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

[BBQ+Bourbon]

You heard that right. Bill Samuels singlehandedly created a concept wherein it was OK for bourbon to taste good! According to Dave Pickerell, MD at Maker's, before Bill Samuels reinvented the bourbon-making process, bourbon was not tasty. You know all those SW OFBIB you knew and loved? No good. Not unless they came after 1958, when A. Ph. Stitzel stole Samuels' mashbill:rolleyes:

There was some good information and advice in this presentation, but at the end, I was pissed off at Pickering's dishonesty and arrogance. Until this moment I had nothing against MM. So you know, the only thing that matters in the bottle is where the flavor lands on your pallate:rolleyes:.

http://www.doityourself.com/video/Master-Bourbon-Tasting-Class-Art-of-the-Drink-41-34251984

[DeanSheen]

Don't be upset by a mediocre one trick pony brand based on marketing.

Not worth your time.

[Lost Pollito]

Don't be upset by a mediocre one trick pony brand based on marketing.

Not worth your time.

I'll second that !!! Not worth your time.

[OscarV]

I wonder if MM is feeling the heat from 4R?

MM used to be trendy, (in the phoney selfish 1980's) but 4R has passed them up (not in $ales) and is now, IMHO the industry leader in unique offerings.

It wasn't that long ago that you could not get 4R outside of Japan and KY and now look at what they offer.

"Yellow Label" ,Single Barrel ,Small Batch, 3 different Barrel Strengths, two different Mariage's, and private bottles from retailers all over the country of Single Barrels and Barrel Strengths of their 10 different recipes.

So MM, when's that new bottle coming out that you put some sticks in?

[jburlowski]

Simply a bunch of crap! Screw you, MM!

[Thesh]

Maker's Mark is great for cooking and mixing... Although it's a little too pricey to justify a lot of the times.

[barturtle]

That video is a bit old, and I'm sure has been linked to before.

Here's the link to the original source:

http://artofthedrink.blogspot.com/2007/03/episode-41-master-bourbon-tasting-class.html

[Josh]

Typical baloney that a lot of companies engage in. Does anybody really believe that it is rude to serve any other bourbon, since Old Fitzgerald is the "Key to Hospitality"? Or that Paul Jones really was smitten by a southern belle who wore a corsage of four roses at a party? Or that Evan Williams was Kentucky's first distiller? Maybe some people do, but those people probably don't have the time or inclination to find out the facts.

So yeah, it's a dumb statement, but nothing unusual or worth getting outraged about.

[RamblinWreck007]

That video is a bit old, and I'm sure has been linked to before.

Here's the link to the original source:

http://artofthedrink.blogspot.com/2007/03/episode-41-master-bourbon-tasting-class.html

Fascinating video, thank you for linking it. I've been enjoying "experimenting" with my BT White Dog, and that gave me some more ideas.

[ErichPryde]

Or that Paul Jones really was smitten by a southern belle who wore a corsage of four roses at a party?

So yeah, it's a dumb statement, but nothing unusual or worth getting outraged about.

You must not have seen that southern belle, but believe me.... :bigeyes:

[cowdery]

The Maker's Mark style has always been tongue-in-cheek overstatement. When they misstep, it's by taking themselves too seriously.

However, Maker's Mark genuinely did change the bourbon industry's perception of itself and its product. Before Maker's Mark proved it could be done, you couldn't convince any bourbon marketer that there was a market for premium quality American whiskey.

It's true. I know. I was there.

[bourbonv]

I have heard that same talk from Bill Samuel's son and had the same thoughts about many of the other excellent bourbons made before the 1950s. By following the logic of the presentation then since Jim Beam is made the same as it has been since 1795 and any bourbon before Maker's tasted bad, then Jim Beam tastes bad by Maker's Mark's logic. I wonder how that goes over in the Chicago Headquarters of Jim Beam.

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

[HighTower]

I wish I had a case of the Gold Wax 101 from the late 1970s.

Amen to that!!

Scott

[Old Lamplighter]

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

Then why, in heaven's name, can they not do it again? If Julian and others can still produce a high quality product, why can a tradition-rich house such as MM not do the same? Do they plan to just ride off into the sunset and live forever on just the name & label as in the likes of JD (that coming from a Tennessean.....apologies to anyone who may be offended) and a few others out there? The VW line is living proof that a high quality product can be continued - and some would argue improved, as it has transitioned from ORVW to PVW and S-W to B-T through the years.

[Gillman]

I think it's fair to say that Bill Samuels, whether he felt that way personally or not, perceived a truth: the rye content in bourbon is an acquired taste and puts off even many experienced imbibers. I know this because when I started drinking bourbon, I found the ones heavy on the rye undrinkable and ditto for rye whiskey. It took years to acquire the taste - even for someone interested in alcoholic drinks, their make-up and their history. I liked Makers and Old Fitz much more than any rye-recipe bourbon, but finally I changed because I could see that rye-recipe was more complex. I just "got" the taste at a certain point. This is something Maker's perceived and exploited and you can't blame them. It is not to say the traditional bourbon mash (or what became so by the post-Pro era) could not be marketed in as creative a way, but no one really tried, from what I can see. It was only by reading Michael Jackson in his World Guide to Whisky (1987) that I really understood what rye contributes to a mashbill of whiskey.

Gary

[rocky480]

Then why, in heaven's name, can they not do it again? If Julian and others can still produce a high quality product, why can a tradition-rich house such as MM not do the same? Do they plan to just ride off into the sunset and live forever on just the name & label as in the likes of JD (that coming from a Tennessean.....apologies to anyone who may be offended) and a few others out there? The VW line is living proof that a high quality product can be continued - and some would argue improved, as it has transitioned from ORVW to PVW and S-W to B-T through the years.

[ErichPryde]

I think it's fair to say that Bill Samuels, whether he felt that way personally or not, perceived a truth: the rye content in bourbon is an acquired taste and puts off even many experienced imbibers. I know this because when I started drinking bourbon, I found the ones heavy on the rye undrinkable and ditto for rye whiskey. It took years to acquire the taste - even for someone interested in alcoholic drinks, their make-up and their history. I liked Makers and Old Fitz much more than any rye-recipe bourbon, but finally I changed because I could see that rye-recipe was more complex. I just "got" the taste at a certain point. This is something Maker's perceived and exploited and you can't blame them. It is not to say the traditional bourbon mash (or what became so by the post-Pro era) could not be marketed in as creative a way, but no one really tried, from what I can see. It was only by reading Michael Jackson in his World Guide to Whisky (1987) that I really understood what rye contributes to a mashbill of whiskey.

Gary

It's funny that you say that, as it reflects Maker's advertising style- wheat must taste better because wheat bread tastes better than rye bread? It's a bunch of crap. I was one of those people (whether or not it is a small number or not I'm not sure) that actually prefered rye based bourbon over wheat based bourbon. At the beginning of my bourbon-drinking career I actually couldn't find a single wheater I thought was worth a damn. one of the few that I actually do like now is Pappy Van Winkle 15 year.

Maker's mark advertising tells people that they WILL like wheated bourbon better than rye-recipe bourbon. Is it anywhere within the realm of possibility, that this effects their actual taste of the stuff? I personally think it is.

[Gillman]

My view is based on my own experience, not Maker's Mark advertising, clearly yours is different, so that's valid for you. I didn't mention bread in my notes, I have no opinion on that. Anyone is entitled to market based on how they see things or what they perceive the market to like or not like. There is a rough analogy in my view with peated malt whisky...

Gary

[ErichPryde]

Gary, I probably came across as harsh last night when I typed that (as I enjoyed a pour of Weller 12, by the way.... ). I wasn't trying to say that you were full of crap, but that the advertising itself is full of crap. I actually had someone try to convince me that I should/would like maker's mark the best of all bourbons because of the "bread recipe" analogy that Maker's Mark uses. This particular person was like an avid Jack Daniel's fan- not clear that they had tried any other bourbon and they were completely convinced that Maker's was the pinnacle of the bourbon world.

[bourbon-n00b]

Gary, I probably came across as harsh last night when I typed that (as I enjoyed a pour of Weller 12, by the way.... ). I wasn't trying to say that you were full of crap, but that the advertising itself is full of crap. I actually had someone try to convince me that I should/would like maker's mark the best of all bourbons because of the "bread recipe" analogy that Maker's Mark uses. This particular person was like an avid Jack Daniel's fan- not clear that they had tried any other bourbon and they were completely convinced that Maker's was the pinnacle of the bourbon world.

My uncle is one of these people. The sun rises and sets on MM. I tried to expose him to OWA last fall, figuring he'd enjoy a different wheater, but it was "too strong".

I suggested that he could add a little water to bring the proof down and he told me that he hated adding water to bourbon. He couldn't quite understand the point that MM doesn't come straight out of the barrel and into a bottle at 90 proof, so what difference does it make when the water gets added...

Oh well, I probably won't bother him with anything like a PVW, WLW, OGD114, etc. If he is truly content with only MM and has no desire to look beyond it, more power to him. I tried.

[Gillman]

Oh no problem Erich and I didn't read it that way. It is true that some advertising is just puffery as it's termed - selling the sizzle with the steak - and some ends up being just empty formulae. But in the Bill Samuels story about trying to improve on the rye-recipe, there was always something about it that rang true to me, simply because of my own experience. And also, evidently bourbon is not America's leading spirit. Vodka far outsells it and even blended whiskey (including Canadian) does I believe. It's not just price, since a lot of bourbon is still inexpensive. It's palate, the traditional American straight whiskey taste, based on a rye-influenced mash, just doesn't appeal to a lot of people. True, there is a traditional market for it in the south and elsewhere simply because of history, so it carries on and indeed rye-recipe bourbon is still the majority type. But a lot of bourbon has little rye in it - BT has 10% as was noted in another thread - and I think JD and Dickel have less... True, the Beam bourbons have a respectable amount of rye in the mash and Jim Beam is a big seller. How many though drink those products neat? I suspect more people drink Maker's neat that Jim Beam. But anyway, I do believe Bill Samuels probably knew people, friends and others, who said, Bill, I can't drink that twangy stuff, it has a weird aftertaste, I can't accustom to it, and I like Canadian whisky and Cutty Sark better. So (I infer) Bill said, hmm how can I make a non-traditional product, but still within the bourbon precincts, that will overcome that? And he did. I am not sure about the bread thing although I believe he did think the experiments showed superiority of a corn-wheat mash for bourbon, but anyway the fundamental insight about rye recipe's limitations - perceived limitations of course - always rang true to me in part because of my own experience.

I know people on this board who couldn't stand straight rye when they first tasted it and now really like it - they finally twigged to the taste.

That's just my view, I must say though I tend (unless it is completely vacuous/ponderous/empty of meaning) to take ad claims more literally than many others here. Not sure why that is, I don't think I'm more credulous than the average person. I believe, especially in the context of a smaller company, that when the people behind it say something they genuinely mean it. I start from that assumption and find often no reason to depart from it.

Gary

[CorvallisCracker]

...wheat must taste better because wheat bread tastes better than rye bread? It's a bunch of crap.

Sure is. Rye bread is better than wheat bread.

Hot pastrami on rye, with melted Swiss cheese. :yum:

[OscarV]

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

This is the first time I've heard any kind of comparision of MM to S-W.

But I have done my own irresponsible speculation in the past.

I've always thought MM could make great boubon, they did after all have the same type of still built for them by S-W people and Pappy gave Mr Samuels his recipe.

I did not know until now that they use to make great bourbon.

Thanx for the info Mike.

[SMOWK]

This is the first time I've heard any kind of comparision of MM to S-W.

But I have done my own irresponsible speculation in the past.

I've always thought MM could make great boubon, they did after all have the same type of still built for them by S-W people and Pappy gave Mr Samuels his recipe.

I did not know until now that they use to make great bourbon.

Thanx for the info Mike.

StraightBoston was kind enough to send me a sample of MM from 1981 that I have yet to sample, as well as some older gold wax 101. I was very, very, overly fascinated (VVOF) with the gold wax. It tasted nothing like the bottle I had purchased earlier that day in a local store. It was superb. My girlfriend even said it was the best bourbon she had ever tasted.

One thing I learned from the whole "test". Mike V knows what he's talking about.

[Gillman]

Open that '81 Makers! I remember it being a rich, brandy-like dram. It would be interesting to hear a side-by-side with the current issue. No question gold wax was great, but a comparison of the regular label from 30 years ago to now would be more interesting.

Gary