An Embarrassment of Riches

[bluesbassdad]

Last night my wife and I had my son and his girlfriend over to celebrate her birthday. I decided that was sufficient reason to have my third drink from the A.H. Hirsch 20 year-old that my son bought me for Christmas.

While the women were elsewhere, goo-gooing over a five-week-old puppy we are fostering, I commented to my son that the Hirsch is growing on me, and that I have recently heard evidence that it becomes rarer and more expensive by the day. I reiterated that even if it is not the "best bourbon in the world", whatever that means, as the salesman had told him, I was glad to have it, knowing that the opportunity may soon disappear forever. In that vein I suggested that he should try it, scotch drinker though he is, because when my bottle is gone, he may never have another opportunity.

One thing led to another, and before long I was sharing my meager knowledge of the flavor characteristics of old bourbon, accompanied by additional samples, namely Elijah Craig 18 year and George T. Stagg.

He was pleasantly surprised by the smoothness of both the Hirsch and the EC18 (!!!), but despite my warning he sipped a bit too deeply of the Stagg, and thus failed, IMO, to perceive any of its flavors, only heat.

After he departed, I was left to ponder the flavors I had experienced and how to describe them. I am still pondering, almost 24 hours later.

I've already commented on the EC 18 more than once; its [iMO] overabundant, scorched wood taste still predominates. In fact the sweeter elements that play peekaboo with my senses were harder to discern in close proximity to the other two samples.

The sweetest of the three was the George T. Stagg, with its dark candied fruit, molasses, and who-knows-what-else all but succeeding in submerging the alcohol burn, at least with tiny sips.

The Hirsch has flavors that I am so far unable to parse, much less label. As far as sweetness is concerned, it lies somewhere between the EC18 and the GTS. In contrast to the EC18 the woody quality of the Hirsch is neither dry nor sharp. Its attraction stems from an elusively tasty quality that demands sip after sip and never quite reveals itself in full light. Perhaps someday I shall come up with something specific to say about it. If, as some say, the 20 year old is past its peak, I can hardly imagine how fascinating the 16 year old expression must be.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[CL]

I will have to revisit my EC 18 yo. I have a partial bottle that I received for a gift nearly a couple years ago. I really wasn't partial to it back then due to an overwhelming flavor that I didn't like. I am assuming that it was the strong wood taste that many have commented on.

I am really glad the Stagg is so approachable. You are right, the key is to take small sips to get the full effect and avoid the heat.

[jeffmac]

In regard to the Stagg, I find it to be very approachable as well. Normally I drink my bourbon neat but, when I first tried the Stagg I had some water on the side to add after my initial sip. After my first sip I was amazed at the absence of any alcohol burn. I then added a bit of water but, from here on out I will be sipping it neat. This bourbon is just too good to adutlerate with anything, even a splash of water.

[Gillman]

Hi again, I'd just to to pick up on this thread because I tasted both the 20 and 16 year old Hirsch whiskeys recently and bought the 16 year old.

That elusive flavour is what makes, or rather made (in light of the small finite supply) Michter's so special.

These 16 and 20 year olds are even more special than Michter's was when commercially available until the early 1980's because Michter's then was not long-aged, it was sold at about 4-6 years and was very good. The Hirsch versions are much longer aged because the broker who owned these last stocks held on to the whiskey (distilled in the early 70's) until the 90's when he bottled them for sale.

They were put in glass carboys 16 and 20 years after distillation to stop further aging and some years later were bottled for the market. If what earlier posts said are correct, some 16 remains to be bottled but the 20 year old is all bottled so what is on the shelves (and there still is some) is it.

I feel the 20 has the edge as an earlier poster said: it is a tad richer, deeper, more concentrated than the 16. But the 16 is very, very good too. Yes, the 20 shows wood but this is more a barrel char effect than the tannic/woody side of the oak, so for those who like a heavy smoke overlay the 20 is perfect.

The 16 has char notes too but less intensely than the 20 year old.

That "taste" which is hard to define in my view comes from the unique mash bill Michter's used. They called their whiskey "original sour mash", they did not term it bourbon or rye whiskey. Hirsch calls it bourbon and that's accurate too in my view.

Michael Jackson said Michter's used 38% rye, 50% corn and 12% barley malt.

The other special feature was of course Michter's used a pot still process, giving a richer rounder taste (as we find in Maker's Mark, for example).

So this whiskey effectively was a bourbon but with a higher than normal proportion of small grains.

Maturation in the colder Pennsylvania climate possibly gave a different character to the Michter's.

The price I saw quoted recently at Sam's in Chicago for the 16 (under 60 dollars) is truly a bargain for not just a great whiskey but a taste of distilling history, an artifact from a time lost forever in terms of that specific distillery which dated from Revolutionary times.

One more point: Michter's is one of those whiskeys that IMHO needs to be taken straight to fully appreciate its merits.

We are in the subtle arena here and adding too much water will make the whiskey seem bland, which it is not. Rocks are okay but drink it fast.

Cy

[bluesbassdad]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />

The other special feature was of course Michter's used a pot still process, giving a richer rounder taste (as we find in Maker's Mark, for example).

[Gillman]

Hi Dave, thanks for your comments.

Maker's Mark uses a hybrid distillation process which involves both a pot still and a column still. Michter's used a pot still process. The degree to which Michter's used the pot still alone is unclear, however. Michael Jackson in his landmark "World Guide To Whisky" (1978) states that Michter's used a column still from the 1950's (when it started up again after ceasing to produce at onset of Prohibition) until 1976 when it reintroduced the pot still. Yet, Michter's packaging in the 1970's (when the whiskey sold would have been made circa 1970) indicates that Michter's was a pot still whiskey. So there is some lack of clarity here. I think it is fair to say that both Maker's Mark and Michter's are similar in the sense that both wished to achieve a pot still character. A pot still product tends to be more flavouful because the still is less efficient than the column still, producing lower proof goods with more congeneric content. A column still can be operated so as to reduce its efficiency, thus producing spirit at well under the legal (for bourbon) 160 proof limit. So, the distinction is not conclusive but my point was, both distillers were looking for a full-flavoured quality and I thought I found it in both of their products even though they don't taste the same as such.

The 16 year old Michter's sold by Hirsch states on the label it is from Michter's distillery and made in 1974. Apart from that, I can state it clearly is from original Michter's production (I believe of their signature "Original Sour Mash Whiskey") because it tastes like Michter's, which I remember well. One difference is the Hirsch Michter's has much more barrel char taste than the Michter's sold before Michter's folded because Michter's was sold at about 4-6 years old, it was not sold anywhere near 16 or 20 years old. But the extra age on the Hirsch version cannot disguise the genuine Michter's distillate "underneath" that barrel char taste. The flavour is malty, smooth, rye-edged, a true hybrid whiskey with a unique taste. Michter's sometimes offered a maple sugar-type quality as well, which might derive in part from the coolish Penn State climate it was aged in. This can be seen as well I think in the Hirsch.

Cy

[cowdery]

The extent to which Maker's Mark uses a "hybrid" process is the same extent to which virtually everyone else does too. They are very good at describing their processes in ways that make them sound unique, although they're not. At virtually all bourbon plants, the first distillation is done in a column still. The second distillation is done in a doubler or thumper (the difference being the use of live steam), both of which are a type of pot stills. Michter's used a more traditional style pot still for both distillations, as Labrot and Graham does today. A. Smith Bowman (Virginia Gentleman) buys column distilled low wines and doubles them in a fairly traditional pot still. When they were still operating, Old Crow used very traditional pot stills for their second distillation. They were essentially scotch stills. The typical doubler or thumper doesn't look like much -- it certainly doesn't look like the teardrop-shaped pot stills you see in Scotland or at L&G -- but it is a pot still in fact.

[Gillman]

Valid points all, and I know the doubler is a kind of mini-pot. Maker's (as you noted) advertise use of both a "column still" and "pot still", and by so doing, I feel they are suggesting there is sufficient tradition in their particular process which gives their product a full-bodied taste comparable (in quality) to other famed pot still products such as scotch whisky and Charentes brandy. I agree. Maker's Mark, albeit a wheated bourbon, has a depth of flavour that reminds me of these other drinks in quality, ditto for Michter's. There yet remains in my mind some uncertainty whether Michter's in its post-Prohibition heyday used a pot still. Jackson says flat out that Michter's used a column still between the early 1950's and 1976. He says a pot still was brought onstream in '76. I don't take anything Michael says about whiskey lightly. Still, I feel Michter's succeeded in imparting a pot still character to their product. Tonight I enjoyed a Booker's, for example. No doubt as you say it was doubled but to me while a very good product it does not have the depth of flavour and body of Maker's Mark. In that sense, it does not have in my view pot still character - Maker's does, and Michter's (sadly one must speak in the past tense) did. I don't know why (technically) Maker's has such a distinctive, double-pot distilled character. Maybe they take out spirit from the doubler at a lower proof than Booker's is taken out, for example.

Cy