Glen Mhor Log Book 7th September 1945


 

This is a very interesting entry, which relates to a recreation of events to investigate the loss previously documented on foil 59 that we have already covered on 6th August 1945 page.

This underlines the level of investigative effort to document any form of loss and where it may have ended up. That's the main headline, but as with most entries there are other aspects that we can consider as well.

Firstly, the entry confirms that Glen Mhor had a night shift already in operation, suggesting that production was being ramped up. This may not be a surprise given the time lost during the World War 2 restrictions, but a skilled workforce would have been in shortly supply or detained elsewhere. So, we know that while neither stillman is named in this entry (which seems the common approach for Customs & Excise), there were at least 2 working Glen Mhor during this period. 

Interestingly, as we've previously noted, Glen Albyn had not been granted permission to return to production. Potentially, meaning that any shortages in the workforce could have been accommodated by employing Glen Albyn staff at this nearby alternative. This may account in some part for the accident outlined below...


'Customs & Excise

Glen Mhor Distillery

Inverness

7th September 1945


Sir, 

Yesterday the wash still was charged with water, equivalent in quantity, to a charge of wash, and the discharge cock set practically as the day stillman found it at 7am on the 2nd ult.

The leakage by measure average 15 gallons in 6 minutes. On the 2nd ult, according to the distillery time sheet, the still was charged at 1.15am and the leakage discovered, and the discharge cock closed at 7am = 5 3/4 hours. The quantity of wash last, must have been roughly 15 x345/6 = 862.5 gallons.

No.2 wash back attenuated 42 spirits chargeable from attenuation = 862.5 (x8.4) /100 = 72.4 proof gallons.

Average percentage for season 1944/45 of 38 periods = 14% 

Best charge on loss 72.4 x114 = 82.5

Best charge feints spirits for period on loss = 1753 + 82.5 = 1835.5

giving a percentage over the total attenuation charge of 11.6%.

(next page)



I am satisfied that the low percentage of 06.6 was wholly due to wash lost through the discharge cock not being properly shut, whilst the wash still was at work.

I understand that the trader has taken disciplinary action against the night stillman for his carelessness.

Your obedient servant

G.W. Peterkin, officer

Inverness


The Chief Inspector

London

31194/17.8.45

The unusually low percentage by which the Feints Spirits charge exceeded the attenuation charge may be regarded as satisfactorily explained. 

The number of this file should be noted against the item in the books and accounts affected. No other action is necessary.

(Sgd) S.G. Small'


The recreation has been successful in determining the loss and cause of the prior abnormality. We also have a record of disciplinary action being taken against the night stillman for failing in his duties. 

I asked Alan Winchester for his thoughts on this entry and he was kind to offer his thoughts:

'Mr Peterkin is back, they will be distilling volumes for the next few years to tight volumes based on their pre war volumes.  It would be interesting to know if they're doing any contract distilling, as some distilleries did not restart for a while and they would transfer their allowance, due to labour shortage, I would expect the Glen Albyn volumes would be made at Glen Mhor.

The loss is well measured and explained, Distilleries used to have signs up with check all valves when discharging and charging, so I suspect the stillman was disciplined for this reason.'

With Glen Mhor back in full swing and the war restrictions behind it, we should now see a return to 'business as usual' in the forthcoming logbook entries, or do we? Only time will tell.


This Log Book comes from the Highland Archives Centre (HCA/D31/4/1/25) and is watermarked for its protection. As with any images on this website, please ask first before using and always give credit. 

Comments