Maker's Mark 46

[nblair]

The staves gave it a nice body without having the wood become too dominant. While I would not rate it near my favorites, it is a very nice easy drinking whiskey. I definitely will buy a bottle if the price is not significantly above the standard MM

I think the staves really did change the body, nose, and taste of the bourbon for the better. I was surprised, especially since they were only in there for a few months. The wood isn't too dominant, but there is something in the finish that I didn't care for. I do agree that I would buy a bottle if the price is right, but I can't see it being a frequent purchase.

[silverfish]

What did the suit cost them? You are a lawyer. Got an estimate? $50 million? $10 million? What did "winning" really get them to the guy popping thirty bucks for a bottle of booze? What does that investment yield them in real dollars? Does that yield add to the bottom line? How? We just can't know. None of us. Whether they "won" in court or not is immaterial to the bottom line. I believe that the suit was costly and possibly doomed when one considers its yield to the bottom line.

As someone (Chuck ?) said, the suit was to protect their "drips'.

In order to keep that as a MM trademark, they pretty much have

to go after anyone they perceive to be infringing on that. The

cost of this particular case in irrelevant. As soon as they let one

case "slide" you can bet others will follow and MM are no longer as

identifiable as they are.

The bottom line is they want to protect their look and I'd guess

the costs of any lawsuits really doesn't factor into it.

[Ultra]

The bottom line is they want to protect their look and I'd guess

the costs of any lawsuits really doesn't factor into it.

This is a business and profit is the bottom line, not trademarks, pride or anything else. Lose sight of that and you end up selling out or out of business, as Maker's has just done. As the judge said, Maker's lost no profits. Hence their look was protected enough without the suit to serve its one and only purpose, generate continued sales.

Maker's could have used the money spent on lawyers more effectively, IMHO. Taking out an ad campaign slamming Diageo's Jose Cuervo for imitating the Red Wax trademark..... A trademark so good even Tequilas copy it! Would do wonders to protect the trademark and increase awareness of it in the marketplace, shifts the public perception of 'bullying" and plagiarizing onto Diageo, and reaps a greater return for the same dollars spent.

Maybe without the expense of the lawsuit they could have enough capital to re-invest in the business instead selling out to Beam.....

[Josh]

This is a business and profit is the bottom line, not trademarks, pride or anything else. Lose sight of that and you end up selling out or out of business, as Maker's has just done. As the judge said, Maker's lost no profits. Hence their look was protected enough without the suit to serve its one and only purpose, generate continued sales.

Maker's could have used the money spent on lawyers more effectively, IMHO. Taking out an ad campaign slamming Diageo's Jose Cuervo for imitating the Red Wax trademark..... A trademark so good even Tequilas copy it! Would do wonders to protect the trademark and increase awareness of it in the marketplace, shifts the public perception of 'bullying" and plagiarizing onto Diageo, and reaps a greater return for the same dollars spent.

Maybe without the expense of the lawsuit they could have enough capital to re-invest in the business instead selling out to Beam.....

[Ultra]

Here's the point: If they don't protect their trademark in the courts, they lose it, period.

[silverfish]

Here's the point: If they don't protect their trademark in the courts, they lose it, period. Then another bourbon, even, could use red wax. Then they do lose sales and money because they have lost the advantage they have on account of their unique bottle.

[CorvallisCracker]

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the argument that a company has a right to protect a trademark. The disagreement is over where one draws the line. My post mentioning several brands of balsamic vinegar sealed with dripping red wax was based on a web search that found several. I expect these have been around a while and that MM is aware of them, but decided not to sue because it's a whole different product category.

In this they show more restraint than Anheuser Busch when that company went after Bush Pilot whisky, and that's to their credit.

And I too am looking forward to trying the MM 46.

[CorvallisCracker]

OLCC price list for May was posted this morning. MM 46 will be $35.95.

[callmeox]

Ohio actually had it in the April price book that was released in early March. Depending on the local tax rate, it will retail between $31.60 and $32.85.

I will definitely try it at that price point.

[OscarV]

Depending on the local tax rate, it will retail between $31.60 and $32.85.

[callmeox]

Makers Mark retails at $25.65 to $26.80 in Ohio

(removes shoes and socks)

That's a difference of about 6 bucks

[hectic1]

Makers Mark retails at $25.65 to $26.80 in Ohio

(removes shoes and socks)

That's a difference of about 6 bucks

[gblick]

I still have this bottle left over from my tequila days. It's from 2002.

[whskylvr]

WOW if I saw that on the store shelf I might think to myself...

...thats just like that bourbon Maker's Mark wonder if it produced by them?

Oh it says Jose Cuervo (who doesn't no Jose Cuervo is tequila)?

Doh!!!

[SBOmarc]

I still have this bottle left over from my tequila days. It's from 2002.

no wonder that MM Manhattan tasted so off...

[fricky]

Maker's Mark was serving their new product (46) at the Sampler. I think that it is very good and will buy it when it is available. I like it better that the regular Maker's Mark.

[fishnbowljoe]

Dale was kind enough to bring some to the gazebo Saturday night also. I agree with fricky. I like it, and I'll definitely get a bottle. Joe

[BourbonJoe]

For what it's worth, I also agree with Fricky.

Joe :usflag:

[Skunk]

I like it, and I'll definitely get a bottle. Joe

[fishnbowljoe]

Singular? That's faint praise coming from the guy with a closet full of Binny's Weller 12yo.

[Vosgar]

Dale was kind enough to bring some to the gazebo Saturday night also. I agree with fricky. I like it, and I'll definitely get a bottle. Joe

I was also able to try it at the gazebo and was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it. Whenever it finally makes it to the shelves, I'll be buying some.

[Gillman]

I thought it was good too. It had a pleasant overlay, balsam wood-like. Actually, later in an airport I tried regular Makers, and think I preferred the newbie.

Gary

[Stu]

Being the shy bashful type that I am, I tried a glass of each, head to head, at the Sampler. To me the 46 was many times superior. More fruit and honey on the nose and pallet, heavier body. I couldn't write my notes due to Samler time constraints, but I knew it was much better.

[smokinjoe]

I don't believe any of you. You obviously are being mind controlled by the omnipresent and omnipotent M3 (Maker's Marketing Machine). They have total manipulation of your thoughts, tastes, and preferences. And, to seal the deal, they are making you broadcast your liking of the new MM to billions of people across the world via the Internet. I bet none of you have blinked since Saturday, and you're talking in monotone. Can't you see, you've been duped??!!

Seriously though, to hear this praise from many whose palates I respect, enhances my anticipation of trying it soon.

[troyce]

What's the latest word on the widespread availability on this one?