right?

cowdery
01-07-2013, 10:11
It should be said that anybody in the distilled spirits business could have had that whiskey for the price of the back taxes. Nobody wanted it. Not even, I dare say, the Teamsters.

tanstaafl2
01-07-2013, 11:19
It should be said that anybody in the distilled spirits business could have had that whiskey for the price of the back taxes. Nobody wanted it. Not even, I dare say, the Teamsters.

I am wandering if Squire was perhaps suggesting that the Teamsters might have found an opportunity to sample the goods in transit. You know, just to make sure they were up to and appropriate standard of quality...

squire
01-07-2013, 11:51
Yeah, that was my thinking, probably needed their friend's opinions as well.

ohiobourbon
01-21-2013, 18:59
I am a little late to the conversation ... but great thread on Michter's Original Sour Mash. It was 16 months ago that Dick Stoll came by our distillery and spent the weekend teaching us to mash and distill on the barrel-a-day set that he used to run in the little Jug House at Michter's. What a great opportunity for me to learn from the Master. And ... the whiskey he made with us, using his Bourbon mash bill, is over a year old now, and is tasting great. It's not ready for release yet ... but ...

mosugoji64
01-21-2013, 21:29
I am a little late to the conversation ... but great thread on Michter's Original Sour Mash. It was 16 months ago that Dick Stoll came by our distillery and spent the weekend teaching us to mash and distill on the barrel-a-day set that he used to run in the little Jug House at Michter's. What a great opportunity for me to learn from the Master. And ... the whiskey he made with us, using his Bourbon mash bill, is over a year old now, and is tasting great. It's not ready for release yet ... but ...

Thanks for checking in, and keep us informed on the progress. Looking forward to the final results!

ethangsmith
01-27-2013, 13:22
I gave some of this new whiskey to Dick Stoll last evening to get his opinion. He did enjoy it and said it was certainly similar to what was made by him in Pennsylvania. His last remark was "Keep trying! You're getting closer!" with a chuckle. My other friends in attendance all agreed it is indeed a fine whiskey too, and probably the company's offering closest to being worthy of the Michter's name.

BourbonJoe
01-28-2013, 17:58
Ethan,
Do you know the provenance of this whiskey?
Joe :usflag:

ChainWhip
01-28-2013, 22:13
Ethan-

Are you referring to ohiobourbon's 16 month old bourbon or the Michter 16?

Sent from my HTC using Tapatalk 2

ethangsmith
01-29-2013, 03:12
Joe- No, I do not. I can't quite nail down the flavor profile to one distillery. It's an interesting flavor.

Chainwhip- This is neither. This is an entirely new product from Michter's. It has no age statement, but is probably 4-6 years old.

Gillman
01-29-2013, 05:47
These reports are encouraging and in the direction of what I hoped might occur, i.e., something which inevitably will not be a copy of the original Michter's Original Sour Mash but which is similar in some respects and people like. I look forward to trying it.

Gary

unclebunk
01-29-2013, 06:21
These reports are encouraging and in the direction of what I hoped might occur, i.e., something which inevitably will not be a copy of the original Michter's Original Sour Mash but which is similar in some respects and people like. I look forward to trying it.

Gary

I'm looking forward to trying it as well and hope the price is reasonable (unlike the current overpriced Michter's bottles I see on the shelves these days).

ChainWhip
01-29-2013, 07:41
I meant the 10, but I'll keep an eye out for the new stuff. Thanks for the info Ethan!

ethangsmith
02-03-2013, 16:43
I've never had the 10yo bourbon or rye, but I'd like to try it as I'm sure it's pretty good. Don't get me wrong about my anti- current day Michter's rants- their products are very good. It's the price and the terrible marketing I don't like. The whiskey in the bottles is fine stuff.

BourbonJoe
02-06-2013, 10:18
I've never had the 10yo bourbon or rye, but I'd like to try it as I'm sure it's pretty good. Don't get me wrong about my anti- current day Michter's rants- their products are very good. It's the price and the terrible marketing I don't like. The whiskey in the bottles is fine stuff.

Some of the 10 y/o Bourbon, when it was made by KBD was Stitzel-Weller. If the neck code has the designation 7K__, it is S-W whiskey and very good.
Joe :usflag:

HighHorse
02-28-2013, 11:37
Has anyone had this yet?

ethangsmith
02-28-2013, 14:38
Yes. See my posts earlier in the thread. It's good stuff, but expensive.

ethangsmith
02-28-2013, 14:40
My complete review: http://theethansmithblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/pennsylvania-vs-kentucky.html

ChainWhip
02-28-2013, 14:41
I like it as well but I know I overpaid for my bottle. If it were higher ABV (BiB or Cask Strength), it'd really something to write home about.

Trey Manthey
02-28-2013, 14:57
I'm interested in getting my hands on some of the 10 year single barrel rye that is supposedly older than the age statement. I've seen the discussion that some of the early runs were theorized to be 18+ year Medley juice.

To the point, I've got some bottles nearby with the "Barrel 10H-2" on the neck label. Anyone know if this is any indication that could lead me towards a hidden gem? I'd usually take the plunge and decide for myself, but the price is a bit steep for me to take a blind gamble. The bottles certainly qualify as "dusty" in the most literal sense.

ethangsmith
02-28-2013, 17:49
I revisited my bottle of new Michter's Sour Mash this evening and found it eerily similar to my bottle of Old Grand Dad 86. I never realized how close OGD 86 is to original Michter's from Schaefferstown,PA. But then again, you've got Beam yeast and process in both, they're about the same age, and they both contain a significant helping of rye. No wonder I've loved OGD all this time....

squire
02-28-2013, 17:54
Old Grand Dad rules . . . there, I said it.

ethangsmith
02-28-2013, 18:56
It's one of 5 Beam products I like. The other 4? Knob Creek bourbon, Knob Creek rye, Old Overholt, and Baker's. Several years ago when I had OGD BIB for the first time, it instantly became my favorite bourbon. I am almost ashamed to say it was pushed to the back of my cabinet to make room for others. The 114 and 86 iterations are wonderful too and I've recently started to revisit them more often and I've found them to be a great, inexpensive oasis in a desert of mid- and upper-shelf whiskies. Interestingly in the 4 or 5 years I've been an OGD fan, I never noticed the similarities between it and Michter's from Pennsylvania in profile. But it fits- the mashbill is somewhat similar, the age is close, and the proof and yeast are the same or similar. If OGD was slightly higher yet in rye content, used a heavy char barrel, and was aged for 6 years, we'd have probably an all but perfect match. Hopefully Beam leaves OGD alone!

HighHorse
03-01-2013, 08:25
Well ... now we've heard it! It was rumored that OGD might be a favorite of yours.:rolleyes:

HighHorse
03-01-2013, 08:30
I got a taste of it last night on the porch and my first impression was that it was a little light on it's feet. The rye stands out and it's an easy to drink pour. Perhaps too easy for me as I'd like my bourbon to fight back a bit so that I can hold to a once per hour routine. (OGD114, Squire) This one was gone in 10 minutes! My fellow porch denizens, however, were much more complimentary and I'm sure we'll be seeing it on the shelves soon. The price might make one pause.
Thanks, Ethan, for that feedback & enjoyed your blog.

cowdery
03-02-2013, 13:11
Actually, OGD may be one of the few bourbons whose yeast doesn't have a Beam in its pedigree. For OGD, Beams uses the yeast National was using for the brand at the Forks of Elkhorn distillery, and not the standard Jim Beam yeast.

BourbonJoe
03-02-2013, 16:44
Actually, OGD may be one of the few bourbons whose yeast doesn't have a Beam in its pedigree. For OGD, Beams uses the yeast National was using for the brand at the Forks of Elkhorn distillery, and not the standard Jim Beam yeast.
That may well be why I think it is the best in the Beam line-up. I don't get that funky Beam yeast taste in OGD.
Joe :usflag:

squire
03-02-2013, 17:01
You heard it here first folks.

ethangsmith
03-02-2013, 20:05
Actually, OGD may be one of the few bourbons whose yeast doesn't have a Beam in its pedigree. For OGD, Beams uses the yeast National was using for the brand at the Forks of Elkhorn distillery, and not the standard Jim Beam yeast.

Makes total sense. This would be why the OGD seems so radically different from the standard Beam products. I always attributed it to mashbill, but it seems there is more at play here. That's nice to know they are still using the National Distillers yeast to make this fine product!

cowdery
03-06-2013, 21:18
I'm sorry if that's coming as news to anyone. I've known it since the 1980s when I worked on the brand. OGD, including Basil Hayden, is the OGD high rye mashbill and the National Distillers OGD yeast, presumably all the same since Repeal, as it has only had two owners, National and Beam.

tmckenzie
03-07-2013, 03:16
I have heard it before, I think I read it in your book. I bought a Bottle of Beam white label last weekend to try as I had none in years. Tasted it side by side with a early 90's bottle. No comparison at all. But, the current bottling still is not too bad, I like young whiskey and that yeast funk.

jtexaslonestar
03-07-2013, 06:15
I always wondered why OGD didn't have that Beaminess. Love that stuff !

cowdery
03-07-2013, 16:56
Back to the original thread, I am impressed by the coverage Fake Michter's is getting for this. It seems like every day I see another story about it somewhere, always just a very light rewrite of the press release. It's a good story so the fact that it's not a true story doesn't seem to matter.

ethangsmith
03-07-2013, 17:13
Someone told me on my blog that the Michter's Sour Mash is a blend of Old Forester and Rittenhouse. After making several blends, I found that a 50/50 mix is about dead on. Only the higher proof of the Rittenhouse alters the flavor slightly. So if you want $20/bottle Michter's instead of $40, buy an Old Forester 86 and a Rittenhouse BIB and mix away.

ChainWhip
03-07-2013, 17:57
Someone told me on my blog that the Michter's Sour Mash is a blend of Old Forester and Rittenhouse. After making several blends, I found that a 50/50 mix is about dead on. Only the higher proof of the Rittenhouse alters the flavor slightly. So if you want $20/bottle Michter's instead of $40, buy an Old Forester 86 and a Rittenhouse BIB and mix away.

:mindblown: =]b

Ok, I have to try this now! (Maybe I'll use the OFBB12 instead since I have one of those open)

squire
03-09-2013, 08:45
Sounds like one of those secret recipes but of course if they are buying higher grade blending stock that would explain the higher price.

Gillman
03-09-2013, 14:53
That's very interesting! Probably the mix was intended to get the rye element close to what it was in the original Michter's Original Sour Mash (about 36% of the mash). Good thinking, the kind of thing I've been doing for years. Just did it (for a different reason) with JD and Ritt bond, but I added about 5% Maker's to give it the final rich integrated taste and smooth texture.

Gary

shoshani
03-09-2013, 21:43
*If* it's actually a vatting of Old Forester and Rittenhouse, it would be kind of fun considering that up until recently both were produced at the same distillery. However, I have my doubts. Does Brown-Forman sell bulk whiskey to rectifiers? We all know HH sells bulk whiskey, but the question there is whether there is enough Ritt (or any other rye whiskey for that matter) to go around that would support such a thing. Remember, even with some brands running low or even out, most distillers still only make rye one or two days out of the year.

Gillman
03-10-2013, 06:15
Well, clearly it is only a rumor at present, but the logic of it is there (to me) if that is what was done. I look forward to trying this product, hopefully on my upcoming trip to Kentucky in April I can find it. The other thing too is, can we exclude that, at certain times anyway, the original Michter's Original Sour Mash Whiskey was put together in a similar fashion, with bourbon and rye produced on site at the distillery in PA or in some cases brought in from Continental in Philadelphia or elsewhere?

Gary

cowdery
03-10-2013, 12:42
I'll just say I find this theory extremely unlikely. The fallacy comes in thinking that Fake Michter's cares if what they're selling has any factual relationship to what they're saying about it.

Gillman
03-10-2013, 14:46
I will form my own judgment based on palate, when I finally taste the new one. Indeed I hope through the kindness of a previous BOTY to have a bottle of the original at the April Gazebo and I will bring the new one if it is available anywhere in the Louisville area.

Gary