August 31st, 2010

Guest Blog #2: What killed Michter’s distillery?

John Hansell

Today’s guest blogger on “What Do You Know?”, Ethan Smith, explores What Killed Michter’s?

—–

Was it because people, by 1990, no longer associated Pennsylvania with whiskey distilling? Maybe it was because whiskey consumption nationwide was declining? Or could it have been simply history closing the books on the last operating distillery in Penn’s woods? If you’re at all familiar with the distillery, you know well that the last days of Michter’s were not good ones. See Sam Komlenic’s post about his trip in 1989 and how empty the warehouses were. But what actually led to Michter’s shutting down on Valentine’s Day 20 years ago?

Doing a search for Michter’s online yields all sorts of results- most are inaccurate. I’ve found closure dates ranging from 1980 to 1992. And no one seems to fully understand why it closed. They only speculate. I set out several months ago to try and find out what made Michter’s tick and what made it finally wind to a stop (Being unemployed gave me PLENTY of time to do research!). I soon found myself involved with the distillery site itself helping the owner clean up and make the place look somewhat presentable. In our time working together at the abandoned place, Dwight began telling me what he knew and names he had heard. His stories about what happened to the distillery after its closure were fascinating and I quickly found myself scouring the internet for more information. I soon stumbled on a Straightbourbon post by Chuck Cowdery where he had interviewed Michter’s Master Distiller Dick Stoll. Within a few days, I had contact information and was on my way to meeting THE man who could answer a few questions I had. The first time I talked with Mr. Stoll we talked for a few hours. It was fantastic. We discussed everything from the process they used to make the whiskey, to the tourist business (His wife Elaine was a tour guide there), to what products they made, and of course, what killed Michter’s.

Louis Forman created the Michter’s brand back in the 1950’s by merging his two son’s names- Michael and Peter. Dick and Elaine Stoll wrote this to me about early distillery ownership:

“Lou [Forman] never owned the distillery.  In the early 1970s Samuel Glass and Associates bought the distillery from Kirk Foulk.  Sam Glass was the brother-in-law of Lou so Sam made him president.  Lou was the brains behind the Michter’s name and brand.  The plant was contracted by Hiram Walker to make cordials, who brought in new equipment, but the plant did not expand to the level expected. Hiram Walker ended the relationship and took back the equipment. 

“Around 1975(?)  Sam Glass sold the operation to a group of Lebanon businessmen including Stanley Katz, Phil Davis, Dale Yocum, and Abe Grosky (uncle of George Shattls).  Lou was named president, but Charles “Chuck” Romito, a lawyer from the law firm of Katz and Davis was put in charge. Under this group there was a new paint job and landscaping. Business started to boom with the help of Dale Yocum’s sons, Dave and Marty.  Lou was an important part of establishing the distillery on the National Register of Historic Places.  Dave and Marty established the Collectors Society and the tourist business.  The gift store items and decanters started with them, along with lots of press, including The Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine.  Lots of bus tours ended up at Michter’s on their way from the tourist areas of Lancaster to Hershey. 

“Eventually the Lebanon group sold the distillery to Theodore Veru [Around 1979] despite an offer from Austin-Nichols.  Veru’s higher offer won out.  Although the distillery made whiskey bottled as Wild Turkey in the 50s-60s for Austin-Nichols, they were not making it for them when they made the offer.”   Since whiskey drinking was declining, Austin-Nichols was looking to diversify their portfolio in hopes to make up profit where they were starting to lose it. Austin-Nichols was primarily interested in the deep wells on the property. So what did they want with these wells? Water of course. Lots of it. Pure, fresh, 54-degree limestone water. And what were they looking to do with all of it? Bottle it and sell it. Bottled water was just starting to get popular in the early 80’s and Austin-Nichols wanted a piece of the market. But since Veru’s bid was higher, we never got to enjoy bottles of pure limestone water from Michter’s.

Under the Yocum’s management, the distillery became a National Historic Landmark and a wonderful tourist destination. Then of course were the famous Michter’s decanters! Soon there were Michter’s T-shirts, balloons, aprons, ornaments, a Collectors Society, donkey rides for the kids, and many other retail items. But under that glamour and merchandise, there was trouble brewing. After the distillery had been sold to Veru, sales started to slump. Quickly. America lost its love affair with whiskey and the big glut was coming.

Veru had purchased a ceramic manufacturing plant in Ohio to design and manufacture the Michter’s decanters and named it GVI China but it too started to consume more money than it made. Dick said by around 1981, leaking barrels in the warehouses were no longer repaired and were just left to leak dry. The main distilling equipment was also no longer used on a continuous basis.

Then came the bankruptcy. Veru left the scene and the bank (Commonwealth bank, which later became Mellon Bank) took over. Well, sort of. Commonwealth Bank, according the Stoll’s “…Could not run it because they were loaning money to businesses that promoted alcohol, so they hired a holding company not to run the business, but to put a name on the “Business”.” According to Dick, most of these people really had no clue what they were doing and only tried to line their own pockets with the distillery’s meager profits. Finally a man by the name of Frank Pitassi came in and started running Michter’s. By that time, the main distilling equipment was not being used, but the mini pot still was still in use. Pitassi got a few contracts and they even exported some whiskey to Japan and Korea, but it wasn’t enough to keep the place afloat. And of course there was still the bank- who was holding all the debt AND all the bonds on the whiskey aging in the warehouses. Dick said supposedly the bank had asked Pitassi to buy the bonds from them since he was, after all, getting the profits off the distillery. Pitassi refused and on February, 14th 1990, the bank got tired of not being paid and Pitassi made a phone call to shut Michter’s down until they were paid.

The bank payment never happened. Pitassi and all other interested parties vanished. Dick said a few people had come to look at the distillery in the following years, but soon the government got tired of waiting for their tax money and cleaned the place out. The bank sold the whiskey.  All the aging whiskey on site was rumored to be sent to Continental in Philadelphia and re-distilled into pure Ethanol.

So all that said, what led to the rapid decrease in sales of whiskey? First and foremost was, as I had mentioned before, America had fallen out of love with whiskey. Distillers no longer needed the little brown distillery in Schaefferstown to pick up the slack for them, so all the contracts evaporated, which really killed profit. Secondly, years of a lack of vision by management started catching up to the distillery. Veru lived very much for the “here and now” according to Dick, as did the people that followed him. The on-the-road sales team disappeared and suppliers started forgetting about Michter’s. Lastly, the market niche that Michter’s was aiming for was already very full. Jack Daniel’s, Maker’s Mark, and Wild Turkey were all priced lower than or in line with Michter’s and they had much larger names and distribution. And the whole decanter fad was starting to die off in the 80’s, too.

So there you have it. The last days of Pennsylvania’s last distiller, the oldest distillery in the United States, were sad, lonely times. But, if you ask Dick, and his wife Elaine, if they didn’t like working there, they will tell you they enjoyed it all. What hurt them was knowing the end of Michter’s was coming and there was little they could do about it. And don’t think Michter’s ever sacrificed the quality of their products through all of it. Dick said that every last drop that made it into their decanters and bottles was “good stuff.” And now we’re left to speculate about the future of the distillery. There has been interest in recent months from some parties about purchasing the distillery and restarting it- and with the popularity of small “craft” distilleries today, it could be an incredible distillery again. Oh, and it seems Americans have fallen back in love with whiskey again. So even though I couldn’t have my Michter’s open house back in February, it doesn’t mean we can’t still all raise a glass and salute the little distillery on Snitzel Creek.

 If you want to learn more about Michter’s and its history and/or its future, feel free to contact me at ethangsmith@dejazzd.com

Category: Bourbon,Distillery Tours,Guest Blogger,Opinions Tags: 23 Comments

August 30th, 2010

Guest Blog #1: Most craft whiskeys suck!

John Hansell

(As promised, What Does John Know? becomes “What Do you Know?” this week–and next! Let’s hit the ground running with the most controversial guest blog. Our first guest blogger, Steve Ury of www.recenteats.blogspot.com, makes his point. And he doesn’t sugar-coat it.)

——

Most craft whiskeys suck!

I’m sorry, but someone had to say it. This particular emperor has been wearing new clothes for too long.

The Phenomenon
Like every whiskey writer/blogger in the universe, I’ve written a fair amount about American microdistilleries; I even put together one of the first complete lists of American whiskey microdistilleries on the web (which I continue to keep up to date). It’s a fascinating and exciting phenomenon. Suddenly, after years of having only a dozen whiskey distilleries, the nation is awash in microdistilleries cropping up in every unlikely nook and cranny. The proprietors of these micros are, almost to a person, lovely folks. They are the type of creative artisans who bring a real love to their craft and have invested countless hours of sweat-equity. They pursue innovative new recipes and techniques; they epitomize the “little guy.” Who could not like them? The only problem is that many of their products suck.

I’m sorry, but I am tired of hearing raves about this great new, innovative distillery in Idaho with their first whiskey on sale for $85 plus shipping, only to find out that it’s been aged for 18 days and tastes like turpentine. I have had this experience multiple times. Despite their lovable heritage, craft whiskeys are mostly too young, too expensive and too crappy.

Don’t believe me? Last May, the American Distilling Institute (ADI), an association for craft distillers, had a craft whiskey tasting competition. A panel of experts blind tasted 65 craft whiskeys. The winner of the best in show award (Best Craft American Whiskey) was High West’s Bourye. But the whiskey in Bourye was not made by a craft distillery. It was made by a macrodistillery and purchased by High West, which blended it for Bourye. It turns out that the best craft whiskey in American isn’t a craft whiskey at all.

The Press
It’s time to admit that many of us in the blogging/journalistic community, out of a desire to encourage and nurture this young industry, have given these craft whiskeys a pass. If you read reviews of craft whiskeys you will continually see words like “interesting,” “innovative” and “experimental.” Reviewers seem afraid to come down too hard on these lovely folks, so we get a lot of euphemisms. Meanwhile, we continually see romantic puff pieces about one man’s brave quest to make quinoa whiskey in a remote Nebraska town. The big exception to this trend has been Chuck Cowdery who has not held back about craft distilleries, particularly those that aren’t really distilling.

These Ain’t Microbrews
There are constant comparisons between the microdistillery movement and the microbrewery movement, but while there are certain similarities, the two are really apples and oranges. Back in the ’80s, before the first big wave of microbrews, the vast majority of Americans were drinking crap beer. It was Bud, Miller, Coors, Schlitz – looks like piss, tastes like water. There was barely any alternative. The microbrewery revolution wasn’t just about smaller producers, it was about bringing flavor back to beer. Suddenly, you could get beer that tasted like something. The microbreweries continue to lead the way on flavor and the big guys, for the most part, continue to put out crap.

The story with whiskey is nearly the opposite. The big macrodistilleries put out some amazing quality whiskeys. I’m talking Parker’s Heritage, the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection, Four Roses Single Barrel and Wild Turkey Rare Breed. They also put out innovative new whiskeys like the Buffalo Trace Experimental Collection and the Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection. Sure there is bottom shelf stuff out there, but the macrodistilleries give the whiskey lover plenty to choose from. In contrast, the micros are giving us less flavor and less age, and in the end, that means less care is going into the product. Unlike microbrews, they aren’t filling an important gap because there is no gap to fill.

I Said “Most”
Now bear in mind that I say “most” craft whiskeys suck, and by most I do mean the vast majority. However, Anchor’s Old Potrero and Charbay’s hopped whiskeys are excellent. I consider those two distilleries to be the only two I have tried that compete with the majors on quality. Everyone else is batting for the minor leagues at best.

I do love High West’s Rendezvous Rye, but as with their Bourye, it is not craft distilled. It’s a macrodistillery whiskey that High West has done a great job sourcing and blending. Sourcing and blending are real skills and High West deserves credit for blending and bottling a great whiskey, but it doesn’t count as something made by a microdistillery.

And I have nothing against craft distilling generally. I’ve written multiple posts on the fabulous craft distilled brandies from Germain-Robin and also enjoyed St. George Absinthe. I’m sure there are other good craft distilled spirits out there, but the whiskey sucks.

Now, I’m perfectly aware that mine isn’t the only opinion on the block, so I’d love to hear from anyone who thinks that these whiskeys really do measure up. Let me know which ones you love.

What Do You Think?
To the whiskey writing community I have to ask, are we doing any favors by coddling distillers who are putting out substandard products at inflated prices? Are we being honest with our readers about the line between “interesting” and “worth your hard earned cash”? Is our emotional investment in the innovation and enthusiasm of craft whiskeys clouding our collective judgment? Isn’t it time someone said it: Most Craft Whiskeys Suck! Maybe someday it won’t be the case, but today it is.

Category: Guest Blogger,Microdistilleries,Opinions 89 Comments

August 27th, 2010

Ten straight guest posts, starting Monday. Don’t miss them!

John Hansell

Starting Monday, I will be putting up one guest post each weekday for two weeks straight–including Labor Day!

This all started when I was originally planning on taking vacation all next week. So, I thought it would be cool to ask you to submit a guest post. The plan was for me to pick the five best and publish them.

Well, a few things changed. It looks like my vacation will only begin Wednesday (too much stuff going on). And I received a lot of interesting guest submissions. After reading them all, I decided to post up ten of them beginning Monday, regardless of whether I am going to be on vacation or not.

I want to say a few things about the guest posts before I begin publishing them. First, I can’t publish all of them. For those of you whose submissions I didn’t publish, I still want to thank you for taking the time to submit something. They were all good.

Second, some of the posts are opinionated and controversial. I believe in free speech. I’m publishing a couple submissions that I don’t entirely agree with, but I think the topic should be debated. I just want to make it clear that the opinions are those of the author, and not necessarily mine.

So, starting Monday, let the fun begin!

Category: Guest Blogger,Opinions 6 Comments

August 12th, 2010

Your summertime whisk(e)y?

John Hansell

It has been very hot here in Pennsylvania. And it’s been unseasonably hot over a large part of the United States this summer.

My question for you: are you still drinking whisky in this warm weather? If so, what? And how are you drinking it?

(For me, I’m just drinking the same stuff I would normally drink–whatever I’m in the mood for. I’m just waiting until later in the evening to drink it, after the temperatures have cooled off.)

Category: Opinions 57 Comments

August 3rd, 2010

21 year old Czech single malt? Really?

John Hansell

Every once in a while, something comes out of the clear blue–like a 21 year old Czech single malt, reported today by Drinks International.

Apparently, when a company bought the distillery, they found the whisky. And it’s not a small amount that will sell out soon.

I wonder what Czech whisky, made with Czech water, barley and aged in Czech oak tastes like?

“Hammer Head” will sell for £34.99 in Travel Retail.

Category: European whiskies,New Releases,Opinions 22 Comments

July 30th, 2010

Six year old whiskey in six month’s time?

John Hansell

Tom Lix, an entrepreneur, says he found a way to do it, and he received a permit from the feds and got a grant from a local community college innovation fund to conduct his research. Here’s an excerpt from the article, which ran in a Cleveland, Ohio, publication:

Last month, Lix gained a federal permit to operate an experimental distilled spirits plant. And he has a sponsorship with the American Distilling Institute, a 1,200-member trade group for craft distillers.

Bill Owens, president of the institute, said he was impressed with a scientific paper Lix submitted to the group.

Owens directed Lix to a bourbon distillery in Kentucky that supplied Lix with a batch of “white dog.” That’s the highly potent spirit distillers age for years in charred oak barrels to make bourbon whiskey.

Lix started in his home, refining a process that uses heating, cooling and pressure to greatly reduce the maturing time for whiskey. Essentially, a six-year whiskey can age in six months, Lix claims.

Owens said Lix is placing charred wood in the spirits to impart the color and vanilla tastes that come from barrel storage.

Read the entire story here.

What do you think? Is he legitimate?

And do you think it’s good for the craft distilling movement, or will this kind of experimentation tarnish this young industry’s reputation?

Category: Media,Opinions 56 Comments

July 28th, 2010

Sharing a Michael Jackson Story with you

John Hansell

I was in London, in the Diageo offices on this particular morning. Diageo was introducing several new limited edition whiskies, and a handful of whisky writers were getting a preview. Among the attendees was my good friend Michael Jackson.

We sampled probably close to a dozen whiskies, with the tasting concluding around lunchtime. I hadn’t seen Michael for several months, so I suggested we have lunch together. We weren’t far away from the Fuller’s Brewery and he said he knew of a great Fuller’s pub just down from the brewery along the Thames called The Dove. It was a short stroll away, so that’s where we went.

Well, the Fuller’s Chiswick Bitter was in perfect condition, so we each had a pint before lunch. With lunch, it was a pint each of Fuller’s London Pride. Delicious!

We were finishing up our lunch, having a great time together getting caught up with stories ab0ut our travels, the whisky business, etc. Not wanting the good times to end, I proposed we each have another pint. It was about 2:oo pm, and I didn’t have any plans for the rest of the afternoon.

Michael hesitated for a moment, contemplating the whiskies we tasted in the morning, along with the the two pints of beer we enjoyed with lunch. Then he responded, with a slight grin (like he has in the picture I included of him above):

“Better make mine a half pint, John. I have a Five O’clock deadline for a story I’m doing for the Independent. It’s on vodka. I need to go back to my office, taste 20 vodkas and then write the story.”

I just cracked up laughing! I don’t know if it was exactly 20 vodkas, but it was something like that. And I (unfortunately) never did get to read the vodka story in the Independent, but I sure am glad I wasn’t the Independent’s copy editor that day. :)

Category: Beer,Humor,Opinions,Writers Tags: , 23 Comments

July 26th, 2010

Plenty of good new whiskies, but where are the great ones?

John Hansell

First the good news:  I really haven’t tasted many new whiskies with flaws. My ratings of whiskies in the 70s and lower have been few and far between so far this year.

But, on the flip side, I haven’t been tasting many whiskies that have really blown me away either. (More whiskies like Glenfarclas 40 year old, please.) Most of my ratings have been in the 8os, and a lot in the low-mid 80s. This means that we have a lot of nice whiskies out there. 

Nice. Not  great!

Am I being too tough on all these whiskies?” (And maybe some of the whisky producers out there are beginning to feel the same way?)  But, looking back over the releases so far in 2010, I don’t think I am.

I wonder, though, if we might be entering a phase where we’re going to be seeing a lot of good whiskies, but not a lot of great whiskies (or even poor whiskies, for that matter).

Why? Well, the days of having large stocks of older whiskies for many producers are over. The whisky boom (along with economic problems back in the 1980s which reduced whisky production) has led to a reduction in many of these older stocks–many of which were great whiskies. (Remember all those wonderful old Springbanks from the 1960s and 1970s?) What remains from this era is being sold off at exorbitant prices. 

True, there are some exceptions. Some producers are sitting on older stocks, and they are poised to take advantage of it.

However, what we’ve been seeing, and will continue to see, are new releases at younger ages–and a lot more NAS (no age statement) whiskies, where producers will marry very young whiskies (less than 8 years old) with some older stocks.

Sure, some whiskies are great at a relatively young age, but it will be hard for most to develop the depth and complexity deserving “classic” status at such a young age. 

Likewise, whisky producers have gotten wiser. Wood management is better. They have great “nosers” on their staff. Even if producers release a whisky that’s fairly young, I think most are smart enough now to not release any new whiskies that are premature or flawed in some manner. (Note to the new, small, craft distillers: Be careful. Don’t rush it. Do it right the first time.)

There is more modernization, computerization, and homomoginization to the production process too, which makes whisky quality more consistent. But does that also suggest, for better or worse, the potential for less diversity?

So, what does all this mean? I think we’re going to continue seeing a lot of what I would describe as “80s” whiskies. And in statistical terms, I think there’s going to be a much smaller standard deviation in these whiskies than in the past (meaning not as many 90s and not a lot of 70s and 60s).

My feeling is that–generally speaking–the bourbon distillers have the advantage here in this new era, because bourbon (and other American whiskeys like Tennessee and rye whiskeys) matures quicker that Scotch whisky and can recover more quickly from unexpected stock depletions.

Fall is usually the time when the whisky producers release their good stuff. I hope my logic is wrong. For now, at least. I’d like to see more 90+ rated whiskies in the mix being released over the next five months. There were some amazing releases last fall, so there is reason for optimism.

What do you think?

Category: Opinions 40 Comments

July 22nd, 2010

Whisky distillers: listen up!

John Hansell

I’ve said it before, but I feel I need to say it again.

I’m not picking on one distiller here, so please don’t interpret it this way. Rather, this is my reaction to the current state of the whisky industry in general right now.

In this very interesting and exciting era of mushrooming new distilleries and unprecedented experimentation (both of which I am thankful for), I am asking distillers to keep one thing in mind:

While you’re trying to “one-up” your competition by using the newest barley strain, the newest grain(s), the highest peat level, the newest type of wood, the most distillations, the oldest whisky, the fanciest packaging, the most esoteric wine barrel, etc., please remember that all we really care about is that your whisky tastes good. And that it is fairly priced.

Enough said!

Category: Opinions 67 Comments

July 16th, 2010

And your benchmark disappointments over 20 years?

John Hansell

Well, if we’re going to highlight all those benchmark whiskies over the past two decades, I suppose we should take a look at the other end of the spectrum: the defining whiskies that disappointed us.

It doesn’t have to be the worst tasting whisky you ever had. It could be a trend that was started that you didn’t like, a whisky that pushed prices to absurd levels, or something else.

For example: Loch Dhu. It wasn’t the worst whisky I ever tasted (although I must say that it was not my cup of tea, given that tasted like someone dumped some bourbon and dark rum in it), but I think it was a complete waste of good whisky from the Mannochmore distillery. I’m really glad this didn’t turn into a trend. And you can still by this whisky at specialty retailers  and at auction for an absurd amount of money.

What whisky disappointed you? And why? (And let’s keep this gentlemanly, okay?)

Category: Malt Advocate Mag,Opinions 143 Comments

Older Posts »

Malt Advocate magazine is the number one source for whisky information, education and entertainment for whisky enthusiasts.

Find out more