Any idea how old this bottle of W.C. Gundelfinger apricot brandy is?
January 2, 2018 1:18 PM Subscribe
I picked this up at an estate sale, and I'm curious if anyone knows how old this is. The bottle has a label on the front and a smaller label on the back. The back label appears to mention the "Revenue Act of 1919." Bonus points if you can tell me if this is likely to be drinkable or if it's worth anything.
Having encountered my grandparents' ~40+ year old bottle of Cherry Heering recently (which was recognizable, but oxidised to all hell), I'd say it'll be interesting. Try some and let us know.
posted by Making You Bored For Science at 1:35 PM on January 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Making You Bored For Science at 1:35 PM on January 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
Brandy, it seems, has high enough alcohol content that it's very unlikely to outright spoil unless left exposed to air for a long time, though it might oxidate and become unpleasant to drink.
I can't find any evidence of a "Revenue Act of 1919", unless it was a state law? There was a Revenue Act of 1918, which mainly tweaked the then-new income tax but also seems to have contained adjustments to excise taxes. So it seems likely to me that the back label is actually an excise stamp.
The phrase "withdrawn from package bearing..." on the back also suggests an excise stamp to my eye, because of the association with "package stores" -- i.e., marking a distinction between alcohol to be taken home still packaged as opposed to consumed on premises. I don't know a whole lot about Pennsylvania liquor control laws, especially ones that might have applied when this brandy was sold, but it seems plausible to me that liquor sold in a package would be subject to an excise stamp while liquor to be consumed on premises would not be.
"Revenue Act of 1919" on the label might also actually be a reference to the Volstead Act a.k.a. the Prohibition Act, which granted the Bureau of Internal Revenue powers related to the enforcement of the 18th Amendment. However, I wasn't able to find any references to it as the "Revenue Act of 1919", so probably not.
That being said, given the prominent "NO REALLY IT'S MEDICINE" label, I think it's a really, really solid guess that this was bottled some time during prohibition.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:51 PM on January 2, 2018
I can't find any evidence of a "Revenue Act of 1919", unless it was a state law? There was a Revenue Act of 1918, which mainly tweaked the then-new income tax but also seems to have contained adjustments to excise taxes. So it seems likely to me that the back label is actually an excise stamp.
The phrase "withdrawn from package bearing..." on the back also suggests an excise stamp to my eye, because of the association with "package stores" -- i.e., marking a distinction between alcohol to be taken home still packaged as opposed to consumed on premises. I don't know a whole lot about Pennsylvania liquor control laws, especially ones that might have applied when this brandy was sold, but it seems plausible to me that liquor sold in a package would be subject to an excise stamp while liquor to be consumed on premises would not be.
"Revenue Act of 1919" on the label might also actually be a reference to the Volstead Act a.k.a. the Prohibition Act, which granted the Bureau of Internal Revenue powers related to the enforcement of the 18th Amendment. However, I wasn't able to find any references to it as the "Revenue Act of 1919", so probably not.
That being said, given the prominent "NO REALLY IT'S MEDICINE" label, I think it's a really, really solid guess that this was bottled some time during prohibition.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:51 PM on January 2, 2018
Pennsylvania ratified the 18th Amendment (AKA prohibition) on February 25, 1919. Many states passed their own prohibition laws before the federal law took effect. I'm unable to find a different date for a state law in PA, at least on a brief search, but I do think it's likely there was (also) a state prohibition in effect, possibly before the national law went into effect in 1920.
Anyway: the outer bounds on that bottle would be 1919 and 1933 (when prohibition was repealed). I'd guess it's on the early side, since that back label also cites whatever district of Pennsylvania, which makes me think it's referring to a state law and not a federal law. After 1933 there would be remnants of a tax stamp that ran over the cork.
It's likely it was produced before prohibition (although not necessarily bottled before prohibition) and then sold from stock by prescription. During prohibition it was still mostly legal to own alcohol, just not to sell it or produce it for sale for recreational uses (industrial production as a solvent was allowed, and medicinal whiskey [wink wink] was totally a thing).
It probably won't kill you, but it might not taste very good. Based on the condition of the cork, it has probably lost volatile compounds that would have given it fragrance and fruity flavor. Is it clear or cloudy? Are there precipitated solids?
posted by fedward at 2:20 PM on January 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
Anyway: the outer bounds on that bottle would be 1919 and 1933 (when prohibition was repealed). I'd guess it's on the early side, since that back label also cites whatever district of Pennsylvania, which makes me think it's referring to a state law and not a federal law. After 1933 there would be remnants of a tax stamp that ran over the cork.
It's likely it was produced before prohibition (although not necessarily bottled before prohibition) and then sold from stock by prescription. During prohibition it was still mostly legal to own alcohol, just not to sell it or produce it for sale for recreational uses (industrial production as a solvent was allowed, and medicinal whiskey [wink wink] was totally a thing).
It probably won't kill you, but it might not taste very good. Based on the condition of the cork, it has probably lost volatile compounds that would have given it fragrance and fruity flavor. Is it clear or cloudy? Are there precipitated solids?
posted by fedward at 2:20 PM on January 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
If it contains what it says it does, and the contents look clear (check for sediment), so it is very unlikely to make you more ill than any other flavoured brandy.
Though, it looks like it probably wasn't fine liquor when it was first produced, and "aging" in-bottle isn't likely to do it any favours, taste-wise.
posted by porpoise at 2:23 PM on January 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
Though, it looks like it probably wasn't fine liquor when it was first produced, and "aging" in-bottle isn't likely to do it any favours, taste-wise.
posted by porpoise at 2:23 PM on January 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
W. C. Gundelfinger seems to have been an importer and distributor, but not a producer. He was also president of an ice company. He died in 1926 but his obituary does not mention whether the company was still extant by then.
posted by fedward at 2:46 PM on January 2, 2018
posted by fedward at 2:46 PM on January 2, 2018
Some of the adulterants in permissible 'medicinals' under Prohibition were so toxic I wouldn't drink that for any amount of money.
posted by jamjam at 2:52 PM on January 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 2:52 PM on January 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
Everyone is assuming that the risk in consumption would come from spoilage/oxidation over time, but looks like Mr. Gundelfinger got in trouble in the past for selling adulterated brandy! Not sure I'd drink it!
posted by praemunire at 2:53 PM on January 2, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 2:53 PM on January 2, 2018 [12 favorites]
Well, yikes!
posted by tobascodagama at 3:03 PM on January 2, 2018
posted by tobascodagama at 3:03 PM on January 2, 2018
Given it's not sealed, that may not be original fluid - someone may have needed storage for fuel or other toxic substance. Recommend not drinking.
posted by b33j at 3:26 PM on January 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by b33j at 3:26 PM on January 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:25 PM on January 2, 2018