Royal Shannon Rare Old Irish Whisky

[Joel1802]

Just got this bottle and am now, as usual, trying to find out what I have. Of note: it was bottled in the USA by Stuart Rhodes Ltd NY, NY. It also has moulded into the glass "Federal Law Prohibits the Resale or Reuse of this Bottle." The requirment for that statment ended in 1964, but some bottlers kept it for a while longer instead of changing their moulds. Any thoughts? It says blend and as far as I can remember that there were only two distillers that could supply grain in Ireland in 1964 (if it contains grain).

[Good Whiskey Hunting]

Nice find

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Of note: it was bottled in the USA by Stuart Rhodes Ltd NY, NY. It also has moulded into the glass "Federal Law Prohibits the Resale or Reuse of this Bottle." The requirment for that statment ended in 1964, but some bottlers kept it for a while longer instead of changing their moulds. Any thoughts? It says blend and as far as I can remember that there were only two distillers that could supply grain in Ireland in 1964 (if it contains grain).

I would say they probably could be anything from 50's to 70's going by the Labels (other bottle also).

I would not overly pin your hopes on the fact that only two distilleries could supply grain in Ireland in 1964. Remember Tullamore only closed in 1954 and they were the first kings of the blended Irish whiskey (in a modern sense) at that stage with Tullamore Dew. To give you perspective they only started up their column still in 1948 and produced shed loads of the stuff. So much so that they could blend away for many a years to come until IDL began to supply and eventually took over Tullamore Dew completely in 1975.You also have to take into consideration of what else was happening then too ... Kilbeggan hit the wall also and there was all that whiskey to off load too so Irish Whiskey was easily available, plentiful and cheap. So if Tullamore grain was used the earliest the 10yo would be is 1958 but with standing that you also have a similar 15yo so we'd have to push that out to 1963 as I would imaging both would have been launched at similar time.

Just food for thought as this is all speculation by me but you need to be aware of why so many different brands pop out during this time.

[Joel1802]

I'd forgotten Tullamore, but John's lane grain (that rhymes) would seem to be too late. I wouldn't say I have hopes for them, they're curiosities I got for very little money. I think this one was $50 US including postage. No matter what they are from closed distilleries, just because they have grain in them doesn't make them a single blend either. Or do they have grain in them? I might open on of the 15 y.o. to investigate. I agree with the time frame you propose, thanks for your thoughts, they are a bit of a puzzle for me!

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Or do they have grain in them? I might open on of the 15 y.o. to investigate. I agree with the time frame you propose, thanks for your thoughts, they are a bit of a puzzle for me!

Yes that is another possibility ... what is meant by blended? As you say could easily not involve grain at all as you allude to.

All part of the fun

[Joel1802]

By my math there are three, possibly four, distilleries at that time that might well have been disposing of stocks of whiskey.

1. DWD, but that is a bit on the early side. (1945)
2. Tullamore, but they kept on with their brand and Irish Mist. (1954)
3. Old Comber. (1953)
4. Brunsa. (1953)


My understanding of US labelling laws rules out Old Comber as that would need to be "product of UK," but I could be wrong.

Of course this could be a bulk sale from Cork Distilleries as they did do that. Or it could have been blended by casks from a broker.

[Joel1802]

Okay, here's the scoop.

Tax stamp is series 112 that was used1942-1963.

Base of the bottle seems to indicate a year of 1962 moulded into the glass (62).

So, long story short the evidence says it is from 1962/63.

Now -- where did the booze inside come from???? (Don't say Ireland, I know it comes from Ireland!).

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Ok have thought about this a small bit more and conclusion still leads to a mainly Tullamore grain blend.

All other distilleries that closed close to that time were pot still in the main.

I also remember remarking to myself when I first saw the picture, and the little of the green glass bottle I could see, that the whiskey seemed very light in colour even through green glass.

Now looking at the label more closely it states "An especially light blend of superlative Irish Whiskies".

This implies that there are "whiskies" used in this blend and could easily come from different distilleries but the lightness surely has to point at a largely grain based whiskey. More over if it was a Tullamore pot still or any other pot still I would have imagined they would have celebrated that fact on the label (but maybe not). I also think light whiskey was order of the day back then anyway, hence the lack of interest in purely pot still whiskey.

However the source of the Grain is most likely Tullamore. They had massive stocks and were constantly producing a surplus so some were indeed sold off in the bad times. No other distillery in Ireland produced enough grain that would have been for sale in enough quantity for it to be sold off in a bad market (Just my opinion).

Also from the Offaly Historical Society

I read that in the 1940's they Exported 40% of their output, a further 30% was sold in the home market and 30% was bonded annually. This confirms they were building up huge stocks going into the fifties and was due to wonderful sales during the war and early post war ...

"During the war years and up to 1952 home consumption rose from 494,242 p.g. in 1939 to 770,299 in 1952, while exports increased from 167,239 p.g. to 458,784 in the same years."

"A rise in the spirit duties both in the Republic and the U.K. in 1952, along with a fall in U.K. demand as Scotch came off ration after the war, sent exports tumbling in 1954 to one-third their 1952 level. Home consumption also fell."


It probably is the most logical source of the whiskey but maybe it is not grain based at all

[Joel1802]

That sounds like a good explanation to me. Problem is I only have one of the ten year olds. I may open one of the 15s though, they have a very similar description.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

That sounds like a good explanation to me. Problem is I only have one of the ten year olds. I may open one of the 15s though, they have a very similar description.

I think that is a good dilemma to have, only being able to drink an older version

Every time I think in one train of thought and I sit back I then find that I can go the other way again.

The whiskey colour may be light but that could well be no indicator at all.

Just remembered a couple of bottles I have ..

I have this Unattributed 14yo Pure Pot Still and look at the clarity of that through a green bottle!!!
So what the hell was I thinking ...

Your guess is as good as mine at this stage ... the more I learn the less I know

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it when ever you open it

[Joel1802]

I think the seller must think me barking as I told her how much fun it all was! There is an argument that because of the word royal it must be pre 1922! Wonder how far I caould get with that!? Might drive up the value.

[DavidH]

There is an argument that because of the word royal it must be pre 1922! Wonder how far I caould get with that!? Might drive up the value.

Politically you could argue as late as 1949 and The Republic of Ireland Act which finally removed the UK monarch entirely from Irish affairs.

But I don't think politics comes into it. We still have "Royal" institutions here so it can't have been too controversial to keep the adjective in a name. I remember the discussion in Hong Kong around the handover when "Royal" disappeared from the Hong Kong Jockey Club, though there was no pressure to do so. I only wondered then if there had been a similar debate in Ireland. If anything, feelings on the subject might have run higher in the US among Irish-Americans.

[Joel1802]

I forgot about that aspect of that, too busy being silly. Funny thing is I was just looking at that a few days ago.

[IainB]

One further little contribution on the subject - being a product of Ireland does not necessarily exclude Northern Ireland in which case the Royal prefix could apply even now. That said I think the use of the word "Royal" may actually need permission in the UK which would definitely make this a rep of Ireland whiskey.

[Joel1802]

Well it says it was bottled in the USA so I have a feeling the name came from the marketing dept.