View Full Version : Kentucky Fowler

07-19-2004, 09:03
In the Durrett ollection here at the Filson is an advertising brochure for "Kentucky Fowler" Whiskey from about 1910. Despite the poor choice for a name for their product, Louisville Phamacal Works put together an interesting bit of advertising. I thought I would share a few quotes with you.

"Two year old whiskey is drinkable, but it requires five years before it ripens fully"

"Chemistry is not always able to detect spurious whiskey: spirits may be chemically pure, and yet not drinkable; therefore the senses of taste and smell are the best criterions."

"we offer the "Old Kentucky Fowler", our own registered brand, which is straight Kentucky whiskey distilled from the best grain obtainable, 60% corn, 25% rye, 15% barley malt, producing the most perfect copper-distilled, hand made, sour mash Bourbon Whiskey possible to make."

Mike Veach

07-19-2004, 09:41
Interesting, especially the details of the mashbill.

Is any bourbon made today using such a high percentage of rye?


07-19-2004, 09:50

I wonder whether the word "fowler" was more friendly to the ear back in 1910. I can imagine that it might have been as common then as the word "hunter" is today, and with no animal rights movement to cast a shadow over it.

Yours truly,
Dave Morefield

07-19-2004, 10:39
I agree the term was probably more recognizable for what it is back then, but still without a visual reference to the label it it sounds bad. I can't imagine going into a saloon and asking for a "Kentucky Fowler" as if it was a premium whiskey. It just sounds bad.
Mike Veach

07-19-2004, 10:40
Old Granddad is the only brand that I know of that comes close.
Mike Veach

07-19-2004, 10:54
It just sounds bad.

You are correct! I hadn't tried saying it aloud.

"Your bourbon may be foul, but mine is Fowler." http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The derogatory homonym comes too readily to mind, doesn't it?

Yours truly,
Dave Morefield

07-19-2004, 11:28

Mike Veach

07-19-2004, 19:42
I agree somewhat but just think that if Thomas Crapper had not invented the flush toilet (and therefore all the name derivations) and someone had told you, "this bourbon tastes like crap" you might consider it a compliment. Even so, if my English composition recollection is correct, I believe the correct usage of the superlative of foul would be more foul or most foul rather than fouler. Geez, I need a drink. http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/drink.gif

07-19-2004, 19:59
Actually, Dane, 'Fowler' is the comparative. 'Fowlest' -- aka grammar 'most fowl' -- would be the superlative. http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/skep.gif

07-19-2004, 20:11
Tim, that was a technical fowl. http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/smilielol.gif

07-19-2004, 20:12
I'm having a problem right now with the drift of this thread. I have a good friend with this family name -- though fowl her name be, there is nothing foul about it. Let's move on, please. Thank you.

07-20-2004, 12:47
I found this of interest.
"The Kentucky article called "Bourbon" whiskey, from the name of the county (Bourbon) where it was originally made, is the product of distillation of corn, barley, rye, etc., either singly or in mixed proportions."
By this statement recipe hade nothing to do with a product being called "bourbon" since a 100% rye or barley product could be called bourbon in the early 1900's. It was the fact that it was aged, according to this advertisement, that made it a superior product.
Mike Veach