Michter's Original Sour Mash Whiskey

[Gillman]

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

Edited December 27, 2012 by Gillman

[tmckenzie]

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]

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]

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.

Edited December 28, 2012 by squire

[Gillman]

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

Edited December 28, 2012 by Gillman

[tmckenzie]

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]

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]

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]

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

Edited December 28, 2012 by Gillman

[squire]

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]

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

Edited December 28, 2012 by Gillman

[cowdery]

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]

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

Edited December 28, 2012 by Gillman

[cowdery]

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]

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.

Edited December 28, 2012 by squire

[squire]

Gary I was speaking in response to your post, Chuck's just happened to hit two minutes before mine was entered.

[cowdery]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Here is an interesting taste note from Clay Risen on this product and two others, tasted in a brace:

http://clayrisen.com/

Gary

[cowdery]

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.

Edited December 29, 2012 by cowdery

[PaulO]

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]

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.