View Full Version : Prichard's Rum like bourbon??

08-17-2006, 07:09
I had a nice pour of this rum last night. I enjoy it and feel it has some bourbon and whisky qualities to it which I really enjoy. To further test my claim, I let my fiancee sample it. The first words out of her mouth was that it tastes like whisky! I asked if it tasted like bourbon or scotch. She replied bourbon because she doesn't really like scotch and she thought it wasn't half bad.

08-17-2006, 08:13
It likely is aged in ex-bourbon barrels. If the barrels were "fresh", they might lend a tinge of bourbon flavour to the rum. I've found with certain Caribbean rums they can have a bourbon-like taste.

The reverse (not in the sense of rum barrels being used to age bourbon) can apply. Some bourbons have a rum-like taste, notably Black Gold.

Some of the 60's Beams from decanters tasted at Gazebos were rum-like, too. Black Gold (itself a 25 year old bottling) might be a survival of that type of bourbon.


08-17-2006, 08:44
Whatever they did or how they did it, I consider it a whisky drinker's rum.

08-17-2006, 13:04
Appleton, which is affiliated with Brown-Forman, ages its rums in used Jack Daniel's barrels.

In Scotland, they typically use bourbon barrels for grain whiskey the first time around and only on the second pass for malt whisky, specifically so they don't pick up too much bourbon character. In Canada, base whiskey is typically aged in used bourbon barrels, to pick up some of their character, whereas the flavouring whiskies usually are aged in new charred barrels, so they don't.

One of the partners in Prichard's is the guy who is building a new bourbon distillery in western Kentucky.

08-18-2006, 08:16
Whatever they did or how they did it, I consider it a whisky drinker's rum.
It is a terrific rum. One of my favorites.


08-18-2006, 11:19
I think the use by Candian distillers of charred barrels for flavouring whiskeys shows that such whiskeys are not essentially different from the U.S. straight whiskeys, and their heritage is a common one. Before the column still took over in Canada (mid-1800's) and became used mainly (unlike in the U.S.) for production of high proof spirits for blending (i.e., for what became Canadian whisky), Canadian whisky must have been similar to American whiskey. I.e., both were straights in the modern understanding except not all of it then (in the U.S. or Canada) was aged in new charred oak. This is why I think Seagram has at times brought to Canada some of its U.S. bourbon to use in CR and other whiskeys - that is a "flavouring whisky" too. It can make it here or bring it in, it is using the same type of ingredient...

True, Canadian-distilled flavouring whiskeys are (sometimes anyway, maybe mostly) made from one grain. But that hardly matters for the purpose of comparison to U.S. straights. An all-corn whiskey can be a bourbon if distilled and aged in the manner required by U.S. law.

I conclude that Canadian whisky is essentially "watered down" straight whiskey. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but that is what it is, in my view.


08-19-2006, 22:32
According to Lorraine Brown's The Story of Canadian Whisksy, the development of blended whisky in Canada was a direct imitation of the development of blended scotch in the United Kingdom, albeit several decades later. There is disagreement about who was first to market but it either was Joseph Seagram in 1883 with his "Seagram's 83" brand, or Hiram Walker with his original "Walker's Club" at about the same time.

Prior to that, all Canadian whiskies were, indeed, "straights" in the American sense, although they tended to be malt or rye based.

Hedmans Brorsa
08-20-2006, 05:27
Interestingly, when I had a couple of old friends from the university years visiting me this autumn, I used one of them (a guy who knows his whisky) as a Guinea Pig.

I had him blindtasting Lot 40, a whisky I was pretty sure that he was unfamiliar with. He guessed first that it was an Irish whiskey and when I shook my head, he concluded that it had to be a Scotch, even if the profile didnīt correspond to any Scotch that he had ever tasted.

On the other hand, another friend of mine used to refer to Canadian Club as a Bourbon wannabee.

Either way, if this trend towards drinking-less-but-better continues than I think the Canadian whisky industry will have to adapt sooner or later. Tellingly, the cheap Canadian brands who used to be an all-ages phenomenon here in Sweden, are now mostly picked by older men and one of the characteristics of older men is that they tend to die out.

08-20-2006, 08:25
Interesting that he picked Lot 40 as an Irish whiskey.

Some here have noted that the unmalted grains in Lot 40 or straight rye remind them of Irish pure pot still. So your friend did make an informed guess. I think unmalted barley and unmalted rye show certain resemblances in the final product (what some people call "paint thinner" or "waxy" - some malt whiskies can taste like that too so his second guess of a Scotch whisky also was informed).

About Canadian whisky's future. Its sales in recent years especially in the U.S. have been strong. I think what may happen is the premium end will, as seems to be happening with bourbon, become dominant. One can see this in the recent promotions for Crown Royal which seems to be seeking the broad middle ground that has been occupied by less expensive brands (VO, Seagram 83 in Canada, etc.). I think Canadian whisky's future is good but there will be fewer brands and those that remain will be high or higher end.


08-20-2006, 19:43
Oddly, I've never even tried major Canadian brands like Canadian Club or Crown Royal - but I've loved the Forty Creek bottlings, and Wiser's 10yo.

The Hirsch 8yo Canadian rye is also very nice. On the bottle it mentions being bottled at Glenora in Nova Scotia, but it's not clear to me whether or not it was actually distilled there. I kind of doubt it, since the label mentions it being a column still product.

The bottle also says "Distillery #21-A-2" on the label, but I haven't had any luck googling it.

It reminds me somewhat of an Irish whiskey, but a bit more pungent.