Philips Union Whiskey and flavored whisk(ies)?

Talk about Tennessee, American and Rye Whiskey here.

Moderator: Squire

Philips Union Whiskey and flavored whisk(ies)?

Unread postby White Lightning » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:28 pm

I had the chance to try this stuff earlier this year. First I should say according to Dean, the item labeled Phillips Union “Whiskey” is a combination of Canadian Whiskey & Kentucky Bourbon.

Aside from the P.U. “Whiskey” title there were two more flavored items “Phillips Union Cherry” and “Phillips Union Vanilla”.

I tried the “Whiskey” item and thought it was what I would have imagined the other flavored with vanilla item would have tasted like. I must admit it was very ummmm… smooth for a lack of correct descriptive terms. However getting past that positive point, there was not much authoritative about it after its soft easily approachable intake. I guess this would be good for whiskey introduction or perhaps at times when patients AREN’T a virtue.

I won’t knock the stuff as I can totally see it having its own meaningful time and place – the problem is me rarely being in that specific time or place as I make a conscious effort to thoroughly immerse myself in the whiskey I enjoy. Otherwise if the occasion doesn’t merit, such as a build up of too much white noise (read company which is really read as unwanted or otherwise thoughtless guests LOL) in those instances I won’t pour something I might not be able to fully enjoy without distracton. Beer anybody?

Ok before I go on further into metaphoric wonderland here, what I’m really interested in is polling the collective audience here to speculate what Kentucky Bourbon is used to make these “Union”s?

Dean Phillips assured me it was NOT whiskey made by or purchased from Heaven Hill. Beyond that he said he could not comment more on the subject.
ψ£
User avatar
White Lightning
Registered User
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:26 pm

Unread postby cowdery » Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:30 pm

I talked to Dean Phillips at WhiskeyFest last week and tried the whiskey and cherry-flavored products. I had the same reaction you did to the whiskey, vanilla right up front, although Dean assured me it was not flavored.

As for who made the bourbon component, two points. One, nobody sells bulk whiskey except when they do. What I mean by that is that Heaven Hill may be the only U.S. distillery that is explicitly in the bulk whiskey business (though they won't talk about it), but every distillery will sell whiskey in bulk when they find themselves with stock in excess of their needs for some reason. So it could be anyone.

Two, I really couldn't taste any characteristic I would identify as bourbon. What I tasted was a very light, mild Canadian whisky. Remember, the descriptor on the front of the bottle is merely "whiskey." By law "whiskey" is any alcoholic distillate made from a fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190° proof. Put a high proof "whiskey" into a new, charred oak barrel and what do you get? Vanilla from the wood and not much else. Since the package bears no age statement, the youngest whiskey in the bottle must be at least four years old.

What it doesn't say is how much of each it contains. My theory is that it is primarily Canadian whisky, and a very mild one at that, with a little bit of bourbon, mostly just to support the gimmick.

Though I tasted it at WhiskeyFest, I only really drank it last night. It is pleasant enough, goes down very easy, but I question if this is a product anyone is looking for. It reminds me of Light Whiskey, which failed because people who wanted to drink a spirit that had almost no flavor could just drink vodka. I suppose now the shoe is on the other foot. The theory, at least, is that vodka drinkers seeking just a little more flavor will find this just what they're looking for.
- Chuck Cowdery

Author of Bourbon, Straight
User avatar
cowdery
Registered User
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:07 pm
Location: Chicago

Unread postby White Lightning » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:28 pm

Chuck,

You're likely spot on with every point you made.

Curious, did Dean give you the spiel about this not exactly being new - it's apparently new to the US market or something along those lines. That said - nothing was officially stated, but I walked away with the impression that the relationship for the "bourbon" component was a long established and standing one - what about you?
ψ£
User avatar
White Lightning
Registered User
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:26 pm

Unread postby Strayed » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:20 pm

I just tried Port Union this last weekend, and my impression echoes both of yours. Except that I also tasted cherry (the other flavored one, besides vanilla) in mine. I applaud the search to find a good market niche, but it's not a niche that I'd be looking for.

One thing I think this whiskey would be really good in is dessert coffee. That's anything BUT a disparaging remark. I really like coffee with liquor in it... almost any kind has its own special appeal *. And Port Union isn't bad at all that way.


* Well, ALMOST. Again, ask me about this at the Bourbon Festival Sampler in Bardstown on April 30th. We'll be at the General Nelson Best Western Motel. Keyword: mesquite
=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 White Lightning » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:17 am

I wish I could attend the event and not just for the answer here. At any rate I trust the discussions that likely will take place will be nothing short of fascinating!
ψ£
User avatar
White Lightning
Registered User
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:26 pm

Unread postby tlsmothers » Fri May 06, 2005 2:21 am

I tried both the vanilla, cherry and unflavored recently. The cherry reminded me of a Luden's cough drop. The vanilla is more liqueur like than whiskey. The unflavored really gave me the impression of some added flavoring or sweetener. It was pretty bold with the vanilla taste. We tried cocktails. Vanilla julep was appealling but the "Manhattan" with the cherry was, well, not really a Manhattan. Not a bad tasting cocktail, but t he cherry candy flavor was overpowering the vermouth. The vanilla and unflavored were nice in flavoring coffees.

I had them all open as samples for customers to give me feedback over the weekend. I really wanted to see if my customer base would be interested in this. Not one person asked me to bring it in. One person actually said, "I've never used your spit bucket before, but this is the product that requires it." I wouldn't be so harsh, but it doesn't seem to have a lot of support from talking to other folks in the NY market.
"Drinking just to get drunk is like having sex just to get pregnant." --Robert Hess
User avatar
tlsmothers
Registered User
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:31 pm
Location: New York City

Unread postby Mark » Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:58 pm

Stacy brought home an article from USA Today about this stuff a little while ago. I thought I remembered it being spoken about here and sure enough, I found this thread. For anyone who may want to see pics of the bottles and read things like "The vanilla version amplifies a flavor already found in bourbon...." ( :roll: ) here's a pic of the article:
Attachments
PhillipsUnion.JPG
Phillips Union Whiskey article in USA Today written by Jerry Shriver
PhillipsUnion.JPG (217.43 KiB) Viewed 15872 times
-=_Mark_=-
User avatar
Mark
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: SI, NY

Unread postby gillmang » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:08 pm

I just bought this in Providence, RI (sawa cool double-size bottle of JD here with a whitelettered label painted hand-style, for $69.00. What is that, and the proof? It was in a wooden case). Will try it soon and report but question re something Chuck said: if (as I know) whiskey as defined is less than 190 proof, how can it contain Canadian whisky since Canadian whisky (as far as I know) is all distilled at 194-196 proof except for the small flavouring whisky component used? Ican understand that the whiskey might be distilled at from 160-190 proof, or even be young (green) whiskey distilled at under 160 proof, but could any of that be Canadain whisky? And yet the label of the bottle also states it contains Canadian whisky and bourbon. I am sure there is alogical answer to this but I can't figure it out, Chuck can you explain further or can anyone give the lowdown on this?

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

Unread postby Mark » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:15 pm

I know of the JD bottle you are talking about Gary. It's nothing special, just another special bottling they did, I forget the name right now. $69 isnt bad though, they were going for about $99 and more on ebay when they first came out... Just some info, sorry I forge tht ename of the bottling right now, I think it was a 19xx replica bottle or something like that.
-=_Mark_=-
User avatar
Mark
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: SI, NY

Unread postby TNbourbon » Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:04 pm

Gary, the JD bottles sound like the replicas of the 1914 and 1915 Gold Medal bottlings -- issued in 2000 and 2002, respectively.
As Mark says, there is nothing special about the whiskey inside the bottle -- except for Gentleman Jack and the Single Barrel, it's all the same (accounting, or course, for proof changes).
Last edited by TNbourbon on Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
TNbourbon
Registered User
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:11 pm

Unread postby Mark » Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:00 am

I was thinking this one Tim, which I lloked up on ebay; Says its the Centennial 1904 Gold Medal Replica. I've seen them many places over the past year and a half to 2 years, and each time the price is going lower and lower :lol: I was thinking the other gold label ones as well but when Gary said the white lettering was painted 'hand style' those others have more print style lettering right?
Attachments
1904.jpg
1904.jpg (14.06 KiB) Viewed 15843 times
Last edited by Mark on Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-=_Mark_=-
User avatar
Mark
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: SI, NY

Unread postby gillmang » Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:24 am

Thanks, guys, it's just like the one Mark pictured. Oh well. Had it been 1970's-era I'd have picked it up because I think it would be interesting to chart JD flavor at 30 year intervals (and going back earlier, e.g., to the 50's and before).

I tried the Phillips Union Whiskey last night, the unflavored one.

First, I agree that albeit unflavored by Phillips (per Mr. Dean Phillips one of the owners) it seems to bear the mark of some addition in its history, there is a light "vanilla bean" flavor which seems to me not from the wood of oak or any blending process. It must be quite a bit stronger in the version of this whiskey labelled "Vanilla Flavor" but a hint is detectable in the non-flavored one. How can this be? I'll give my theories further below, but first the taste.

The whiskey is soft to the palate, light yet full-flavored with a clear inclination as Chuck said to a Canadian whisky palate. Yet there is a hint of bourbon too, but only lightly so. The bourbon and Canadian whiskies used seem both of young-to-moderate age.

It is a very drinkable dram, but I find the hint of vanilla bean (and the light sugar or sherry addition if any) distracting: I'd prefer just the whiskey tastes.

Here's my theory of how this is blended: Phillips is headquartered at Princeton, near Minneapolis I believe in Minnesota. This is not all that far from Alberta (relatively). In Alberta, Brown Forman owns a distillery which makes Tangle Ridge and other Canadian rye whiskies. Tangle Ridge is flavored with vanilla and a touch of sherry which lends it a sweetish taste. I think Tangle Ridge is 10 years old.

My theory is, maybe Phillips has bought some surplus whisky from BF made at its Canadian distillery but probably younger than 10 years old. It is made (I am speculating) like Tangle Ridge with some vanilla added and maybe even the sherry touch. Then they add some Jim Beam-type bourbon in Princeton also acquired from BF. That is what I think. When I get home I plan to add to a bottle of Tangle Ridge 10% (or more) Knob Creek to make a "luxury version" of this kind of blend.

Another possibility: the Canadian whisky component is made at a distillery in Manitoba (there are a couple of distilleries there) and a light touch of vanilla is added by the Canadian distiller. Possibly Phillips adds more vanilla for the vanilla proper version or gets two batches from Canada, one with vanilla lightly added and one with it more heavily added. If added in Canada the vanilla must be (as for Tangle Ridge) added in a way which still allows the product to be called Canadian whisky on a Canadian label and indeed the law allows certain additions here within certain limits for that purpose.

The only other idea I have is, assuming the Canadian whisky sourced for Phillips Union is not flavored in Canada by its distiller, maybe the vanilla- proper version is flavoured by Phillips in Princeton and once the barrels (if any) used to marry that blend are emptied they are used for a short marrying of the unflavoured blend and thereby lend a faint taste of vanilla to the mixture before it is bottled (as ex-sherry casks would lend a light sherry note to whisky in Scotland).

Of course, I may be wrong about how Phillips Union Whiskey is confected, maybe it really is completely unflavored at each stage of production and marrying of its components but I'd be surprised if this is so.

And I'm still interested in the whiskey labelling aspect, i.e., how it can incorporate Canadian whisky (made at higher than 190 proof for the most part) yet be called whiskey in the U.S. (by definition something distilled under 190 proof)? Probably the answer is it is a mixture and if there is enough bourbon in the "union", it qualifies under the rules to be termed all-whiskey on the front of the label.

The blend is actually very nice, it offers (by intention obviously) mostly a Canadian taste so we have to accept that: it is not a bourbon-accented blend but rather a bourbon-influenced blend and only lightly. I'd have gone for a more assertive palate, adding more bourbon and avoiding the vanilla bean note, but it is very good as it is. It is a good effort and will please many. I think too (taking a broader look at it) it is a salutary development in that it represents a revival of an old tradition in American whiskey commerce, that of blending and selling a compound of good taste which offers a sum greater than its parts - and blending as many here know is near and dear to my heart. The idea to blend Canadian and U.S. whiskey is not new. Canadian blenders have been doing that for a long time (what is Crown Royal other than aged high proof whisky with (in its case) 20% of straight rye and bourbon whiskies put in for taste)? And back in the 1950's, the Canadian blend Order of Merit was made up as I recall of half Canadian whisky and half-bourbon. So the idea is not really new but rather a revival. Phillips Union, which I paid $20 for is certainly worth the price, it is a fine product and I'd encourage the company to persist with it and in time issue further versions using older whiskies. I haven't tried the flavoured ones proper, i.e. the vanilla- and cherry-flavoured ones and suspect I'd like them less but the regular one is a good whiskey and I tip my hat to Phillips for the effort.

Oh almost certainly the bourbon used is the same one as in the Williamsburg Bourbon brand, the one with the Brooklyn Bridge pictured on it, since that brand also states on the label that it comes from Princeton, Minnesota. So anyone who can identify the origin of that whiskey has probably identified the origin of the bourbon in Phillips Union. On the shelf next to the Phillips Union I bought in Providence was ththat Williamsburg bourbon at a most sturdy 60%+ abv! I should have bought it since I now realise I could have added some to Phillips Union Whiskey to make a more bourbon-influenced version and in an authentic way since the bourbon being put in both bottles is surely I would think the same (although at different proofs). I might go back to the store and get some of that Williamsburg Bourbon, it was being sold for a good price, too. Maybe by sampling it neat I could figure out if it is BF or another distiller's whiskey.

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

Unread postby TNbourbon » Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:48 am

Yep, Mark, that the one I had in mind, too -- I just misidentified it. There are SO many of them! On the one hand, JD collectors always can look forward to something new. On the other hand, JD collectors always can look forward to something to spend more money on.
In any case, that bottle just sits in about every other store around here. The local folks just buy the square black-label bottle. The tourists who've just visited the distillery grab the 'unique' ones.
TNbourbon
Registered User
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:11 pm

Last of the 90 proof Jack Daniels

Unread postby Stoopsie » Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:24 pm

Ah, but isn't there uniqueness of this whiskey? This the last way to drink the much lamented, 90 proof Jack Daniels. Although the price is a little on the high side for a current whiskey, it is not too high of a price to bring back the memories of Jack Daniels from the 50's, 60's and 70's. Just check out the prices of Jack Daniels memorobilia from that era on any auction site.
Howie

Some people see the glass as half full, some see half empty, but I prefer to drink straight from the bottle.
User avatar
Stoopsie
Registered User
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:06 am
Location: Laurel, MD


Return to Non-Bourbon Whiskey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests