MM Proof Change

[squire]

Be careful what you commit to writing.

[shoshani]

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.

Jim Murray's whiskey books from the late 1990s maintained that it was four years, but in that video that was linked here on the SB forums, I believe he said he likes it around 6. I haven't watched it recently so could be misremembering, but he definitely said in there that as soon as they have rye stocks aged enough, 101 will return.

[JPBoston]

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.

"Too hostile" --

Coming from the guy who called his fellow SB'ers "communists" and telling them their opinion (of bourbon) doesn't matter (on a bourbon forum). Go figure.

But I'm done arguing as I have no horse in this race. MM isn't bad (imo of course), but doesn't stand up to anything else in its price range (even at 90 proof). Can't find a way to blame fans and other enthusiasts for venting though, as lower proof at the same price is never a good thing for us, the consumers.

[macdeffe]

It has been mentioned that a cut of 3% isn't much

Here are some maths which I based on the whisky being 60% from the cask (http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.dk/2013...s-whiskey.html)

Lowering the proof will expand number of bottles with around 7%

45% ABV MM holds 25% water and 75% whisky. Thats 18.75cl per bottle

42% ABV MM holds 30% water and 70% whisky. Thats 22,50cl per bottle

This means, if I haven't messed up my calculations (very likely) that every bottle of Makers mark will hold 6.6% less pure whisky

Steffen

[macdeffe]

WHich made me think

The 75cl bottles are going from 56.25cl whisky to 52.50cl whisky

Why don't they just start bottling it all as 50cl cask strength. This will give even more bottles and have a huge enviromental impact as shipping water around the globe is kinda silly seen from an enviromental point of view

Steffen

[mrt]

http://qz.com/#52478/makers-mark-wat...rising-demand/
Here's the link I accessed via Linkedin. Hopefully they will not make JBW 37% ABV
Regards,

[barturtle]

Not only are they putting 6.5% less stuff out of a barrel in each bottle (and charging you the same), but they are also paying less in excise taxes for each of those bottles...this could nearly double the 6.5% figure as far as profit goes...money grab.

[squire]

Has anyone done a direct taste comparison of the regular MM with the 37.5 % expression available overseas?

[funknik]

I think you are spot on here and it is exactly what I was thinking. There aren't that many whiskey purists who have MM and JD as their go to whiskey. The people I know who always reach for it will probably agree that it the best part of the change is the less alcohol burn (it will make it smoother!!).

I think Ben makes a good point. Even my friends who consider themselves "whiskey drinkers" don't tend to know what proof the whiskeys they drink are bottled at . . . I think the typical MM drinker will not notice at all (certainly not by the taste) - even if it's pointed out to them. Plus, they'll be saving money on Coke and Ginger Ale.

[ebo]

For those of you that have tasted the gold wax version of MM..... is it substantially better than the red wax?

Another thing..... why wouldn't MM put the gold wax back on the market as maybe a once a year release for the enthusiast? That seems like a smart move to me, instead of alienating a segment of your customers, albeit a small one. I suppose that when that small segment doesn't really matter to your bottom line, that probably isn't something that they would even consider, unfortunately.