Welcome to the Straightbourbon.com Forums.
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 121
  1. #31
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    494

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    Quote Originally Posted by bourbonv View Post
    When Maker's Mark was family owned, they deserved every bit of their reputation. Maker's from the 1960s and 70s was every bit as good as anything that came out of Stitzel-Weller. I wish I had a case of the Gold Wax 101 from the late 1970s.

    Mike Veach
    I am curious to know what happened to MM. Was the Allied Domecq takeover the sole reason for the decline in quality? Was the situation similar to Stitzel-Weller and UD where Allied Domecq came in and started drastically cutting costs, raising the barrel proof, etc.? How could it go from SW quality to what it is now?
    Last edited by fishnbowljoe; 03-01-2010 at 19:25. Reason: Edit: Changed Beam to Allied Domecq

  2. #32

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    Quote Originally Posted by nblair View Post
    I am curious to know what happened to MM. Was the Beam takeover the sole reason for the decline in quality? Was the situation similar to Stitzel-Weller and UD where Beam came in and started drastically cutting costs, raising the barrel proof, etc.? How could it go from SW quality to what it is now?
    I've long been associated with the viewpoint that Maker's isn't what it could be, or ought to be, so I find myself in the unusual position of being its defender here: There's nothing wrong with Maker's Mark! I enjoy it. It's about the best one can expect from a c. 6yo, 90-proof wheater.
    My gripe with MM always has been that its single iteration is/was underaged, and therefore 'unfinished'. In fact, the lack of a finish, taste-wise, was its worst sin, for me, because everything about it up to the point when you expect to relish the finish is quite good.
    Plus -- in our market, at least -- distributors made a concerted effort to pair it with Jack Daniel's, because it is the market leader. They wanted it placed near JD on the shelf, and they wanted it priced like JD -- when one price moved, the other did, too. Now, JD ALSO is a too-pricey, too-young whiskey that's otherwise okay, so that never thrilled me, and kept me from buying Maker's Mark just like it keeps me from buying Jack Daniel's.
    All that said, Beam (which has only owned Maker's 18 months or so now) seems to have broken, at least, that price-point link to JD, and the price seems to have fallen a bit. Frankly, I've been thinking it may be time to try Maker's again.

    As an aside, I was kind of taken aback by the near-ad hominem attack on Dave Pickerell in the lead post of this thread. Dave has been a pretty regular poster here recently (not sure everyone realizes that since his ID is barely suggestive of his industry prominence), and I'd hoped he might chime in to give some background about MM's marketing, if not to defend his honor. For whatever it's worth, 'dishonest' and 'arrogant' are two adjectives that never would have jumped to my mind about Dave, despite my aforementioned aversion to his erstwhile bourbon's market position.

  3. #33
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    494

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    Quote Originally Posted by TNbourbon View Post
    All that said, Beam (which has only owned Maker's 18 months or so now)
    Thank you for catching my mistake. In my post I meant to say Allied Domecq, who I believe the distillery was sold to in the early 80's (I could be wrong), not Fortune Brands/Beam who has just acquired it.

  4. #34
    Bourbonian Of The Year 2013 and Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Just East of the Big Chicken, GA
    Posts
    5,573

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    Quote Originally Posted by TNbourbon View Post
    I've long been associated with the viewpoint that Maker's isn't what it could be, or ought to be, so I find myself in the unusual position of being its defender here: There's nothing wrong with Maker's Mark! I enjoy it. It's about the best one can expect from a c. 6yo, 90-proof wheater.
    My gripe with MM always has been that its single iteration is/was underaged, and therefore 'unfinished'. In fact, the lack of a finish, taste-wise, was its worst sin, for me, because everything about it up to the point when you expect to relish the finish is quite good.
    Plus -- in our market, at least -- distributors made a concerted effort to pair it with Jack Daniel's, because it is the market leader. They wanted it placed near JD on the shelf, and they wanted it priced like JD -- when one price moved, the other did, too. Now, JD ALSO is a too-pricey, too-young whiskey that's otherwise okay, so that never thrilled me, and kept me from buying Maker's Mark just like it keeps me from buying Jack Daniel's.
    All that said, Beam (which has only owned Maker's 18 months or so now) seems to have broken, at least, that price-point link to JD, and the price seems to have fallen a bit. Frankly, I've been thinking it may be time to try Maker's again.

    As an aside, I was kind of taken aback by the near-ad hominem attack on Dave Pickerell in the lead post of this thread. Dave has been a pretty regular poster here recently (not sure everyone realizes that since his ID is barely suggestive of his industry prominence), and I'd hoped he might chime in to give some background about MM's marketing, if not to defend his honor. For whatever it's worth, 'dishonest' and 'arrogant' are two adjectives that never would have jumped to my mind about Dave, despite my aforementioned aversion to his erstwhile bourbon's market position.
    Tim, your posting here is Golden. We may wish for more, but there is nother wrong, or bad with Maker's Mark. There is no lack of quality. It just may not be as good as we would like, or as good as some have seen it. And, the vitriolic attacks on the distillery and those associated with it are unfounded, unwarranted, and based on nothing short of ignorance.
    JOE

    Wag more.
    Bark less.

    "Every bottle is its own learning experience." -- Sensei Ox-sama

  5. #35
    Bourbonian of the Year 2002 and Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    12,375

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    If Maker's Mark has 'declined in quality,' a debatable proposition in its own right, it cannot be laid at Beam's feet. Beam only took over in 2006 and they haven't made any significant changes. Bill Samuels is still in charge. Beam is undoubtedly having an influence on marketing and promotion, but there is no evidence they have gotten their fingers into production.

    Whatever the time frame is for people who pine for the Maker's Mark of yesteryear, they're not talking about the way it was five or ten years ago. Is it different from, say, 30 years ago? That, I think, is the question.
    Last edited by cowdery; 03-01-2010 at 18:56.

  6. #36
    Disciple
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    DelMarVa
    Posts
    1,866

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    Quote Originally Posted by cowdery View Post
    If Maker's Mark has 'declined in quality,' a debatable proposition in its own right
    It has. I have the taste test to prove it. Come by sometime.

  7. #37
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    494

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    Quote Originally Posted by cowdery View Post
    If Maker's Mark has 'declined in quality,' a debatable proposition in its own right, it cannot be laid at Beam's feet. Beam only took over in 2006 and they haven't made any significant changes. Bill Samuels is still in charge. Beam is undoubtedly having an influence on marketing and promotion, but there is no evidence they have gotten their fingers into production.

    Whatever the time frame is for people who pine for the Maker's Mark of yesteryear, they're not talking about the way it was five or ten years ago. Is it different from, say, 30 years ago? That, I think, is the question.
    Chuck,

    I apologize for mistyping my post. I spoke of the Beam purchase of Maker's Mark, but meant to refer to the sale of Maker's Mark to Allied Domecq (or whoever it was that acquired MM) in the 1980's.

    I am curious if anything changed in production back then. To my understanding they were purchased by a foreign company and I didn't know if that company tinkered with production. It was roughly 30 years ago, correct?

  8. #38
    Bourbonian of the Year 2002 and Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    12,375

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    Much as with Beam, Allied Domecq was involved with marketing and promotion, but not production. Having no other American whiskey properties, unless you count Canadian Club, they were even more arm's length than Beam.

    Here's the history. Maker's Mark was established by Bill Samuels Senior in 1953. It was owned by the Samuels family until 1981, when it was sold to Hiram Walker and Sons, the Canadian company that made Canadian Club. Allied subsequently bought Walker, and so on. Through it all, Bill Sr. was in charge, then Bill Jr., who is still in charge.

    The change from family to corporate ownership, therefore, was nearly 30 years ago.

    The family sold not because the company was in trouble but because it was doing well and the family couldn't or didn't want to make the additional investment needed, so they sold to a bigger company with deeper pockets.

    If you want to look for an event of some kind, look at the 1996 expansion, when Maker's essentially built a second distillery, ostensibly exactly like the original.

  9. #39
    Bourbonian of the Year 2002 and Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    12,375

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    Quote Originally Posted by SMOWK View Post
    It has. I have the taste test to prove it. Come by sometime.
    Time frame, please? When was it supposedly 'better'?

  10. #40
    Disciple
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    DelMarVa
    Posts
    1,866

    Re: Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

    I've got a nice sample from 1981 that StraightBoston was kind enough to send me. Compared to the current stuff, it's like night and day. Even my girlfriend who doesn't even drink bourbon was able to pick out the good stuff immediately.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Makers Mark VIP
    By HighTower in forum General Bourbon Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 12:48
  2. Makers Mark Cigars
    By Speedy_John in forum Smokes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-07-2003, 10:20
  3. Makers Mark
    By **DONOTDELETE** in forum General Bourbon Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-01-2001, 15:30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top