Old Fitzgerald 101

[bad_scientist]

What the heck is this? I've seen a couple of references, but I haven't got the bottling dates or why in the world it was made.

In case the picture isn't clear, it's from a glass or crystal decanter, and the only label is a hanging tag from the neck. Red (faux?) tax seal.

I got it tonight and had a couple of ounces. There was no evaporation or anything; in fact, the cork was extremely difficult to open and impossible to put back. :smiley_acbt:

As for the taste, first I should say that I'm looking forward to how it will change after opening. After the first pour, it was a crazy mixture: waxy like the OWA107, woody like the PVW20 and up, cinnamony like the PVW15, and honey sweet like the ORVW10/107. After an hour I can still taste the wood but nothing else.

[T Comp]

I found two of these and the contents of this one was quite enjoyable. Mine have bottle dates of '85 which confirms with what historian Mike Veach has said was a release by Distiller's Company Limited after they acquired the DSP-16 distillery (from Norton Simon) and also Schenley. They also released decanters of George Dickel and I.W. Harper then. And so, since it is aged stated at 10 years, and this was the glut period, just maybe it was from older barrels going back to '72 when the Van Winkles were still in control of the distillery... probably not but one can always speculate:Clever: .

I guess the 101 proof helped kill any germs on the exposed lip that you have to pour over...this one was quite dusty after sitting on a shelf in a sketchy store for 25 years...my other is in a box. I decanted it into another bottle and some of the Chicago boys and Josh from Michigan may recall tasting. Your tasting observations are similar to what I recall. Might be time to open another but that would require the energy of digging through and moving cardboard boxes around. I need to find a bigger house with a dedicated whiskey room :cool: .

[clingman71]

Ooooooooh, I want one!

[bad_scientist]

I found two of these and the contents of this one was quite enjoyable. Mine have bottle dates of '85 which confirms with what historian Mike Veach has said was a release by Distiller's Company Limited after they acquired the DSP-16 distillery (from Norton Simon) and also Schenley. They also released decanters of George Dickel and I.W. Harper then. And so, since it is aged stated at 10 years, and this was the glut period, just maybe it was from older barrels going back to '72 when the Van Winkles were still in control of the distillery... probably not but one can always speculate:Clever: .

I guess the 101 proof helped kill any germs on the exposed lip that you have to pour over...this one was quite dusty after sitting on a shelf in a sketchy store for 25 years...my other is in a box. I decanted it into another bottle and some of the Chicago boys and Josh from Michigan may recall tasting. Your tasting observations are similar to what I recall. Might be time to open another but that would require the energy of digging through and moving cardboard boxes around. I need to find a bigger house with a dedicated whiskey room :cool: .

Wow, thanks for the awesome info! I checked this one and it's also '85. I'm guessing it was the only year it was released?

Don't lose hope on the '72 vintage - I had another pour today and boy, was it woody. A few months ago I would have said there's no way it could only be 10 years old, but then the PHC2010 also is woody as Harrelson. Still, that's the only exception I've experienced. There's a good chance some of it's much older. I mean, I swear, I had a beer, a scotch, and a Manhattan afterwards and I still can taste the barrel!

[bad_scientist]

A week after opening, this now tastes so much like the PHC2010 that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind test. Can anyone offer a comparison between the PHC2010 (diluted to 100 proof or so) and VOF/VVOF?