#blackmaplehill

It is no secret that some of the popular whiskeys of the world are not made by the folks who put it into bottles with faux vintage labels or clever stories attached to the brands ("holy fucking shit, Batman, people lie?!?!?").  The distillery out of Lawerenceburg Indiana is of particular interest (LDI: Lawerenceburg Distillers Indiana).

Here is a far abbreviated list of products you know by other names that are produced there: anything aged from High West, Templeton Rye, Bulleit Rye (the bourbons are made by 4 Roses), Willet, etc.  This information isn't going to come from the non-distillers that bottle these whiskeys, but some rather lazy and perhaps drunken Google work can get you a list in short order.  (Pro tip: search for "bukkake".)

Here's where I disagree with the stigma of non-distillers with regards to the folks in Indiana: I rather like a few of those whiskeys, regardless of the blatant lies the non-distillers attach to their whiskeys and tell bar managers and liquor store clerks the world over.

(Hell some of the bottles are pretty... the iridescent High West bottles are a bit fetching on a shelf of regular glass.)

The distillery itself is rumored to be the Rossville Union Distillery which was one of three distilleries operating in Lawerenceburg circa 1950 or so.  If the rumors are to be believed, they produced a whiskey called Old Quaker which was available both as a straight whiskey (mash bill unknown) and as a rye.

(I love putting some Old Quaker in my mouth... blowjob joke!)

That distillery was acquired by Seagram's, who used the output in blended whiskeys.  Disgusting.  (Seven and Seven please and "no thank you".)

Rye, folks, is what the Indiana folks specialize in.  They used to offer the option to non-distillers to either make a custom batch or buy from already aging varieties made with existing yeast strains and mash bills.  Suspiciously is the 95% rye they sold which may just be the source of both Bulleit Rye and Templeton, to name a few.

Rumor has it that the Templeton folks actually hang onto the barrels and age it a wee bit longer than Bulleit Rye is aged, though they bottle it at a lower strength and charge about $10-15 more. That said the lower proof does make it a better sipper, though the price difference is infuriating.

Their origin story is a complete lie, of course.  Prohibition whiskey was usually pretty bad, if it wasn't "medicinal bourbon", which is a thing.  If it wasn't, it was Canadian Rye imported from Canada.  I saw "The Untouchables".  Also, their logo looks like the headtube badge/logo of Ritchey bikes which has been around far longer.

Right?  Lazy. (I want to say "weak ass busta shit", but that really applies to someone scheming on your girl/fella.)

Aside from brand lies, the Indiana chaps also make a high rye bourbon which brings me to the whiskey I'm drinking now...

Hold on a moment though.

The lie of some non-distillers is much worse than the "mystery" distillers of the aforementioned brands.  It is much shadier when a "distiller" takes the name of a classic whiskey and purports to be related to the historic brand.

I'm looking at you, Chatham Imports.  These chaps are the ones who sell whiskeys under the labels Michters and Hirsch, two whiskeys that imply a relation to a historic distillery in Pennsylvania which is now defunct and wasn't originally called Michter's.  It's a sordid tale.  That distillery produced the original Hirsch whiskey.  Michter's itself was just a label that was coined and only attached to a distillery in the 90s, which is now too defunct.

What is insidious about this is that somehow these chaps won "distiller of the year" even though they make nothing and that they have appropriated the history of both Michter's as a name (which was originally coined by Louis Forman for a bulk whiskey he bought from someone else in the 50s) and as a distillery (which it wasn't).  They add wax tops, little booklets, etc and sell it alongside much better whiskeys.

I'd like to nominate them for "poseur of the year", but this isn't Thrasher.

Don't buy into it.  It's not even good whiskey, regardless of who is making it.

That said, tonight I'm sipping on what might be an LDI product: Black Maple Hill Bourbon.

Black Maple Hill comes in two varieties, both becoming hard to get: the red label which was once known as the "8 year" and the black label "16 year".

Black Maple Hill is interesting.  The labeling itself implies that it's a small batch product, made by some long forgotten distillery in Kentucky.  The label says that it is distilled in Kentucky and bottled by the Black Maple HIll Distilling Company, Bardstown.  This is the same silly game wherein the name "Distlling" or "Distillery" can be attached to things that are not distilleries.

It is suspected that this may come from LDI as the legal waters in which state naming is a bit murky, but if it actually is distilled in Bardstown, it may come from Heaven Hill (since that's the only distillery there).

Despite the mystery and the growing hype around the whiskey (it's becoming the new "Van Winkle" which comes from arguably the most famous non-distiller) I have a bit of a soft spot for the whole affair.  The label is understated and the story that has been let out implies a rather small company run by one man who does buy small batches of whiskey from distilleries (small may be relative) and bottle and sell them.

Per the rumors, that man is Paul Joseph and the whiskey may be a blend of multiple bourbons.  There are, after all, quite a few labels that have adorned these bottles each subtly different.

But I should pause.

Because I don't drink whiskey just for the story.  I mostly drink it because I like the way it tastes (and I feel superhuman when drunk... kidding... sort of).  But there is a romanticism of all things Americana that is attached to rye and bourbon.  I think of my own south eastern Scots-Irish ancestors making hooch in the colonial days, though that's probably not the case.

We like our myths.  Hell, I like the myth, but I also like reality (which is why the whole "wool over your eyes" marketing of non-distillers is frustrating... there is often real history that is quite interesting even if it is not as extensive or linear).

Then there is Black Maple Hill and the sip I'm taking right... now.

The nose is definitely that of something with a bit of corn, but there is a hint of rye and lots of oak.  

The first sip is a bit hot, hotter than I expected for something labelled as ninety-five proof but the taste is not unlike that of my favorite $50 bourbon: Buffalo Trace's wonderful Blanton's (and yes, this bottle was a hair under $50 which is why I mention it).  It sort of tastes almost like a hotter, more caramel version of that great whiskey.

It has less rye in it than Blanton's, but it does have rye and you don't get the "super popcorn" sweetness of the wheated bourbon's I recently sampled.  This is why I find rye so much better: the slightly peppery, blackberry fruitiness goes much better and makes it taste less raw sweet and more vanilla meets caramel.

The finish has a hint of oak, but it goes fast.  This might be due to the high alcohol content (though sometimes a quick finish is not there in high proof whiskeys: the ryes in the Antique Collection and 4 Roses Single Barrel linger).  It isn't as complex as Blanton's but it is certainly more interesting than a garden variety bourbon.

I kind of like it.

Opening it up with some water, the oak and caramel linger but the rye comes out a bit more: cassia (cinnamon... snob!) and even an anise chewiness come up with just a bit of water.  More and we get that orangish caramel nutmeg thing.

That is to say: it's actually quite good.  The more I drink the more it opens up, even without water.  Holding it on the tongue for a moment longer, the rye really comes out.

One thing I look for in a whiskey is something I call "the peanut butter effect", which is to say: if you let it sit on your tongue for a moment, does it coat it?  Does it stick around like eating a mouthful of peanut butter in a good way or does it stick around with a sort of terrible, corn riddled aftertaste (the popcorn thing).

Peanut butter and popcorn.  I don't read much of that from other whiskey fans, but it works for me.

At any rate, we get a little bit of the peanut butter effect here.  It's nowhere near as pronounced as it is with Blanton's but it is here and it is different.

The question is, mystery origin's aside, is it worth it?

Hmmm....

In this price range you can get a few bourbons from Buffalo Trace: Elmer T Lee ($28-30), Old Rip Van Winkle (the more common Van Winkle blend for $37 when it's around), or Blanton's (the normal one is $50ish).  That's some stiff competition.  Here you can also find Booker's (from Beam) and a few others (Maker's weird "second finish" varieties are around this price point).

In that company, and if it's purely on "best tasting", it's hard to beat any of the Buffalo Trace products (after all, they do know their shit), but I won't lie.  I don't always buy whiskey just for taste.  That's most of it or I would be drinking Scotch more than rye or bourbon, but this is an interesting whiskey.

I'd argue that it's about $10 too much for what you get, but at the end of the day, that's not that much of a difference.  Which is to say if you see a bottle for $50 or less, buy it.  Given the rising hype, it's worth having some on hand.  Like you need an excuse to buy whiskey.

Whatever.  I'll absolve you of your buyer's remorse and you won't be disappointed.  Just don't expect "Liquid Gold" (as Jim Murray would say).

Well, "goldish" might be appropriate.

I can surpress my "origin" snobbery on this one.  And, to be honest, I can with much of what I know LDI makes: because they do make good whiskey regardless of the label on the bottle.

As for other non-distillers?

If it's harmless and not too in-depth, I can put up with a bit of the bullshit.  If it's too elaborate, it's probably bullshit.  That's true with most things...