by 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