George Dickel History

There's a lot of history and 'lore' behind bourbon so discuss both here.

Moderator: Squire

Unread postby bourbonv » Thu May 11, 2006 9:09 am

Mike,
Ken Weber is confused. Dickel was made at Cascade Hollow untilo prohibition closed them down in 1910. They then came to Louisville and signed a contract with a Ph. Stitzel Distillery to make whiskey at that distillery, even putting in a charcoal mellowing vat at the distillery. The brand was sold by Stitzel and Weller during prohibition and just after. In 1936 the brand was sold to Schenley, who made it at various distilleries, but mainly at Geo. T Stagg, Frankfort until they decided to open the Dickel Distillery in the late 1950's.

Yes there is a Dickel house at the distillery, but it was not until the late 40's that Cascade was made there on a steady basis.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby MikeK » Thu May 11, 2006 12:33 pm

Thanks for the info Mike.

In my writeup of the tour, would it be accurate to say that the Dickel House at BT was used to make Cascade from the late 40's until the late 50's ?

Thanks,
Mike
User avatar
MikeK
Student of Whiskey
Student of Whiskey
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Eastern MA

Unread postby bourbonv » Thu May 11, 2006 1:03 pm

Mike,
Schenley started refering to the "Dickel Distillery in Franfort" as early as 1941, but the article in their news magazine "Remarks of Merit" about Cascade being made there did not appear until after the war. This makes sense as well because of the fact that the distillery was making war alcohol during 42 to 45 with only a brief "whiskey holiday" allowed by the government in August of 44. Steady production started in the late 40's and lasted even after Dickel was opened as Cascade was a bourbon by then.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby Strayed » Thu May 11, 2006 6:21 pm

And when I asked Mark Brown about it, he looked into their records and wrote back to me that there was never a leeching tank at the Stagg distillery and that after the Tennessee facility was built in '58, both the Cascade bourbon made at Stagg and the Dickel whiskey made at Normandy used the same bourbon recipe as the other Stagg products of the time.
Let me again remind y'all that there's no logical reason to believe that either of the two Tennessee whiskeys that ended up being contract-distilled (in Jack Daniels' case) or sold outright (in Cascade's) to Kentucky bourbon distilleries maintained their original Tennessee mashbills, yeasts, or distilling processes. These brands are both nothing more than Kentucky bourbon whiskeys, labelled as Tennesee whiskey (a legally non-existant classification), and with the Lincoln County process added to make them seem more exotic. We can thank Lem Motlow's son Reagor for that; the process itself is not native to Tennessee (as Mike can verify) and most likely the only reason the rebuilt Dickel company used it was because in 1943 the younger Motlow, during his reign as president of Jack Daniel's, had already proclaimed it the distinguishing feature of all Tennessee Whiskey (which at that time consisted solely of Jack Daniel's).
=JOHN= (the "Jaye" part of "L & J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
Strayed
Registered User
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Ohio-occupied No. Kentucky (aka Cincinnati)

Unread postby gillmang » Thu May 11, 2006 7:27 pm

But John, from 1933 until the mid-50's when B-F bought JD, JD as revived by the Motlows surely made whiskey to the method of their hallowed ancestor. Why would they try anything different? It would not have been in their interest to do so. Why would you think they changed anything other than (possibly) the yeast? The distillery operated for years after 1933 until becoming "contracted" to B-F. Even if they did use a new yeast, would in the mid-30's bottles of pre-Prohibition JD not have existed so they could check if the result was similar? And don't you think they did sedulously check? I agree charcoal leaching is an old method not associated only to Tennessee, but its survival in the forms both of post-'33 JD and adoption (or re-adoption) by (starting in) mid-1950's Schenley Tennessee Dickel to this day testify in my view to its being an older form of straight whiskey that has survived only in that State and become associated therefore as the Tennessee method. At one time, charcoal leaching was used in many places. Since it ended up being connected to two Tennessee whiskeys, one considers it a quintessential Tennessee method. But its continuation in my mind from the pre-Prohibition ways of making Cascade in Tennessee and JD in the same State is undoubted. I am speaking not of Cascade as made between the time it left Tennessee before WW1 and started again in Tullahoma, which might be called the Diaspora years, but the years in old Tennessee before it had to decamp for more friendly territory. Surely it used the charcoal leaching back then (is there evidence to the contrary?). And I don't claim Tennesse charcoal leaching confers an identifibale brand on whiskey: this is why JD and Dickel taste so different today. Rather, it is a cleansing, or primitive rectification, process. But the brands can claim at least that much and more than that I believe would have been recreated during their various post-Pro peregrinations and ownerships to match as closely as possible the original (pre-Pro) whiskeys. These were available in bottles at all times during the periods we are discussing. I can't believe e.g. that when made at Frankfort in say 1941 the hallowed history and records of the brand would have been ignored, not in those days. They would have had mash bill and other records and followed them carefully.

I know you have in your collection examples of Dickel/Cascade dating back to the early 20th century. Do you not notice a similarity amongst them? Whether they all used leaching or not, I just have to think they show a "house" similarity. Am I wrong?

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby Strayed » Thu May 11, 2006 8:59 pm

gillmang wrote:But John, from 1933 until the mid-50's when B-F bought JD, JD as revived by the Motlows surely made whiskey to the method of their hallowed ancestor. Why would they try anything different?

Because the Prohibitionist bastards had won the first round (in Tennessee, and later in the whole nation). Lem had no other choice, except to fold up like all the other Tennessee distillers. Good for Lem!!
... would in the mid-30's bottles of pre-Prohibition JD not have existed so they could check if the result was similar? And don't you think they did sedulously check? I agree charcoal leaching is an old method not associated only to Tennessee, but its survival in the forms both of post-'33 JD and adoption (or re-adoption) by (starting in) mid-1950's Schenley Tennessee Dickel to this day testify in my view to its being an older form of straight whiskey that has survived only in that State and become associated therefore as the Tennessee method...

Gary, Gary, Gary... you're clinging to a myth that was totally made up by (brilliant and highly respected) marketers. Whiskey merchants aren't concerned with maintaining some imaginary "perfection of the old ways"; they just want to sell whiskey. Why that's become some kind of negative statement I'll never understand, but (and I mean this more to others than to you personally) just get over it.
Marketers MARKET!!! That's what they do!!
To understand the quality of whiskey, you (not you personally) need to accept and appreciate the importance of whiskey marketers -- which is far greater than that of whiskey distillers.
So what's wrong with that? Isn't that what we WANT for the whiskey industry? I know I sure do.

There! I've opened the Pandora's box. Let's see what happens now.
=JOHN= (the "Jaye" part of "L & J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
Strayed
Registered User
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Ohio-occupied No. Kentucky (aka Cincinnati)

Unread postby gillmang » Thu May 11, 2006 10:25 pm

John, I hear you, but I believe businesspeople do in many cases wish to maintain brand integrity. Not out of generosity or deference to history: but to maintain their franchise. (Think of what happened when Schlitz changed its formulation in the 1960's, or of the new Coke and Classic Coke episode). If I was able to taste Dickel today, Dickel in the early 60's (say in the funny horn), Cascade in the early 40's and Cascade from pre-WW I I believe they would show many of the same traits. It is hard I know ever to be sure of this especially since whiskeys can (I think) change in the bottle but I believe close correspondences would be noted. Same with JD if it was possible to do a similar vertical tasting. Another example I'd give, on which I know you share my view, is Old Grandad. The National Distillers ones I've tried from the 70's and 80's bear a clear connection to the one of today. I think the old ones were better (in particular had a fruity note that seems rubbed out), but the two versions contain many points of connection still.

Sometimes though things seem to change more significantly. E.g., I don't see much connection between the taste of 70's and early 80's Old Taylor and the current OT but in that case there was a purchase by a company that had its own mainline brands. I think Beam had no interest frankly to present two showcases from the new portfolio, it was enough to keep Grandad going more or less as it was, but I think they must have felt differently about OT because (and this is just my opinion) the current one seems rather distant from the 70's/early 80's one. B-F bought JD to keep it going as a premier Tennessee whiskey, that is different. Schenley went to the trouble of building a distillery to return to its roots another renowned whiskey. In doing that, they followed not just charcoal mellowing but other traditions, e.g., they adopted an old-fashioned mashing system which took overnight to complete (I can't recall where I read this, maybe in Waymack & Morris or it might have been Carson's book). Why would they do this in the progress-minded and technological 1950's...?

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat May 13, 2006 10:14 am

Gary and John,
You both are making some very interesting observations giving people somethings to think about. I was tempted to stand back and simply enjoy the conversation, but instead I thought I would add some historical context on Dickel, just to muddy the water even further.

Prohibition closed Dickel (and JD as well) in 1910. Shwab brought the brand to Louisville and signed a deal with A Ph. Stitzel to use Stitzel's distillery on the days he was not using it to make Cascade whisky. He even installed a charcoal leaching vats at the distillery that are cleary labeled on the Sanborn Insurance maps on 1911. So this would leave you to say that Cascade was being made in Louisville after 1910 and that is true, but the key part of the contract is Shwab simply leased the distillery ON THE DAYS IT WAS NOT USED BY STITZEL! This meant it was only being made part time and quantities were relatively small. Stitzel had a thriving business at the time.

During prohibition Stitzel andW L Weller and Sons (Farnsley and Van Winkle) sold medicinal whiskey and Cascade was one of the brands they represented. Represented, not owned. They sold the whiskey for Shwab collection a small amount on each case - usually about $5.00 and this also covered the cost of bottling the product and shipping. They were not making huge amounts of money, but neither were the Shwabs when you consider the evaporation, storage cost (This is where Stitzel really made his money during prohibition as a consolidation warehouse) and taxes. The Shwab whisky ran out before prohibition ended and by 1933 they were putting various distillations of whiskey in the bottle to keep the brand alive. Cascade of 1933 would taste very little like Cascade of 1915. Stitzel and Weller merged and opened a new distillery in 1935 and they were going to make Cascade one of the brands they would sell, and had sales brochures printed showing the brand in their portfolio, but the Shwabs decided they wanted out of the whiskey business and sold the brand to Schenley in 1937. They sold the brand and not the mash bill. I know this for a fact for several reasons but the most obvious is that when Dickel opened. they had to piece together the mash bill from an old article printed in Mida's Criteria from the turn of the century.

Schenley bottled Cascade after 1937. The whiskey they put into the brand was often the whiskey that came from their latest distillery acquisition. It was like several other of their brands such as Old Stagg that was seen as a profiable cheap whiskey that did not need a consistant flavor profile since it was sold only in regions of the U S that were actually pretty far apart so there was little chance of people noticing the difference. If they want consistant flavor, then spend a few more bucks for Old Charter or I W Harper.

When the Motlows refused to sell Jack Daniel's to Schenley, even though they offered a higher price than Brown-Forman, Schenley decided to revive George Dickel's Tennessee whisky. They built the distillery and went hunting to find out how to best make a Tennessee whisky. I would say personally that they did a pretty damn good job with this research but I would never say it tastes just like the whisky Dickel had made for him in the 1880's.

Now to John's point about marketing. George Dickel and Jack Daniel were just like other whiskey men of the time - they were in the business to make money. They had whiskies that fit their flavor profile and that was what they sold - mostly. They, just like E H Taylor, Jr., James E Pepper, and other Kentucky distillers, never passed up a chance to make some money if they could buy some bulk whiskey cheap and then resale it for a profit under their own name. Of course they would have quality standards but that did not mean it met their personal brand's flavor profile. Since most whiskey was sold by the barrel before the first decade of the 20th century, consumers were used to a very inconsistant flavor in whiskey brands. As long as the flavor was not repulsive, they would accept the changes from barrel to barrel, even pretty drastic changes.

The Bottled-in-Bond Act increased the sale of bottled whiskey and created a more consistant falvor profile, but still not perfectly consistant. Changes would happen from year to year because of different factors (poor or excellent grain crops, extreme cold or warm winters or summers, etc...) and because of the law the distiller's could due nothing to prevent the variation except position in the warehouse of the barrels. The most consistant flavored whiskey was actually the rectified whiskey being sold by high class retifiers.

So, Gary, Dickel of the 1950's had little or no flavor link to the Cascade being sold at the same time. It also had very little link to what was being sold at the end of prohibition. There was an attempt to make it taste like the whiskey from before prohibition, but all I can say is that it came close to what they sampled in the few pre-prohibition bottles that Schenley had acquired, but I can not say that it all tasted like that whisky.

As far as Jack Daniel, barrel sales were even more important to him than that of Dickel. He was the much smaller business at the time and most of his patrons were buying by the barrel for their bar or hotel. His whiskey would be very inconsistant because of that fact. Did Motlow make the whiskey just like Jack had done so when Motlow rebuilt the distillery? I would say yes, as much as possible after 30 years time. Did Brown-Forman get this process when they acquired the distillery? Yes. Did they try to change anything? No, why should they? Has it changed over the years? Of course. When you consider the fact that the distillery has grown to what, maybe 100 times the capacity of Jack's Distillery that was the model for the Motlow distillery, how could it not change some? Stack on top of that other factors and the whiskey being made now would taste similar, but by no means exaxctly alike Jack"s whiskey.

Just some points for you both to consider in your discussion.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby Strayed » Sat May 13, 2006 1:54 pm

Thanks Mike. Actually, I think this discussion will never really be "resolved", because it can't be. Gary, representing one angle, has some very accurate and key points, and the ones I'm laying out are, too. And in addition to tying pieces of both into your own contribution, you've brought up a few more to add. That's what I love about this forum and the people I get to talk to and learn from through it.

One example is your mention of Schenley's attempt to approximate the pre-prohibition flavor profile in reconstructing Dickel. I'm guessing you meant Dickel and not Cascade bourbon, as that brand just tasted like basic Schenley bourbon and Dickel is quite distinctive in its flavor. Most of y'all are familiar with my appreciation of a certain "old-style whiskey" sub-flavor, both the '30s-to-'60s variety and the pre-pro style, and I can (after noting your suggestion) appreciate what they did. I agree with you that it doesn't really duplicate even the generic "pre-pro" taste, but it does hint at it, and it's very distinctive. It's that "vitamin B2" flavor that those who don't like Dickel dislike about it. But it's also what those of us who do like it enjoy the most -- even those of us who wouldn't care for the taste common to pre-prohibition whiskey.
=JOHN= (the "Jaye" part of "L & J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
Strayed
Registered User
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Ohio-occupied No. Kentucky (aka Cincinnati)

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat May 13, 2006 3:00 pm

John,
You are correct in assuming that it was a Pre-prohibition sample of Dickle. What they were unclear of in the documentation though, was it Tennessee made or Louisville made Cascade. I have assumed it was Tennessee made because that was the point of trying to re-create the flavor profile, but they never said for sure. Remember, pre-1910 Cascade would have been pretty hard to find even in the 1950's. Just think how hard it is to find a pre-prohibition bottle today. They were probably drank as "the good stuff" during those dry years instead of over aged medicinal whiskey or whiskey of unknown origin from the bootlegger. You also have to remember that even though they sold bottles before 1910, most sales were by the barrel so branded bottles can be hard to find. It is really only after bottled-in-bond whiskey took off after all of the Pure Food and Drug Act controversy and the Taft Decision that bottle sales expanded rapidly.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby gillmang » Sat May 13, 2006 3:11 pm

Thanks gents, most interesting. I do recognise that the advent of Tennessee and national Prohibition probably at times distorted the growth and consistent flavor profile of these brands. And I have seen myself how even uninterrupted ownership and sales cannot necessarily prevent a taste shift (e.g. Jim Beam White label circa 1980 seemed to me rather better than what is sold today). I know what you mean by that vitamins taste John, and it is actually one I don't cotton to much. I do believe though that brands often retain a signature taste for a long time. There may be divergences for various reasons, but I think a tasting of JDs from various parts of the 20th century would prove me right as far as that brand goes. (The difficulty is to organise the tasting!). As for Dickel, it sounds like the pre-Pro version may well have been duplicated fairly closely by the 1958 Tullahoma revival whiskey (called Cascade initially by the way, not Dickel, which is not insignificant). Once in other words "normal" circumstances prevailed in the business they went for authenticity!

Mike why did Motlow not want to sell to Schenley?

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat May 13, 2006 3:27 pm

Gary,
That last question can be answered in the U D archives. In 1932 Schenley got hold af the last of the Jack daniel's whiskey in Missouri (the rest had been stolen over the years) from a third party. They were going to bottle it as Jack Daniel's Old No.7 but Lem Motlow sent them a letter saying he owned the trademark. Schenley did their research and found out the trademark was not on Jack Daniel's name but on Old No. 7 so they bottled it as Jack Daniel's Old No.8 instead, cheating Motlow out of his due.

The story gets better. As Lem Motlow was trying to find maoney to rebuild his ditillery after prohibition, he must have swallowed his pride in desperation, because he then wrote Schenley a letter asking for help financing the construction. The Schenley lawyers received the letters and made a very insulting cover letter and and gave the letter to Rosenstiel, telling him that this was just a two bit hick operation that would never amount to anything. Rosenstiel declined to invest and the lawyers sent a pretty terse and on the verge of insulting letter to Motlow declining his offer.

When time came to sell, the family must have remembered these insults even though the "official" reason in the Schenley records state it was because Brown-Forman's offer was mostly cash while Schenley's offer was mostly stock options. They implied the hicks did not have the intelligence to see beyond the greenbacks! This is just one of the blunders Schenley made in its brief history. They were never so wrong about anything as they were about the Jack Daniel's distillery.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby Strayed » Sat May 13, 2006 3:55 pm

Jack Daniel's Old No. 8!!??
Oh don't you just LOVE the shennanigans!! I'm still rotflmao over that :rofl2:

You imply that Schenley blew their chance at America's most successful brand of whiskey by failing to purchase JD, but I think if they'd bought it they wouldn't have had that degree of success. That's why there's still a Brown-Forman and there isn't still a Schenley. It's interesting to imagine, though, what the effect was of having a competing Tennessee whiskey and whether there would have been a George Dickel brand (or another one, Deep Springs maybe?) if it weren't for Schenley trying to "me-too" their way into that market segment.
=JOHN= (the "Jaye" part of "L & J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
Strayed
Registered User
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Ohio-occupied No. Kentucky (aka Cincinnati)

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat May 13, 2006 4:11 pm

John,
I don't think it was a "me too" recation so much as "if you don't sell to me you will regret it because I will make a Tennessee whiskey that will put yours out of business" reaction from Schenley. Of course they were wrong there too, even though they made a damned good Tennessee whiskey, Jack daniel's already had the image with the "Rat Pack" drinking their product as well as bikers and everyone in between. Schenley could never catch up.

The reason for Brown-Forman surviving versus Schenley is simply family. Brown-Forman has always been a family business - yes they sell stock, but the family owns the business because they own the majority of stock. Schenley was always a stock market driven company and when it was sold, the purchaser bought the company to get rich selling it off piece by piece. He wrote his doctorial thesis on just how to do this to a company to enrich your self. That is the breaks in the big, bad world of the stock market.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby gillmang » Sat May 13, 2006 5:42 pm

Very interesting again gents, thanks.

You know just before reading this I had a dram of Jack Daniels Silver Select that a friend gave me reccently. I happened to have the domestic JD single barrel and compared them. No comparison. The Silver Select (100 proof) was finer in taste with a cherry-like nose and refined, bourbon-like taste. The domestic JD single barrel was good but coarser with the trademark JD anise/banana notes. The Silver Select was something different and better although one could see the connection to the other and even regular JD. I would like to think, in fact I do believe, the 100 proof Silver Select is very close to the Old No. 7 barrel whiskey Mike spoke of that was their stock in trade before WW 1.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Previous

Return to Bourbon Lore

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron