BourbonEnthusiast.com

i have a bottle of Colonel's pride it was given to me and i can't find much info on this bottle or it maker
on the bottle it states
colonel's pride
Kentucky straight
bourbon whiskey
80 proof
grosscurth distillers company
bradstown Kentucky 40004

i found where online where it states that a Grosscurth Distillery closed in 1968
then i found another article saying that the company
grosscurth distillers company makes a vodka by the name Velicoff( a cheap cheap vodka)
and i did find it listed on Virginians abc store website listed under whiskey not bourbon
017506 Colonel's Pride 750ml 80 $7.95

so this one is a mystery to me can anyone help me out on this one
also this bottle looks a lot like a bottle of colonel lee bourbon in fact that is what i thought i had

I can't help you with info on the bottle, I just don't like to see a post go un-replied.

Have you drank any of this whiskey yet? What did you think? Can you post a picture?

I believe the Almighty Mo' put a review on here for it. So? Review it already! Gaw!

Thanks for the replies guys.

This thread is a true testament on how much you can learn about bourbon and the bourbon industry in just a very short time. Back when I posted this in February I knew very little about the bourbon industry. I was unaware that distillerys bottled bourbons under different distillery names. Which is the case with this label.
To answer your question Jeff this was the worst bourbon I have ever had. I ended up being poured out on my lawn. it tasted like pine floor cleaner and aluminum.

mozilla wrote:My best advice for that issue, which seems to come up every so often, is to save that particularly unwanted label and use it for some vatting projects or blending. I have made some great vattings out of very substandard whisky...at times.

So, don't pour it out. At worst...if someone has some bourbon they don't want...I will re-barrel it. So send 'em my way....I will send back a sample of the final product once the vatting has finished aging. How's that sound?

Deal I will go buy another bottle of this swell and send it to you on my dime to see if you can work your magic with this "bourbon". I will send you a 375ml of this and keep 375ml for my self to test my own vatting while keeping a good share of the original as a point of reference.

Haha I'm in. This will be a test seeing as my vatting experience is just under five trys. I say we do our vattings and take a sample and re-exchange bottles to see what the other came up with.

Thinking about it I will send you a full bottle to experiment with. I have a feeling there will be a bit of trail and error to find a really good vatting with this one. Atleat for me. I say hold back 50ml of the original as a base. That will leave 325ml to use in test vattings and add the rest to the final vatting.

Although this is apparently just a Heaven Hill DBA now, back in the day Grosscurth Distillers, Inc. was a real company, located on Echo Trail Road in Anchorage, Kentucky, a (now swanky) suburb of Louisville.

I knew the name sounded familiar so I Googled it and found an interesting 1967 document from the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division. It is here.

What, in God's Holy Name, were they thinking?

Chuck,
Thanks for the link. I agree, "What were they thinking?" But with that said, I would not complain about the use of some used cooperage, since there is a historic precedent for the parctice and you can make good bourbon with some used cooperage. I have tried many of old bourbon from the era when used cooperage was allowed and have no doubt that some of the cooperage was used. I know Kentuckians and they would not turn down a good barrel simply because it was used, if it cost 1/2 that of a new barrel.

bourbonv wrote:Chuck,
Thanks for the link. I agree, "What were they thinking?" But with that said, I would not complain about the use of some used cooperage, since there is a historic precedent for the parctice and you can make good bourbon with some used cooperage. I have tried many of old bourbon from the era when used cooperage was allowed and have no doubt that some of the cooperage was used. I know Kentuckians and they would not turn down a good barrel simply because it was used, if it cost 1/2 that of a new barrel.

Do you think with the ever increasing environmentally contious efforts of the government, that the standards might be relaxed and allow the use of used barrels for bourbon?

Just wondering from my tree hugger point of view and not just for the sake of making good bourbon.

Those proposals seem so astonishing now, at least to me, because they represent the "race to the bottom" that occurred in the American whiskey industry for about a decade beginning in the late sixties. Although these proposals were not adopted (further research should reveal who opposed and, ultimately, defeated them), unregulated practices were changed. Whiskey distillers stopped doubling and took the copper out of their stills, for example. As for today, I think the advantages of establishing bourbon as a unique, quality product have been amply demonstrated. New barrels aren't an affectation, they are essential to the whiskey's character. I don't see any possibility of that changing. As for the tree-hugger aspect of it, the wood for barrels is now effectively farmed. It's not coming from old-growth, so deforestation isn't an issue. Certainly the forestry industry maintains that managed forestry is good for the environment.

Proposals aren't usually followed by question marks. Everything I stated was just a question so you must not be talking to me.

I was just thinking Mr. Veach's statement was interesting that some people may welcome a little variation in the process if it yields a good product equal to the industries quality standards.

But that is the response I was looking for to my "Question", especially from someone like you Mr. Cowdery who know laws and regulations better than I. Thank you sir may I have another!

Of which I just saw the "here" link too. I was thinking this was a severe case of thread drift. Confusion averted.