PDA

View Full Version : Anyone see this?



TnSquire
02-16-2007, 08:10
http://www.forbes.com/foodwithwine/2004/10/27/cx_np_1027feat.html

tritioch
02-16-2007, 08:58
Interesting article..... but praising Maker's Mark seems and the Jim Beam small batch line to that extent seems overkill to me.

TnSquire
02-16-2007, 09:02
I thought some of the quotes and claims were interesting. I thought the article a nice piece of marketing fluff.

Hedmans Brorsa
02-16-2007, 09:06
Quote from the feature:

while the traditional, cheaper brands are largely confined to the American South and drunk by older, less-educated consumers who, as Samuels puts it, "spend a lot of time going to funerals."

Im not sure if I understand this. Does he mean that they drink themselves to death, or?

boone
02-16-2007, 09:32
Interesting article..... but praising Maker's Mark seems and the Jim Beam small batch line to that extent seems overkill to me.

Here's a Maker's file http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18382&postcount=1...about Bill Samule's SR. (not Jr.) from the U. of L. Alumi magazine. A short biography, the early years without a bunch of "fluff"...

Bettye Jo

Joeluka
02-16-2007, 09:46
When was that article printed? Allied is long gone. Interesting stuff though.

ILLfarmboy
02-16-2007, 09:58
"He had this idea of making a new kind of bourbon, bourbon that actually tasted good. He achieved this by eliminating the traditional rye and substituting the milder-tasting wheat..."

I didn't know rye made bourbon taste bad.:rolleyes: I wish, in the general press, when bourbon mash bills are is discussed the spiciness of rye verses the sweet nuttiness of wheat would be talked about. Instead we get vague and misleading statements like the one above. Given a chance the average consumer can understand such issues.

MikeK
02-16-2007, 10:43
While any press is good press, there were quite a few hideous parts to that article. My favorite horror was: "According to David Pickerell, master distiller at Maker's Mark, "The lowest, bottom-shelf stuff being made today is better than the best whiskey made in 1947."

What?? I guess if he means the first few runs right after the war, then perhaps. But the statement is totally misleading and sounds (and I think is meant to sound) like whiskey from the old days sucked.

I've got a bunker full of period S/W, Harper, etc that would like to argue.

TnSquire
02-16-2007, 11:49
Quote from the feature:

while the traditional, cheaper brands are largely confined to the American South and drunk by older, less-educated consumers who, as Samuels puts it, "spend a lot of time going to funerals."

Im not sure if I understand this. Does he mean that they drink themselves to death, or?

I think what he means is that only less educated, elderly southerners drink traditional, cheaper brands.

Now I am 38, and the last three bottles I bought were Weller Antique, Old Forester BIB and OGD BIB. What does that say about me? :slappin:

TNbourbon
02-16-2007, 14:15
When was that article printed? Allied is long gone. Interesting stuff though.

2004.

OscarV
02-16-2007, 14:28
2004.

2004?,...

In the recent World of Bourbon, (in which we live today), 3 years ago is ancient history.

TnSquire
02-16-2007, 21:01
I only ask if you saw it.

straightwhiskeyruffneck
02-17-2007, 03:17
no...

TnSquire
02-17-2007, 11:38
Well there you go. It is assuring that ancient history is anything before 2003. I guess I need to rethink my recent bourbon purchases. :rolleyes:

Joeluka
02-17-2007, 13:20
I meant no disrespect to your thread. I was just wondering aloud. My bad.

OscarV
02-17-2007, 13:28
I meant no disrespect to your thread. I was just wondering aloud. My bad.

yeah, me to,...
I gotta stop drinking and posting.

tgriff
02-17-2007, 14:01
I thought the article was a bit heavy on praise for MM...but still, it offered an interesting perspective on how bourbon has come around as a fashionable drink these days (BTW, I am not old enough to know bourbon in any other way).

As for the comment about the American South and funerals, I am not sure what that guy meant (being from the South myself). I am sure there are older, less educated, bottom-shelf bourbon drinkers all over this great nation that spend too much time going to funerals.

TnSquire
02-17-2007, 15:42
Joe, Oscar...No worries!

cowdery
02-17-2007, 16:37
One thing that makes that article interesting to read now is that 2004 is about when Maker's Mark started to sing that particular song, although they had been working up to it for years. That bourbon used to be hot and harsh, a strong drink for strong men, blah blah blah, and then Bill Samuels senior changed everything. It's true enough, except that most of us would consider Jim Beam white and Jack Daniel's black "standard" bourbon-type whiskeys, and they sell to a lot more than old Southerners.

The funeral reference just means that the generation of people who drank bourbon because that's basically all they knew, that generation is old and dying off.

There were, of course, always grades of bourbon and people who knew and preferred the better ones. Old Grand-Dad was always considered a "premium," as was Wild Turkey. Old Fitzgerald and W. L. Weller were considered premium and they were offering super-premium expressions in the 50s and 60s. Admittedly, those were blips on the radar screen, but they did exist.

Maker's has always been smart about telling a good story, one that journalists like because it has currents that go beyond the typical "finest grains, purest water" blah blah blah, but is still very simplified, canned, and, most of all, self-serving.

Journalists work fast. They do some interviews and they write what people tell them. Especially with lifestyle pieces (as opposed to politics, for example) they take everything at face value.

The other thing, of course, is that even the current interest in the best American whiskeys has been going on for about 20 years now, and Maker's Mark has been around for almost 50 years.

full_proof
02-17-2007, 17:15
[/QUOTE]

Journalists work fast. They do some interviews and they write what people tell them. Especially with lifestyle pieces (as opposed to politics, for example) they take everything at face value.

Journalists work fast, indeed. They may write what people tell them, but my experience has been they tend to "cut-and-paste" what one says to "make" a story, to foment controversy or to give life to an issue when one does not exist. Hey, it sells paper and ink, promotes advertising, pays the bills, and the world keeps revolving.... Journalists might perceive something at face value, but many, under editorial pressure, represent little at face value.

Whatever was expressed at the actual interview I have serious reservations made it to print with absolute balance and objectivity.