cowdery wrote:I don't believe there is enough left at either Overholt or Schenley to be called a plant. Michter's distilled its last 20 years ago and it was the last one, so I doubt there is anything in Pennsylvania comparable to Medley in Owensboro, it terms of being capable of restoration. Based on John and Linda's work, my sense is that while there is evidence at most of the sites that a distillery was once there, there is nothing to "restore."
bourbonv wrote:...Even if the warehouses are gone, it would be possible to do something similar to what Schenley did with Dickel and build new at an old site. That would become a tourism destination if a company did that and did it right...
gillmang wrote:Yes, but we still have to come back too, I think to Canadian whisky blurring the image of straight rye during Prohibition.
... most of what it made was Canadian blended whisky. CC had established itself in the U.S. before Volstead. Its influence though after was much greater as for Seagram's products, Corby's, etc.. Canadian whisky was, and some still is, essentially a diluted straight rye whiskey. It was not a diluted bourbon whiskey. So when consumers were offered this lighter rye as "rye whiskey", they could not distinguish it from true rye whiskey. After 1933, to supply that market, I think blended rye whiskeys became bigger than they ever were before 1919. This left little room for the traditional article. Most people did not know the difference and it was cheaper for distillers to sell blended rye than real rye. ...
bourbonv wrote:Thanks for the input Gary and Dave. I did not want to state my opinions to start with because I wanted some independent thoughts on the subject to start the discussion. I will give my opinion now for discussion.
Rye's demise is a complicated process that involved many factors. Here is a list of what I think may be the leading factors. ...
... Anybody want to ... add other reasons to the list? I like good historical debate ... .
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest