Yesterday, I sampled the new Michter's Original Sour Mash Whiskey. That one is a Kentucky whiskey from an undisclosed distillery (or distilleries), but long ago, when Michter's was a real distillery, the sour mash whiskey was made in Pennsylvania from a mashbill of 50% bourbon, 38% rye and 12% malted barley and aged in a mixture of new and used barrels. I was lucky enough to have a generous friend who shared a sample of a miniature bottle of the real stuff with me (pictured, right); I know he likes some char on his bourbon, let's see what it's like.
Michter's Original Sour Mash Whiskey, 43% abv.
The nose is a bit soapy with some of the sandalwood notes that I often get on old Pennsylvania ryes. The palate too is soapy with a lot of sandalwood. Spicy notes dominate the finish. This is much more similar to the old Pennsylvania ryes than it is to any bourbon I've had. I generally like the sandalwood notes in those old ryes, but the soapy notes in this clashed with them.
This is absolutely nothing like the contemporary version I reviewed yesterday. Whereas that one tastes pretty much like any current bourbon, the original Michter's tastes nothing like a modern bourbon. Of course, the original Michter's was not only made in Pennsylvania, it was made in a pot still, which imparts a very different flavor to a whiskey. The new Michter's was almost certainly made on a continuous still, which probably accounts for some of the differences between the two. (UPDATE: Sam K. points out in the comments that the pot still was the doubler and the whiskey went through a typical continuous still first). In addition, soapiness is a characteristic that I have found in a number of dusties, and it can be a result of poor storage or handling over the years, and the small quantity involved in a miniature bottle makes it even more susceptible to the ravages of time. All this is to say that the current state of this whiskey might not reflect what it tasted like in its prime, but that's always a risk with dusties.
Despite its flaws, I'm intrigued by this old Michter's, particularly the Pennsylvania rye notes. I'll have to see if I can track down some more of this stuff.
Hey, Sku, you're buying into the spurious claims that Michter's was fond of employing. Their "pot still" was their doubler...the whiskey was first run through a 60-foot high column still.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I think your sample must have been 43%.
ReplyDelete"pour storage"? I store it in mah belly HAR HAR!
ReplyDeleteThanks Sam. I wonder if the doubler could still have had an impact. I'll check the proof as well.
ReplyDeleteGood one BMc.
It well could have. I'm pretty sure they ran the doubler in tandem with the column as part of the distilling process, i.e. it too was run continuously, not batch by batch.
ReplyDeleteIt was a big cylindrical tank that was located in the still tower right next to the column.
WRT the doubler, the only thing Michter's did that was unusual was run the doubler separately and not in continuous process with the column. They did this so they could (and did) discard the heads and tails, which most producers redistill.
ReplyDeleteGreat comparison article, Sku. Thanks for positioning these two next to one another.
ReplyDeleteAs Sam and Chuck pointed out, it was a doubler for sure. The only pot still at Michter's was the little barrel-a-day tourist set up now being used by Tom's Foolery distiller Tom Herbruck in N.E. Ohio.
As for the "pot-stillness" of the regular bottled Michter's, I can't think of a single continuous-still distiller of whiskey (bourbon, rye, or whatever) that DOESN'T use a doubler (or thumper, another similar device) to rectify the column still output before barreling.
Thanks Sam, Chuck and EllenJ. So, given that it doesn't sound like the "pot still" accounts for the different notes in this whiskey, I'd be interested in other theories from those who have sampled the original Michters? Type of rye used? Mashbill? Or was this just an off sample?
ReplyDeleteThanks Chuck. I wasn't sure about how the doubler was used.
ReplyDeleteSku, I'm not sure what you mean. I've not sampled the "Original Michters" marketed by Chatham, so I can't speak to that issue -- yet; I WILL be trying some, as I do rather like the offerings of those folks, despite the ire they seem to raise among those who revere the Pennsylvania Michter's perhaps a little more than they should.
ReplyDeleteI HAVE drunk a bunch of original Michter's, in the form that your second post highlights. And if your question is "How does THAT differ from the iconic Hirsch bottling?" I believe firmly that it's because that product was not in any way related to the Pennco-distilled bourbon whiskey that became the Hirsch product. For one thing, Michter's wasn't bourbon, while the whiskey being distilled by Pennco was. There are some apoligists who would go so far as to say that Pennco had their own special non-bourbon mashbill just for making Michter's; I don't buy that. I believe Pennco bottled sourced whiskey for the Michter's Jug House company, in a way very similar to how KBD bottles sourced whiskey for Chatham. There never was a "Michter's Distillery" in any sense more accurately than what we will eventually encounter when Chatham opens their own "Michter's Distillery" in Louisville. Well, okay, Michter's Jug House WAS located on the property of a working distillery, for whatever that's worth :=)