Now, when they push the laws to be changed to hide the proof...then i'll get pissed. Still have respect for Maker's as it was my first bourbon and my first distillery tour.
I'd forgotten about that Cam . . . I feel your pain brother.
That being said...sometimes a little communist social anger and outrage creates a challenge that forces things to happen. Enter small artisan distillers...these folks end up pushing the majors to do things they never really would have without their presence. For instance JD's making rye whiskey for the first time ever...and is gouging people for the white dog because the little guys have created a demand for it. I think a little of both is good. With the majors though I think we should expect this sort of thing to happen. I'll still respect the people who I think do it better (ahem...HH...)
...well maybe holy grail is a little strong...I just like it i guess is the point.
Hey Josh......there is a pic posted somewhere deep on this sight of the Weller Water to add to your Weller Bourbon. I recall even seeing an ad for it in Texas Monthly a long long time ago. It might be found in a search of Texas Monthly's online records.
I am silly and I do masturbate, so I guess I can't take too much offense at JPBoston's just-a-little-too-hostile response to my earlier post. I will point out, however, that quite a few of the posts in this thread have accused Maker's Mark of dishonesty, at least, so I stand by my critique.
To which I would add that I frequently am frustrated by people who attack people and companies and governments for the wrong things, such as in this case where the right thing to attack Beam for, assuming they sincerely regret the need to cheapen Maker's Mark, is for failing to avert the problem years ago, which they did by postponing the distillery's planned expansion for more than eight years.
I would also point out that metaphorical masturbation is never as enjoyable as the real thing.
Thanks for that Cam (#80, I mean). It reminded me that perspective is everything, and different for everybody.
In the long run of things, it's not the first nor will it be the last time a major whisky, even a historic one, has lowered its proof. The question is whether the proof will ever return to its old strength, which is not addressed in the Ambassadors' letter I received via email.
Jimmy Russell, by contrast, is adamant that the only reason he doesn't have a 101 rye on the shelves at the moment is because he doesn't have enough stocks that have aged to his liking for the 101 profile, and when he does it will be back. I hope the same is true eventually for Maker's, which is admittedly one of those bourbons I keep on hand because I feel my shelf is naked without it, even though I drink far more OWA.
I thought the Rye 101 was four years old, according to an interview with Mr. Russell that I read some 20 or so years back.
I guess this means MM will be changing the advertising on their cases: