High West Checks In

I heard from David Perkins of Utah's High West Distillery about Sunday's post. The High West web site has the full text of the Rendezvous Rye back label, where it clearly says, "In this tradition of importing whiskey from back East (while we age our own whiskey), we crafted Rendezvous from two exotic straight rye whiskies."

I apologize for implying that High West claimed it distilled the rye it's selling. They do disclose on the label that they did not make it. However, they're not discouraging publications like the Park Record from giving the impression that they did.

He also complained that I should have contacted him first. I tried to find him but failed, though perhaps I didn't try hard enough. However, just now I Googled "High West Distillery" and got a lot of references, including this blog, but not the one-page High West web site.

Perkins correctly pointed out that I forgot one of the "usual suspects." Barton Brands at its distillery in Bardstown also makes straight rye whiskey, which they sell only in northern Wisconsin under the name Fleishmann's Rye. I often forget them because the Fleishmann's is in such extremely limited distribution and not very good. Nothing wrong with the basic distillate--Barton is a good distiller--it's just very young whiskey.

Perkins says he is contractually bound not to disclose the whiskey's maker. That still leaves a lot of questions he should be able and, I assume, willing to answer about the whiskey. The big one is to clarify if he is really saying someone 18-years-ago made a batch of rye whiskey from a mash that was 80 percent rye grain, and further saying that six years ago that distiller, or another one, made a batch of rye whiskey from a mash that was 95 percent rye? If so, why would they do that, since that's not typical of American straight rye whiskey? Or of any American straight whiskey, for that matter. The only thing an American producer would normally make with that high a proportion of a single grain would be corn whiskey.

The label talks about "a higher proportion of rye" and he mentions that in his email too, but a 60 percent rye mash bill would be a higher proportion than the norm, why 80, or 95? It's so far outside the norm as to be suspicious, but I'm still not sure that's even what he is claiming when he says "95% rye" and "80% rye."

I hope he can also clarify his reference to "unmalted rye." Is he saying the mash bill was, in one case, 95% unmalted rye and 5% malted rye, and likewise in the 80/20 case? If not, then why mention "unmalted" rye? All rye in American straight rye whiskey is unmalted except for the whiskey Fritz Maytag makes, which is 100% malted rye. So I hope he will shed some light on how this very unusual whiskey (his use of "exotic" is apt) came to be made, since it is so outside the norm.

Maybe he can't tell us who made it but how did he find out about it? There's a lot he can tell us about the whiskey itself without naming the distiller.

Perkins says "'Straight Rye Whiskey' isn't necessarily a better classification" than "a blend of straight rye whiskies." I suppose we can just disagree about that. To most American whiskey drinkers, "blend" is a dirty word in any context. It's also an unfamiliar classification. On the other hand, I suppose he wanted it called a blend because he wanted to talk about the two constituent whiskeys. However, my reading of the standards for "a blend of straight rye whiskies" is that that classification is only to be used when the constituents are straight rye but non-conforming as to the standards for "straight rye whisky," which would point to them having been made in different states. He can confirm or deny that without disclosing the maker(s).

If both were made in the same state, then why are they non-conforming? If they conform, then did TTB give him the option of using either classification? That is contrary to my reading of the rules, but he went through the label approval process and I didn't, so maybe he will enlighten me.

As I wrote Sunday, I like the idea of mixing an old straight rye with a young one, ideally to capture the best of both. I applaud that. I never denied this might be a good, even exceptional whiskey.

I said all of these things and more to him in a reply to his email and will let you know if he answers back. He is also, of course, welcome to post a comment here and say it in his own words.

The final and, perhaps most important question? Has High West distilled anything? Have they laid down any rye whiskey that they made? The web site makes it clear that the answer to that question is no. They bought an old stable in Park City, which they are restoring as a "distillery and saloon."

Far be it from me to strangle a baby in its bed, and I get the idea about getting some products out to get some cash coming in and some publicity going out, but the buzz you're creating is about people wanting to try that 18-year-old rye made in Utah, when it's nothing of the kind. I still have a problem with somebody calling himself a distiller and his company a distillery putting out a product he merely bought and bottled. It's not good for him in the long run. It's a bad way to start.

Maybe his publicity just got ahead of him, or maybe my post did exactly what I wanted it to do.

What Is This Stuff, Really?

It may sound sometimes like I'm on a crusade against micro-distilleries. I'm really not. Quite the opposite. I have great hopes that small distilleries will revitalize the American distilled spirits industry. Problem is, most micro-distillery operations seem to be pushing out bullshit faster than any other product, which is perhaps not surprising since it is the easiest thing to make.

(Followed by their next-most-popular product, vodka.)

Now comes an outfit in Park City, Utah, called High West Distillery. Their premier product is a rye whiskey called Rendezvous Rye. It is 92 proof and selling for $40 per 750 ml bottle. The back label specifies a blend of 6-year-old 95% rye and 17-year-old 80% rye.

It also uses the category designation "a blend of straight rye whiskeys." This, by itself, raises some alarms. That classification is for a mixture of straight rye whiskeys which, for some reason, does not conform to the standards for being called straight rye whiskey. Since any mixture of straight rye whiskeys made in the same state should qualify for the better classification of "straight rye whiskey," one wonders why this mixture was non-conforming. The frustration, of course, is that the makers aren't talking because they want to preserve the illusion that they made the product, which is impossible since they've only just gotten both their license and still.

But let's look at the rest of their claim: "a blend of 6-year-old 95% rye and 17-year-old 80% rye." Although not crystal clear, the reference to a percentage would seem to refer to a mash bill. The problem is, nobody makes rye whiskey that way.

So here is a reality check and I encourage Scott Bush (Templeton) and David Perkins (High West) to address this issue. Get around these facts if you can:

Over the last 20 years, only five American distilleries have made rye whiskey. One of them, Anchor, can be set aside because they make very small quantities of a very idiosyncratic spirit that has very little to do with the tradition of American straight rye whiskey. The other four are Heaven Hill (using, at the moment, Brown-Forman's distillery), Wild Turkey, Buffalo Trace (Sazerac) and Jim Beam.

That's it. Those are the usual suspects. The Templeton Rye had to have been made by one of those four. Most likely the High West was too.

All of them make a mash bill that is about 51 percent rye, the balance being corn and barley malt.

Some of the very old ryes on the market today were made more than 20 years ago at the Medley Distillery in Owensboro and at the old Bernheim Distillery in Louisville, so there are two more suspects, but that's it. We can't be sure what their mash bills were, but they probably weren't more than about 60 percent rye.

What is left of that whiskey resides at Kentucky Bourbon Distillers LTD (KBD) in Bardstown, Kentucky, which has bottled it under a number of different labels, and sold it to others wishing to do the same. Setting aside the mash bill claims, KBD may have acquired some 6-year-old rye from, most likely, Heaven Hill and mixed in a little of its elderly whiskey (maybe, in fact, a 17-year-old) to make the High West product. That, based on the known facts, is the most likely scenario.

Personally, I hope it is that, because that would be an interesting product that might actually justify the price. I find most of KBD's very, very old bourbons and ryes too old, too woody, but take a little of that and add it to some good 6-year-old rye? That could be just the thing. I would be interested to try that product.

But back to the original issue. The bottom line is that any fully-aged rye whiskey on the market today has to come from one of the sources named above. That unavoidable fact is the reason why people like High West and Templeton aren't saying who made their whiskey. It's not only because they want you to think they made it. It's also because then it becomes easy to say, "Oh, that's Heaven Hill's rye? Well, you can pay $35 for it in a bottle that says 'Templeton,' or $40 in a bottle that says 'Rendezvous Rye,' or $12 in a bottle that says 'Rittenhouse,' which would you prefer?"

More than a decade ago, when Brown-Forman reopened what is now the Woodford Reserve Distillery, they wanted a Woodford Reserve product on the market right away, so they used whiskey made at their other Kentucky distillery. While they didn't print banner headlines about the whiskey's real source, the information was always there, and if you asked they always told you the truth.

I'm all for this micro-distiller thing, but when it seems like all of these characters are coming out of the box lying to the consumer, I'm already less than enthusiastic about their next act.

But that's just me, the grumpy old man. You kids, knock yourselves out.