Jack Daniels 18 year old

[deathevocation]

Was watching 'Super Factories' today and it was on JD. During the episode they briefly showed a JD bottle which had '18 years old' on the label. It was Number 7 too. Can anyone provide some information on this? When was it produced?

[squire]

No idea, no clue.

[cowdery]

Never say never, but that seems highly unlikely.

[Gillman]

I recall seeing an image of this and believe we had a discussion about it some years ago. I seem to recall it was a 1950's-era label but possibly never used.

Gary

[deathevocation]

I recall seeing an image of this and believe we had a discussion about it some years ago. I seem to recall it was a 1950's-era label but possibly never used.

Gary

[cowdery]

Just after Repeal, many companies bottled whiskey they had distilled pre-Prohibition and gave it to investors as a liquid dividend. Because Tennessee repealed state Prohibition several years after national Repeal, Jack Daniel's may have done this later than most. That's about the only way I can imagine them doing an 18-year-old age-stated bottling.

[squire]

Let's see, I believe the historical timeline shows Jack Daniel's stopped production when Tennessee enacted prohibition in 1910, which law was repealed in 1938. Daniel's then produced for several years but stopped with the WW2 grain restrictions in 1942 and didn't start up again until 1947. Volume wasn't high and the distillery was sold to Brown-Forman in 1956.

It is possible some whisky made just prior to or right after the War remained in barrel and was picked up as stock by Brown-Forman but BF promptly began national campaigning after acquiring Daniels and from that point on production struggled to keep up with demand. With demand so high it's doubtful to me BF would have left any whisky just sitting around in barrels when it could be bottled, but, who knows.

[cowdery]

Essentially correct although your line, "Volume wasn't high and the distillery was sold to Brown-Forman in 1956" gives a wrong impression. It makes it sound like JD was distressed when BF picked it up. The exact opposite was the case. The brand was booming and the Motlow family simply couldn't raise enough capital on their own to take it to the next level. They went looking for a partner, knowing they would have to cede absolute control but wanting to stay involved, which is why they sold to Brown-Forman and not Schenley, which offered them more money. The Motlow family had a lot of involvement for the next 30 years or so and JD was managed separately from the rest of the BF portfolio, in Tennessee. By the '80s, the tail was wagging the dog and management of JD was integrated into the rest of the Louisville operation. There are still members of the Daniel/Motlow family involved in Lynchburg.

[squire]

A popular brand, yes, but do you have the production figures for 1954?

[cowdery]

I'm not disputing that their volume was relatively low. That to some extent is the point. They were selling all they could make, needed to ramp up production, and couldn't raise the necessary money themselves. Are you maintaining it was a distress sale? Is that your point? If not, what is it?

[squire]

Distress sale? Certainly not, I did not say nor imply any such thing, that was you taking a passing comment out of context. Since we both agree volume was low let's leave it at that.

My point is given the increased demand after Brown-Forman took over it's unlikely that any Daniel stocks were allowed to age 18 years when they could be bottled and sold much earlier.

However, whisky made in the short period between 1938 and 1942, if any were left over, would have been 18 years of age or close to it by the time of the BF purchase in 1956.

[cowdery]

I never said you said anything. I just asked you to clarify what you said. Clearly, we both consider it very unlikely that a legitimate 18-year-old Jack Daniel's exists.

[Meruck]

What...................................?

[squire]

We're talking about the mythical 18 year old bottle of Jack Daniels Meruck, the Unicorn of American whiskys.

[Meruck]

ooohhhhhhh....... I see.

[Fangzilla]

The bottle in question is depicted with contents (suggesting it's not an unused empty). It's labeled corn whiskey rather than Tennessee whiskey, possibly pointing to a certain era in the distillery's history. This bottle would have been provided to the documentary crew by Brown-Forman themselves, so the plot thickens. Is it genuine? Yes, unless B-F fabricated or allowed to be fabricated a prop, or were duped about the provenance of their own bottle.

[Gillman]

I have seen an image of this before, and mentioned it online some time ago but couldn't find the source. I thought it was a book by Michael Jackson but on checking my copies couldn't find it.

Gary

[Gillman]

Oops I see now that the earlier discussion about that bottle appeared earlier in this very thread! Interesting whether it actually existed or not, we'll probably never know.

Gary

[tmckenzie]

I have seen that bottle in person. I first visited JD in the mid 90's. They had the visitors center then in part of a rickhouse. They had a pile of bottles, odd ones like that on display. When they built the new center, they did not display all of the bottles from the old center. A lot of the, said corn whiskey on them. Two reasons I think that is, basically back when jack started, and I ccould be wrong, since the mashbill is mostly corn, he could age in new barrels, if he did that, and call it corn whiskey. And in the market he was in, that being the southeast, corn whiskey would have probably been looked upon as the good stuff. I want to say I say some bottles labeled as bourbon. I saw a brand of actual corn whiskey on display too, one was white, one label was very light colored, like a used barrel was used. I wish they had put all of those bottles in the new center.

[Fangzilla]

tmckenzie, thanks for the input. Encouraging to see that you saw the bottle, or one like it. I have more information on this bottle, which I will bring to light... as soon as FedEx delivers my new phone that contains a decent camera. Stay tuned to this channel.

[Fangzilla]

"Although the square bottle changed very little, the early labels show changes in color design and content. The twenty-one-year-old whiskey might have been a distilling experiment or a whiskey overlooked in the aging warehouse. It was therefore aged much longer than necessary. It is very rare, but since a label was printed to designate the age, there had to be at least a barrel or more bottled."

Looks like the mystery 18yo bottle is a younger relative of this one. Taken from a book commissioned by Brown-Forman in 1992 and sent to Tennessee Squires as a gift. My copy has the letter addressed to the original recipient in it.

[squire]

Of course there's no guarantee Jack Daniels actually made the whisky in those bottles. There were a number of distilleries in Tennessee in the early days and no reason why JD could not have bought some stock from a smaller maker to bottle under it's own label.

[Fangzilla]

True enough, not that it matters. In his book, Peter Krass (Blood and Whiskey) seems to portray Jack as a man who'd never do that, being a fanatic about his own product. But the public image put forth for marketing purposes can never be trusted.

Which brings me to my very first thought when I laid eyes on the 18 year old bottle. Who would have been policing how old the spirit was? Was there any system in place to guarantee that a whiskey labeled 18 or 21 years was really that old?