Old Murphy Whiskey

[T-roy]

Hello,

I have a pint bottle of "Old Murphy" Whiskey from 1912. A friend of my Dads found a case of it under the porch of his house and gave it to him many years ago. My brother had been keeping it, unfortunately he stored it on its side & the cork failed so most of the whiskey was lost, about a third of a pint is left. We officially opened it this past Christmas Eve and had a few sips, it tasted great, smooth and kind of flowery. We still have a bit left for next Christmas. I haven't been able to find much information about it online.

The front label reads “Old Murphy Whiskey, the kind Father used to drink, bottled in bond at the distillery in old Kentucky for Dinan Brothers 10th and Abbott Sts Detroit Mich”
The back label says it was bottled by the Burks Springs Distillery CO. distillery no. 440 5th dist., Ky. P.O. Loretto, KY.

When I searched ‘Burks Springs Distillery’ I ended up at the Makers Mark website. I gave them the same information I've posted here & hope to hear from them.
Has anyone ever heard of Old Murphy?

I've pictures of the bottle and labels but they’re kind of large, I'm not sure how to post them here but I'll figure it out. If any one is interested I'd be happy to e-mail the pictures.

Thanks for any help.

[T-roy]

Well, I got a reply from Makers Mark, not much info but something.

“Sorry for the delay in reply - please see our Master Distiller's reply below. He also wanted to know if you had a digital picture you could send? You can send it to me if you'd like and I will happily forward along”.

“Yes, this was bottled at the distillery where we currently operate ... but well before we had anything to do with it. Before prohibition, the Burks family did a whole lot of contract bottling ... this was obviously one of those situations ... probably they produced the whisky under contract, and then bottled it under a house name. I'd love to get a good quality digital photo of the label for my collection...”

I sent them some pictures of the bottle.

[EllenJ]

Troy, did you see the photo from the Tacoma (WA) newspaper?
It's at http://search.tacomapubliclibrary.org/southsound/southsound.asp?now=17-March-2006

The photo shows John and Bob Honan, owners of Honan's Restaurant in Tacoma, along with waitress Margie Haugen and a leprechaun figure. It is a promotional picture, celebrating both St. Patrick's day and also the connection between the restaurant and another of the same name in the real Ireland. In the photo, each of the Honan brothers is holding a shiney new bottle of 8-year-old Murphy's whiskey. The photo is from 1968.

That may be a brand of actual Irish whiskey, unrelated to the one you have, but it's impossible to tell from the photo. Is that what yours looks like?

By the way, everyone has his/her own idea of what to do with rare old whiskey. I'm of the opposite school from Jersey Joe -- whiskey (or any distilled spirit) is unique among edibles (or drinkables) in that it doesn't spoil, and except for the possibility of oxidation, can usually be expected to taste the same today as when it was bottled. I'd never read a warning that included the logic that the found bottle of whiskey might contain poison, but it does make sense. Perhaps a bit paranoid, but sense just the same. Of course, you could safely deny yourself a taste of it and then get hit by a bus.

On the other hand, if the label says, "Drink Me" I'd suggest keeping an eye out for a rabbit with a large hat. Go ask Grace Slick.

P.S. - If you use any photo editor to reduce the picture to 640 x 480 pixels it should fit into a message here just fine. Attached is an example.

[bourbonv]

John,
I am glad that you responded here. I was waiting for BrendaJ to say something since she is related to the Burkes, but I talked to her yesterday and her modem has crashed. It may be a few days before she is up and running again. She did say that she will respond with some photos and information when she is back inservice so please hold on and don't give up on her.

If you check out the Maker's Mark Time line in the Bourbon Lore section, then you will get some of the history you are looking for.

[T-roy]

The bottle I have is a somewhat flattened pint bottle very similar to modern pints but with a glass & cork stopper. the label is light brownish (probably faded from white) with green lettering. I don't think it's the same as the bottle in your picture. When it came into our possession (in the 70's) the seal was intact & the Gentleman that found the case had tasted some so we weren't too worried. I'll work on resizing the picture & I'll go back to the Makers Mark site & see that time line.

Thanks for the responses

Here's a picture

[T-roy]

The label says 1/2 pint but the bottle is a 1 pint bottle & '1 pint' is cast into the glass.

Front label...

[T-roy]

Back label...

[bourbonv]

T-Roy,
The Maker's Mark timeline I was talking about is not at their web site, but here at bourbonenthusiast in the "bourbon lore" forum. I will move it forward to make it easier for you to find.

Great pictures. The tax stamp says the whiskey was made in 1912 so the bottle is probably from 1916 since it takes four years to bottle in bond. I would say it is pre-prohibition (before 1920) because there is no claim of "medicinal use".

[EllenJ]

...The tax stamp says the whiskey was made in 1912 so the bottle is probably from 1916 since it takes four years to bottle in bond. I would say it is pre-prohibition (before 1920)...

Well, or at least something was. Mike, what do you make of the front label's 1/2 pint statement? Was that common at that time, or is it likely that somewhere during the ensuing 90 years someone replaced the original label with the one the bottle now wears?

If that's the case, I think the guilty party(ies) probably were NOT the Dinan brothers.

I don't know much about the Dinans, other than that they were major benefactors of the University of Detroit. The buildings housing the university's engineering department were built with $175,000 dollars (1915 dollars, mind you), contributed by Michael and John Dinan. Two years later they presented the St. Catherine chapel to the school as a gift, and they provided another forty thousand dollars in 1927 toward the purchase and development of a satellite campus. Clearly, the Dinans were not fly-by-night whiskey re-bottlers. I'd have to imagine that any product with their name on it held a strong local respect, and if a less-than-reputable merchant familiar with Detroit in the 30's had gained access to Dinan labels (even those intended for 1/2 pint bottles), they might have chosen to use those to replace (again, for example) the front labels of pint bottles of more common brands in order to bring a higher retail price.

So, if that's the case, Troy's bottles may really contain Burk's Springs bourbon, as the back label suggests. From a historic point of view, that would probably be even better than Dinans, since we have no clue what distillery was bottling whiskey for the Dinans in 1916, but we do know that Burk's Springs featured prominently in the history of Maker's Mark, a very well-known current brand.

Congratualations, Troy.
I wish we could have been there to share a taste of that with you!

[bourbonv]

John,
I am not sure what to think about the label. You may be right in that it is a counterfeit labeling (someone adding the label to a legit bottle), but maybe not. Labeling laws were not quite as strict before prohibition as they are now and they could have mixed up the labels and said, what the hey, sell it anyway. The front label in this case is not as important as the back label. The front label is obvoiusly a private label and not a distillery label.

The back label is as important for what it does not say as what it does say. There are no references to medicinal spirits. There is no mention to pure food and drug laws. There is a clear reference to the bottled-in-bond act. That label alone would have me date the whiskey to between 1901 and 1905. The tax stamp does say differently though so maybe you are looking at a bottle of counterfeit whiskey, made up of label on hand to put on a bottle of whiskey that is from some other source. This was a common, yet illegal practice before and during prohibition.

[gillmang]

Maybe the half-pint was the bonded whiskey from Burks and the other half was grain neutral spirits.

Gary

[T-roy]

I really appreciate all the information. I couldn't find much out about the Dinan Brothers & 10th & Abbot Street is not a valid intersection in Detroit any more.
The speculation about labels is fascinating, Detroit during prohibition was a wild place...if only the bottle could talk.
Everyone who has tried it agrees that is a good tasting bourbon. Unfortunately none of us know enough about bourbon to be able to compare the taste to anything else. There's about 3 ounces left maybe next Christmas I'll bring a couple of brands to compare it to, Would today's Makers Mark be similar to the Burk's Springs bourbon produced in the early 1900's?

Thanks Again,
T-roy

[gillmang]

I'd suggest something more like Knob Creek or Wild Turkey 101.

You don't need much to taste really (even half a teaspoon is enough to get the taste).

It would be interesting to hear your opinion: is it similar in style; if not why; if so, in what respect is it yet different? Would you compare it to anything else if not bourbon, say, rum or brandy?

Gary

[EllenJ]

Would today's Makers Mark be similar to the Burk's Springs bourbon produced in the early 1900's?

Not likely.

Today's Maker's Mark isn't even very similar to the original Maker's Mark, as samples from Mike make very clear. Maker's was actually a much different-tasting bourbon in the fifties and sixties than it is today. Then again, as many examples from our own collection will support, that was true of nearly all bourbons.
One of the great mysteries is the sudden (within the span of a decade or less) change in the taste of American whiskey during the '70s and '80s.

Since oxidation obviously didn't affect your particular bottle, my guess is that it tastes better than (at least today's) Maker's Mark. It's certainly DIFFERENT from even the original Maker's, as that was a unique formula (using wheat, rather than rye, as a flavor grain), which is uncommon for bourbon, and the result would not have been similar to Burk's nor even to Bill Samuel's family's original T.W. Samuels whiskey.

Different whiskey enthusiasts have different ways to express our obsession. For the Goddess and me, a bottle of Burk's Springs bourbon to taste and experience the differences personally would be a perfect example of what we REALLY "collect". That is, IF we had such a bottle. We don't, but we wish we did. We envy your good fortune in having one, and we applaud your decision to try it. Neither Linda nor I are very good at formal tasting notes, but that is one of the base purposes of this forum. PLEASE take some time to study what others here have written as tasting notes and contribute your observations. That bottle you have may well be the only existing example that anyone will ever have the b@!!s to open and taste. EVERYONE here will appreciate anything you can contribute.
Thanks!

[cowdery]

One of the great mysteries is the sudden (within the span of a decade or less) change in the taste of American whiskey during the '70s and '80s.

No mystery, really. When bourbon sales started to decline, one of the main reasons (or at least so the makers believed) was that consumers wanted a lighter product. They also were trying to save money on the production side, by taking copper out of the stills, among other things, which also led to a less flavorful product. They increased the percentage of corn in the mash bills and decreased the rye, and started to distill out at a higher proof. This was also when light whiskey was introduced. This is another reason why Jim Beam and the others who say they haven't changed anything for hundreds of years drive me crazy. They all changed their products during that period.

The 1/2 pint label on a pint bottle is curious and any speculation about the reason is as good as any other, but the likeliest explanation is probably just a mistake on the bottling line.