Regards,
David

I could be mistaken, but I think the Michter’s proportions had corn in the lead, not rye, and I still have issues with the veracity of those numbers, anyway…but that’s for another time and place.

Always a pleasure!

Sam

How could 1% very old whiskey help the bouquet? It seems so little. But due to the detail of this old ad, I’d like to think the company put a lot of thought into it and the results were as promised.

I might make a small batch of my own Schenley 1941-style straight whiskey blend, I have the whiskeys of the ages and characteristics needed. It will be bourbon in this case. I will call it my “MacArthur blend” in honor of the subject of the cover of that issue of Life magazine. If I do this I will put a note here of the results.

Gary

In all of the straight whiskey categories in this guide, those distilled in PA are noted as such, though the blends are not, presumably because they may have contained whiskey from other states.

Here is one from 1941, from Life magazine, it is on page 66, if it does not appear when you click on the lick, scroll to PAGE 66 using the page counter at the top (next to contents):

http://books.google.com/books?id=Yk4EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_hp#v=onepage&q=bourbon&f=false

This is even for the time an unusually detailed advertisement. The product advertised was a blend of straight whiskeys. Schenley offered two versions, one all-bourbon, one all-rye. The make up was 3 whiskeys 5 years old each, one 6 years old, and the last 11 years old.

The ad tells us the precise percentage of each, note that the 11 year old went in at only 1% and the 6 year old at 11%, almost of all the contents were therefore 5 years old but there were 3 of these latter, each having an assigned role in the blend. The ad also gives the blender’s rationale for using each type: one gave body, one “tang”, one “aroma” (the oldest one) and so on. I’ll bet this was a fine product, clearly it was carefully thought through and tested.

This is typical of how a blend of straight whiskeys was put together in the 1930′s and 1940′s at any rate.

Clearly the whiskeys would have been sourced at different distilleries. Schenley would have made some of them in Schenley, PA,, but not all. (If they were all made at Schenley and each type was all-bourbon or all-rye as stated, it would have been possible I think under the law to call it simply straight bourbon or rye whiskey – the reason to state a blend was I think the provenance of some of the whiskeys from other distilleries or out of State).

This gives a pretty good idea how it was done then. I think one could extend the formula in different ways, e.g., for a luxury blend, just double the ages of everything, although no doubt each company had its own blends worked out for the different qualities.

Up until the 1950′s or so it was not uncommon to see a blend of straight whiskeys. It might be a combination of all-rye whiskeys, or all-bourbon whiskeys, or some of each type. Also, straight whiskeys that were not bourbon or rye, e.g., a straight whiskey of which no grain reached more than 50%, were sometimes blended with bourbon or ryes. Essentially all this is a kind of vatting in Scots terms (or the older terminology at any rate) but it has its own independent history in the U.S. and it is great to see modern examples.

The Rendezvous has a light but creamy taste and there is a mango-like note (or maybe tangerine or lemon) which adds good complexity. A fine product again which deserves the attention of any fan of American whiskey and its traditions. Based on the quality of Rendezvous I will certainly seek out this new product.

Gary

“I sent the wrong back label to you. Version control issue. The only difference is that the real Bourye has an additional rye whiskey in it, a 16 year old 53% rye, 37% corn, 10% malt mashbill.”

Something to make note of. There’s two different rye whiskeys in there.

He also sent me an image of the front label, which I included in the post.