Whiskey Distillery Dublin

marvin80

While a few mates are going to the Storehouse for a tour a few of us are going to a whiskey distillery instead.

Any recommendations for the best one in Dublin - Teeling, Pearse Lyons, Jameson, Liberties or Roe and Co?

eusap

I have been too Teeling, Pearse Lyons, Jameson, and prefer the Teeling Distillery Tour

Greg81

Visited Pearse Lyons few months back. I would give it a miss.

BeerNut

Just to note Jameson isn't a distillery, just a museum where a distillery used to be. I haven't been to Roe & Co yet, but I think Teeling's does the best show out of the other three. Pearse Lyons is more interesting from a Dublin history perspective than the drinks manufacturing side.

dudara

The Pearse Lyons tour is more interesting for the graveyard and history aspect. The Dublin Liberties distillery is fine and could be combined with Teelings. Overall Teelings gets my vote, but I haven’t done Roe & Co yet.

Slashermcguirk

I did a few of the distillery tours in Dublin. Pearse Lyons I found the first half of the tour good but the actual tasting section was quite poor.

I found the teelings tour very average, the guide was pretty mediocre and I didn’t think much of their whiskies to be honest.

Roe & Co offers something different, the tour wasn’t great to start with but it got better as the tour progressed and I liked how they brought cocktail making into it to offer something different. It is definitely the most interactive tour of the three.

I have heard good things about the liberties distillery but haven’t had a chance to do it yet.

BeerNut

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

I liked how they brought cocktail making into it

It always bugs me when distilleries do this. "Here's our product which takes massive amounts time and skill to make. Now we're going to put a load of sugar and water into it."

L1011

In the Roe case it's "here's someone else's product" still at least. Point still stands of course

Presumably the same with any samples in Liberties, not sure how long they've been distilling though

Slashermcguirk

BeerNut wrote: »

It always bugs me when distilleries do this. "Here's our product which takes massive amounts time and skill to make. Now we're going to put a load of sugar and water into it."

Relax you get a straight whiskey as well, you get a regular measure separately but they also let you make your own cocktail. You get two drinks. Therefore they target people who just want a regular whiskey and others who might prefer a cocktail. Dont see the issue with that

irish_goat

I always assumed it was aimed at the non-whiskey drinking people who get dragged along by their partners to do the tour, or tourists who do the tour because it's something to do while in Ireland. If they don't like whiskey at least they might like a cocktail.

I did Jameson & teelings with my foreign boyfriend, who loves whiskey. Much the same really, teelings maybe shades it a little as it is a working distillery. Also, the tasting in Jameson had different whiskeys, teelings had there own, I preferred that.
He loves Jameson, but thought teelings was a little better.

Slashermcguirk

L1011 wrote: »

In the Roe case it's "here's someone else's product" still at least. Point still stands of course

Presumably the same with any samples in Liberties, not sure how long they've been distilling though

I always find that aspect weird, promoting and selling a whiskey that you didn't even distill yourself. It was like teelings recently celebrating their award winning 21 year old whiskey. They have only been open about 3-4 years!! The owners must have been teenagers/ kids when that was being distilled. Bizarre

Slashermcguirk

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

I always find that aspect weird, promoting and selling a whiskey that you didn't even distill yourself. It was like teelings recently celebrating their award winning 21 year old whiskey. They have only been open about 3-4 years!! The owners must have been teenagers/ kids when that was being distilled. Bizarre

That's explained in their tour! Something to do with teelings actually being an old distillery & doing it somewhere else, only recently back in the liberties

BeerNut

They owned the Cooley distillery and when they sold it, kept all the whiskey it had maturing, so the older Teeling whiskey really is theirs.

Slashermcguirk

bubblypop wrote: »

That's explained in their tour! Something to do with teelings actually being an old distillery & doing it somewhere else, only recently back in the liberties

Yes but that would surely have been the father of the guys running teelings now. Was that not distilled by Cooley if it was over 20 years ago?

This is the thing about distilleries and breweries that can be a bit strange. It's the same with this Sullivans beer in kilkenny that says they are one of kilkenny oldest breweries, that brewery closed in the early 1900s. Suddenly it reopens 100 years later under that name and claims to be one of the oldest. All very odd in my opinion

L1011

bubblypop wrote: »

I did Jameson & teelings with my foreign boyfriend, who loves whiskey. Much the same really, teelings maybe shades it a little as it is a working distillery. Also, the tasting in Jameson had different whiskeys, teelings had there own, I preferred that.
He loves Jameson, but thought teelings was a little better.

All the different whiskeys at Jameson were made by Irish Distillers/Pernod Ricard; although not on that site.

the beer revolu

L1011 wrote: »

All the different whiskeys at Jameson were made by Irish Distillers/Pernod Ricard; although not on that site.

Yes but don't they give an American whiskey (JD), a Scotch (Johnny Walker Red) and a Jameson, thus proving conclusively that Irish is the best in the world and Jameson is the best Irish??;)

Slashermcguirk

the beer revolu wrote: »

Yes but don't they give an American whiskey (JD), a Scotch (Johnny Walker Red) and a Jameson, thus proving conclusively that Irish is the best in the world and Jameson is the best Irish??;)

I dont think Johnny Walker (even their more pricey variants) could be further from the best scotch. Never liked their whiskey. I do like a JD but makers mark is top notch for me

Creamy Goodness

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

I dont think Johnny Walker (even their more pricey variants) could be further from the best scotch. Never liked their whiskey. I do like a JD but makers mark is top notch for me

They’re hardly going to put up the best of US and scotch against their product if their main goal is to make theirs look good. All three are comparable price wise and popularity wise that they make sense as a taste test.

Remember the Jameson tour is playing up on the diddley-eye punters. Seasoned whisk[e]y drinkers will come away feeling meh (at best).

BeerNut

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

It's the same with this Sullivans beer in kilkenny that says they are one of kilkenny oldest breweries, that brewery closed in the early 1900s. Suddenly it reopens 100 years later under that name and claims to be one of the oldest. All very odd in my opinion

That's just lies for marketing purposes. Everyone's at it. JW Sweetman has "Est. 1756" on its logo but goes no further back, in any form, than 1998. For that matter, Guinness hasn't been brewed since 1759 nor Smithwick's since 1710. It seems to have been sometime in the 1930s that companies decided having an old foundation date was useful for marketing and rushed to invent one for their businesses.

L1011

Bushmills decided their genuine 1784 wasn't old enough and decided to go nearly two centuries further back. Not sure exactly when, was after the 30s but still quite some time ago.

BeerNut

Likewise the foundation date of Guinness was 1796 before it was 1759.

Slashermcguirk

BeerNut wrote: »

That's just lies for marketing purposes. Everyone's at it. JW Sweetman has "Est. 1756" on its logo but goes no further back, in any form, than 1998. For that matter, Guinness hasn't been brewed since 1759 nor Smithwick's since 1710. It seems to have been sometime in the 1930s that companies decided having an old foundation date was useful for marketing and rushed to invent one for their businesses.

In fairness Guinness and smithwicks have continuously been brewing beer since those original dates of 1759 and 1710. Of course there were different beers from stouts to ales and lagers. Most beer being consumed in ireland in the 1700s was ale and Arthur guinness brewed ales and porter to start with. I have more of an issue with companies saying how long they have been brewing etc when there may be a gap of 100 years missing. Some of these beers might not even be brewed at said location and is brewed somewhere 100 miles away. All rather misleading

Slashermcguirk

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

They’re hardly going to put up the best of US and scotch against their product if their main goal is to make theirs look good. All three are comparable price wise and popularity wise that they make sense as a taste test.

Remember the Jameson tour is playing up on the diddley-eye punters. Seasoned whisk[e]y drinkers will come away feeling meh (at best).

Yes of course I get that. I could just never understand the appeal of Johnny walker, I can definitely see the appeal of JD.

BeerNut

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

In fairness Guinness and smithwicks have continuously been brewing beer since those original dates of 1759 and 1710.

No they haven't. That's my point.

partyguinness

Did the Jameson Tour in 2015 and at the end I asked the Jameson guide why Jameson was more expensive in their bar than in my hotel down the road. The guide mumbled some BS about taxes.

It is a museum and not a distillery. Have not yet been to the others.

Slashermcguirk

BeerNut wrote: »

No they haven't. That's my point.

Eh yes they have been brewing beer since those dates. Maybe not their beer as we know then today but they have brewed beer since those dates

BeerNut

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

Eh yes they have been brewing beer since those dates.

You wanna do this? Let's do this.

1759 comes from the Guinness lease on James's Gate. You only need to read a teeny bit more of the document to see the day in 1759 was 31st December. We know very little of what Guinness did in the 1700s but one unassailable fact is that they were not, could not, have been brewing any beer in 1759, having taken possession of a derelict brewery on New Year's Eve. 1796 was used as a foundation date because that's the date on the first record of brewing. But there are references that mention Guinness was already up and running by then, we just don't know from when. Maybe it took six months to establish the brewery and there was Guinness beer in 1760; maybe it took 10 years and Guinness was first on the go in the 1770s. There's just no record. We know just one thing from the period: no Guinness beer was brewed in 1759.

You can read about the ins and outs of brewing in Kilkenny in this succinct summary. It appears from it that 1827 is the most likely foundation date for Smithwick's. Before that, St. Francis's Abbey was a distillery.

Where are you getting your information from?

adrian522

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

Yes but that would surely have been the father of the guys running teelings now. Was that not distilled by Cooley if it was over 20 years ago?

This is the thing about distilleries and breweries that can be a bit strange. It's the same with this Sullivans beer in kilkenny that says they are one of kilkenny oldest breweries, that brewery closed in the early 1900s. Suddenly it reopens 100 years later under that name and claims to be one of the oldest. All very odd in my opinion

As far as I know Sullivans are the only beer being brewed in Kilkenny right now. Open to correction on that M(aybe Costellos also?)

BeerNut

adrian522 wrote: »

As far as I know Sullivans are the only beer being brewed in Kilkenny right now. Open to correction on that M(aybe Costellos also?)

Costellos is brewed in Kilkenny. Sullivans mostly is not. The brewery on John Street is just a pilot kit doing small-batch specials. Maltings is brewed at Dundalk Bay these days, I think, having previously been at Boyne Brewhouse.

Slashermcguirk

BeerNut wrote: »

You wanna do this? Let's do this.

1759 comes from the Guinness lease on James's Gate. You only need to read a teeny bit more of the document to see the day in 1759 was 31st December. We know very little of what Guinness did in the 1700s but one unassailable fact is that they were not, could not, have been brewing any beer in 1759, having taken possession of a derelict brewery on New Year's Eve. 1796 was used as a foundation date because that's the date on the first record of brewing. But there are references that mention Guinness was already up and running by then, we just don't know from when. Maybe it took six months to establish the brewery and there was Guinness beer in 1760; maybe it took 10 years and Guinness was first on the go in the 1770s. There's just no record. We know just one thing from the period: no Guinness beer was brewed in 1759.

You can read about the ins and outs of brewing in Kilkenny in this succinct summary. It appears from it that 1827 is the most likely foundation date for Smithwick's. Before that, St. Francis's Abbey was a distillery.

Where are you getting your information from?

First off Arthur guinness was making beer before he even went to st. James' gate in 1759 over towards leixlip around mid 1750s, he was from celbridge. He started selling porter in the late 1770s but he was even exporting small quantities of ale before that (ale was the main drink sold in ireland at that time.

Foreign extra stout as we know it and arguably guinness finest beer dates back to 1801, I have seen the recipe in the guinness archive. This is the biggest selling guinness variant in the world today though is mainly sold in Africa, Caribbean and south east Asia.

There is no way of knowing exactly when guinness first brewed a drop at st James's gate but all we know is the lease as you said was signed on 31st December 1759. However we know arthur was already brewing in leixlip before that date.

As for smithwicks the franciscan monks were making beer on the site in kilkenny from around 1230. John smithwick started up in 1710 but due to penal laws he was not allowed own his own business and hence why he went into business with Richard cole who signed the lease with the Duke of ormond(cole signed the lease on the land slightly earlier until John smithwick arrived). It wasnt until John's grandson Edmund smithwick got involved that the smithwick name went over the gates etc. However John smithwick was brewing beer from 1710.

The guinness archive is incredible for anybody who has not been there.

Slashermcguirk

adrian522 wrote: »

As far as I know Sullivans are the only beer being brewed in Kilkenny right now. Open to correction on that M(aybe Costellos also?)

I dont think sullivans is brewed in kilkenny, I think its dundalk

BeerNut

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

FJohn smithwick started up in 1710 but due to penal laws he was not allowed own his own business and hence why he went into business with Richard cole who signed the lease with the Duke of ormond(cole signed the lease on the land slightly earlier until John smithwick arrived). It wasnt until John's grandson Edmund smithwick got involved that the smithwick name went over the gates etc. However John smithwick was brewing beer from 1710.

That's certainly the official company story but I'm not sure it can be backed up from reliable sources. Do you know where or when this story comes from?

Slashermcguirk

BeerNut wrote: »

That's certainly the official company story but I'm not sure it can be backed up from reliable sources. Do you know where or when this story comes from?

It's all covered on the smithwicks tour and would come from archival documents. The st Francis abbey itself is still there on site from the 1200s. Presumably that far back is hard to track.

BeerNut

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

would come from archival documents.

Mmm. Look, Diageo lies about its history. I don't think even they make the claim about John Smithwick and the penal laws, just that it's a possible explanation for the absence of his name. There are other explanations. There's enough doubt that it's not historically correct to say the Smithwick's Brewery was established in 1710.

Slashermcguirk

BeerNut wrote: »

Mmm. Look, Diageo lies about its history. I don't think even they make the claim about John Smithwick and the penal laws, just that it's a possible explanation for the absence of his name. There are other explanations. There's enough doubt that it's not historically correct to say the Smithwick's Brewery was established in 1710.

Let's agree to disagree on this one. I have been in the archives many times over the years and I would hold a different view

BeerNut

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree on this one. I have been in the archives many times over the years and I would hold a different view

If you didn't get round to reading the link I posted above, do have a look. There are some worthwhile sources if you're interested in the subject.

Slashermcguirk

BeerNut wrote: »

If you didn't get round to reading the link I posted above, do have a look. There are some worthwhile sources if you're interested in the subject.

Let's just say I have done plenty of reading of my own on the subject over the years.

Quackster

BeerNut wrote: »

If you didn't get round to reading the link I posted above, do have a look. There are some worthwhile sources if you're interested in the subject.

Excellent well-referenced article, thanks for posting the link. Provides pretty convincing evidence that Edmund Smithwick established the St Francis Abbey brewery in 1828.

It would seem that, at some stage, Smithwicks decided they were 'established' in 1710 and have been clutching at straws ever since trying to construct a convincing history around that narrative.

BeerNut

Quackster wrote: »

It would seem that, at some stage, Smithwicks decided they were 'established' in 1710

The Guinness archivist told me that it was in the 1930s that "established" dates became part of company marketing in general. Later than I'd have thought.

marvin80

I ended up going to Teelings. Good tour and quite a nice bar and tasting area upstairs.
They gave us a taste of a whiskey and also a whiskey based cocktail.
Great idea with the cocktail for the likes of my girlfriend who wouldn't be a whiskey drinker.

We went to Roe and Co first but they were booked up.
Looks like a very slick and well funded operation there - some of the other distillers must feel a little aggrieved seeing them open.

Going to try and get around to the other places at some stage - grand way to spend and hour or two.

Adyx

I was at Roe & Co two weeks ago (all expenses paid - Thanks Diageo ). It is very slick as mentioned. If you're interested in a history or technical lesson - it's not for you, or at least our tour wasn't. It seems more focused on the end product and it's use in cocktails etc. You do get to make a cocktail with some instruction on what flavours work well with others, and the cocktails in the bar were really good. Apparently feedback from cocktail barstaff is why they bottled it at 45%. It was also nice to see they kept some of the machinery and interior of the power house.

Long story short, probably not for someone on their first visit to a distillery but if you've already seen a few, it's fine as something to do for an hour or two.