Hirsch Selection Special Reserve 86 Proof American Whiskey

[Mike]

While I was at 'my' liquor store today, Nikko gave me a sip of Hirsch Selection Special Reserve 20 YO American Whiskey. A bottle had broken open in transit and its aroma was rich and enticing.

A sip led me to buy a bottle for $79, me thinking all the while about the old saw that says a fool and his money are soon parted.

The bottle says that this whiskey is distilled from Bourbon Mash and is called 'Illinois Whiskey', but also says it was bottled in Missouri for Preiss Imports. I kept looking on the bottle for it to say that Mark Twain his own self had drunk from this very bottle.........but I haven't found that piece of information yet.

This whiskey was matured for 20 years in 'USED' cooperage ('used for maturing spirits........without saying what spirits) that was then 'secreted' in Illinois. Neither do they fail to mention that this whiskey has in its ancestry the great Hirsch bourbons and ryes of days gone by.

How could a connysewer such as my own self not give in to such a grand introduction? And there was Barleycorn woofing, 'Get us some, get us some!' Damn dog is always eager to spend my money, whilst he keeps his own in his smelly socks.

Well, I drags my sorry ash home, thinking I have been 'had' yet once more. Still, that one little ole sip I had courtesy of Nikko was quite nice. So I open my new $79 (groan) 'Illinois' whiskey, which, according to the label, is turning out to be a 'classic' American treasure.

Well y'all, turns out my first impression was sound. This IS an excellent whiskey. It has a soft sweetness and rye 'kick' that work together like Laurel and Hardy, that is, each seeming to work agin the other but pulling off something great in the end. (Did you know that Oliver Hardy was born and raised in Georgia and that his birthplace, Harlem, Georgia, has a nice little museum in his honor.................and that he was born only a few miles from where Blind Willie McTell was born........nobody could sing the blues like Blind Willie.......just ask Bob Dylan, who sang about him).

Anywayhow, I like this whiskey a whole bunch. It is a very high rye recipe, but 20 years in the wood (used wood to be sure) has given it an almost delicate sweetness with mild tannins and a complementary amount of dryness toward the end.

That I am a foolish fellow has rarely been in debate. I would contend, however, that I have no regrets about spending this $79. Now, if I can find them smelly socks belonging to that silly assed dog, I will recover some of the $79, since that self same dog has also been sipping and singing the praise of this here whiskey longside my self.

Come over my house tomorrow and I will let you see for yo self if you like Hirsch Selection Special Reserve American Whiskey what was aged secretly in used barrels in Illinois..........probably by aliens!!

[cowdery]

I heard about this stuff and it's probably something from the old Hiram Walker plant in Peoria, which was the last operation that made whiskey in Illinois. The bottler is probably McCormick, which is in Weston, Missouri, just outside of Kansas City. I suspect that McCormick stopped actually distilling whiskey even before Walker did, which was 1972, I think. It may be something that was sitting at McCormick and that's where Preiss found it.

[EllenJ]

Everything Chuck said pretty much agrees with what I suspect, as well.

Plus...

If you happen to notice any resemblance to 1792 Ridgewhatever Reserve, don't be alarmed. Barton owns the Hiram Walker brand today, and bourbons such as Ten High (one of our main well-bourbons) now display the words "Sour Mash" in the little red banner on the label which once carried the words "Hiram Walker's". I believe even before they purchased the brand they were Hiram Walkers' sole vendor after the Peoria plant was closed down in '79. One of the last things Barton did for Walker's was a custom-mashbill (probably experimental) job that was intended to more accurately reproduce the original Walkerville (Peoria, not Ontario) flavor profile, since they had been using Barton's standard bourbon mashbill, and found that to be not really what they wanted. Unfortunately it never happened; Walker's folded sometime in the '80s, Barton Brands took over the label, continuing to produce Ten High, Walker's Deluxe, and even a 10-year-old in a nice old-timey bottle-and-box package, all made from their standard mashbill. Nothing ever became of the experimental batch until 2003 when someone at Barton had the idea to use that distinctive whiskey as their entry into the high-end bourbon market, a brand which has received some well-deserved praise as 1792 Ridgemont Reserve, despite that it is quite a different bourbon from their own Very Old Barton (which itself carries the honor of being perhaps the most popular regional brand in Kentucky).

On the other hand (along with a completely different set of fingers, of course), your bottle of Illinois whiskey might also have been produced in Pekin, another town not all that far from Peoria, where once stood the rather formidible distillery (or at least one of them) of the American Distilling Company. Known mainly for blended whiskeys (in which, of course, they would have used bourbon-mash whiskey aged in in whatever barrels they had handy), American also made Bourbon Supreme and Bourbon DeLuxe at Pekin. Your Illinois bourbon could be from their stock.

But I'm most inclined to believe, along with Chuck, that it was from McCormick. However then it would have been distilled neither at Peoria nor Pekin, but rather in East St. Louis, Illinois (across the river from St. Louis, Mo), which is where McCormick had their whiskey distilled between the time they closed their Westin facility (on the opposite side of the state) and when they began simply contracting Heaven Hill in Bardstown, Kentucky to bottle it for them (from their own stock). By the way, the bourbon that McCormick produced in Missouri was excellent; MikeV and Doug can vouch for that, as they had a chance to taste some New Years' Eve. McCormick's East St. Louis product was pretty good, too. My guess is that's what you got hold of. Great find, and thanks for sharing your ideas and evaluations with us.

I don't think any of the bourbons I mentioned above are really worth $79 a bottle, though.

But I'd have paid it, too.

[Mike]

Mayhap it would help if I informed you that, according to the label on the bottle, it was distilled in 1987 and only 120 cases were produced. Nikko, who is quite adept at getting whiskey that is allowed in Georgia, said he was only able to get 1 case and that only 5 cases were distributed into Georgia. He said he has sold 7 bottles now.

Again, I do like it very much and since Santy Claws saw fit to pass right over my house this year, I don't so much mind the $79.

Barleycorn caught me with my hand in his sock and shamed me into leaving his money alone. He said a true friend would never do that sort of thing to another true friend. I apologized and put another $20 into his sock. I just don't know how that dog got so smarter than me.

[bourbonv]

Illinois whiskey aged in used cooperage. This sounds like whiskey distilled and aged to go into a Hiram Walker blend that was sold after 20 years of age because they did not need it very badly and someone offered top dollar for the whiskey. I doubt McCormick had anything to do with the whiskey.

Aged whiskey is often made to be placed in blends - both American and Canadian blends. Right now Diageo is using the last of the Stitzel-Weller bourbon in Crown Royal. I hear rumors that some of this bourbon might be released to other parties, but the bulk of it will end up in Crown Royal.

If a bourbon mash is to be used in a blend, then there is nor reason why it should not be placed in used cooperage. Used cooperage gives more color and flavor than most people think and it would be cheaper to produce than actual bourbon. Hiram Walker had several blends to support and a big distillery in Illinois. The result is this whiskey.

[cowdery]

A wealth of good information. I can't fault any of the conjecture. Both Peoria and Pekin, by the way, still have distilleries where they produce most of the country's vodka.

[gillmang]

This might be similar to the Canadian flavoring whiskies. Much of that low-proof stuff is not aged in new wood, some is, but some is not and probably therefore for those interested this is the kind of whiskey that became reserved for blending but has been allowed "out" due to its particular merits I gather. If made in 1987 that would rule out the places mentioned except the East St. Louis facility mentioned by John, so that is where likely it was made, and '87 seems a bridge period between the cessation of bourbon making at Weston and the contracting of bourbon bottling at HH. (Some McCormick-brand bourbon, presumably made at HH, is still sold I know, so is a McCormick blend. A place mentioned in Ann Arbor on the other board has the bourbon listed on its website).

This whiskey may be something like Lot 40 would be like if aged 20 years instead of 8, made with more corn than rye, and made in a column still. Well, I AM trying to help.

Gary

[gillmang]

This might be similar to the Canadian flavoring whiskies. Much of that low-proof stuff is not aged in new wood, some is, but some is not and probably therefore for those interested this is the kind of whiskey that became reserved for blending but has been allowed "out" due to its particular merits I gather. If made in 1987 that would rule out the places mentioned except the East St. Louis facility mentioned by John, so that is where likely it was made, and '87 seems a bridge period between the cessation of bourbon making at Weston and the contracting of bourbon bottling at HH. (Some McCormick-brand bourbon, presumably made at HH, is still sold I know, so is a McCormick blend. A place mentioned in Ann Arbor on the other board has the bourbon listed on its website).

This whiskey may be something like Lot 40 would be like if aged 20 years instead of 8, made with more corn than rye, and made in a column instead of a pot still. Well, I AM trying to help.

Gary

[Bourbon Joe]

Right now Diageo is using the last of the Stitzel-Weller bourbon in Crown Royal. I hear rumors that some of this bourbon might be released to other parties, but the bulk of it will end up in Crown Royal.

Boo Hoo
Joe

[cowdery]

Does the East St. Louis facility have a name? Is there a comprehensive Lipman profile of it available?

[gillmang]

Despite the evident differences (which I highlighted) between this product and one such as Lot 40, what they seem to share is the quality of a bourbon or rye mash product (i.e., distilled at a proof traditional to those whiskeys in straight form) aged in barrels that are not new charred barrels. The current Michter's has a product, U.S. No. 1 I believe is the name, which shares a similar trait. Early Times too although it is partly aged in new charred wood. It would be interesting to assemble and taste such products comparatively, to which one might add the 18th century version of Old Potrero.

Gary

[Mike]

Despite the evident differences (which I highlighted) between this product and one such as Lot 40, what they seem to share is the quality of a bourbon or rye mash product (i.e., distilled at a proof traditional to those whiskeys in straight form) aged in barrels that are not new charred barrels. The current Michter's has a product, U.S. No. 1 I believe is the name, which shares a similar trait. Early Times too although it is partly aged in new charred wood. It would be interesting to assemble and taste such products comparatively, to which one might add the 18th century version of Old Potrero.

Gary

Gary, as it happens, I have all the above whiskies, save the Early Times, which I presume would be easy to obtain.

However, it is not clear to me what we are comparing. If the only common thread is that they are aged in used cooperage (not used barrels, but uncharred, in the case of the 2 YO Old Potero I have), and are not bourbon and not blended whiskies. Are we looking for the differences twixt themselves or twixt the lot and bourbon? In either case, I am probably not the best fellow to carry out this important work (tongue in cheek).

I will do a 'throwdown' with four of them, comparing them to each other and see if I note any common characteristics that them possess.

But they are different ages (from two to twenty years), different proofs, different recipes, and I expect very different distilleries and methods. I doubt that my palate can draw any meaningful similarities, or, telling distinctions.........other than those that are on the surface.

Tell me a bit more about what you had in mind. My main expectation would be that the sweetness would be less pronounced because I think the majority of it would have been extracted in the first filling of the barrel with the Lot 40, Michter's US 1, and the Hirsch Selection 20 YO. As far as I know we will never know what was in the barrel on the first filling and that too would have a great influence on three of these whiskies.

I am working on my tasting notes now, more out simple curiosity than any belief that I will be able to conclude anything.

[Mike]

Gary, I am jumping the gun here, but could not resist. I just had my first sip of Lot 40 (Nikko sold me a bottle as a favor for $25.......regularly $40 here).

This is really exceptional whiskey in my opinion, and not that much unlike the 20 YO Hirsch Selection.......if memory serves me correctly.

I am blown away by the marvelous floral, fruity, and spicy flavors coming from its 86 proof. It has such great balance twixt its subtle sweetness and its wonderfully correct rye bite (perfectly tuned to the sweetness).

Being blasphemous, I would think I am drinking the perfect 'vatting' of 65% Wild Turkey and 35% well aged Cognac.

This really rates a cowboy song..........about the highest praise I can give a whiskey!! After today, Lot 40 will ALWAYS be in my bunker!!

[gillmang]

Thanks Mike, great notes and a power of ruminations (as always).

The common threads are, i) aging in barrels not 100% new charred, which means lack of rich vanillin sugars but some impact from the wood (whether used charred or new fresh oak), and ii) grain distillation character from use of a bourbon or rye mash: in other words all these whiskeys are distilled at under 160 proof.

Therefore, regardless of age, which isn't as modified by barrels new or previously used as by new charred barrels, the whiskeys should show common traits. Indeed you have observed some between the Lot 40 and Hirsch 20. Maybe similar connections will appear once you take a dip in these other jars.

Gary

[EllenJ]

Hi Chuck,
My material for Midwestern American Whiskey (including Illinois and Missouri, of course) is scattered all over the place, since I'm not really even close to attacking THAT can of worms (ranging from before the Whiskey Trust through Prohibition and beyond), but I do have some information about McCormick. They appear to have gone through some more changes (for example, I think they don't even market HH-made bourbon anymore), and much of the information I read long ago and took for for granted would "always be available" has disappeared. In other words, I'm not really able to say with certainty that the East St. Louis source is any more than a "suspicion based on something I believe I read once" -- hardly an acceptable reference

East St. Louis is mentioned a lot as a distillery hub in the 1800s, but that wouldn't mean it was still important after Prohibition, and I can no longer find any live (i.e., internet) info indicating otherwise.

The pre-Heaven Hill bottle of McCormick I have that I thought was from there only claims to be distilled in Illinois, and could just as easily have been made in Peoria or Pekin.

More on this later... eventually.