Maker's Mark 46

[MarkEdwards]

I'd like to modify the plane of the discussion a little bit. Assume for the sake of argument that the new Maker's Mark 46 is really, really good. Maybe one of the best things you've ever tasted. What if they have, using nothing except wood, come up with a new and mighty delicious way for bourbon to taste.

Then how would you feel about it?

I would love for them to release some 50's so that I could try it without having to buy a whole bottle.

Even so, MM is not BAD bourbon, it's just not at the top of my list, and I will probably pick up a bottle if it hits my part of the country.

Like everyone else, taste is the basis of my decision on whether to buy more.

[jburlowski]

Chuck,

How would you compare the change / improvement in taste to the WRMCSO re-barreling?

[HighTower]

I am a fan of Maker's Mark, have been for quite a while. Even without feedback, I would buy a bottle to give my opinion and try something different. If it isn't for me well I don't know till I try it. I say good for them for trying something different.

Glad to hear you like it Chuck, can't wait to get some!

Scott

[wadewood]

OK - Chuck says it's really good, so I have no doubt about that.

Still, I doubt the all the improvement come from a few extra months with these staves in the barrels. I'm guessing they are picking honey barrels, or barrels to a taste profile they want to start. Then they add the staves and some marketing hype about advancing the art of bourbon.

I'll volunteer Randy and Chuck (as multiple SB tasters of the year) to conduct a 3 way test. Regular MM from off the shelf. Sample of selected barrel for staves right before stave inserted at same proof as MM 46. Sample of MM46.

Will Makers Mark be up for this challenge and respond?

[CorvallisCracker]

They take barrels of Maker's that are ready to bottle. They dump them and open up the empty barrels. They affix (without using metal or adhesive) two dowel rods in about the middle of the barrel. The ten seared staves attach to the dowels. The head is put back onto the barrel. It is refilled and returned to the racks for another few months.

Would be a lot easier to toss in a couple of these, and I expect the result would be about the same.

[SBOmarc]

This news has been slow to come to the West Coast. In my travels to liquor stores and well versed whiskey bars no one has been aware of what MM is doing.That is so unlike the marketing machine that they are so famous for.

I look forward to trying it and I owe it to myself to do so. I have been just as vocal as anyone when wondering outloud why Makers would not come out with another product.

They have, I wait.

[cowdery]

Chuck,

How would you compare the change / improvement in taste to the WRMCSO re-barreling?

[cowdery]

OK - Chuck says it's really good, so I have no doubt about that.

Still, I doubt the all the improvement come from a few extra months with these staves in the barrels. I'm guessing they are picking honey barrels, or barrels to a taste profile they want to start. Then they add the staves and some marketing hype about advancing the art of bourbon.

I'll volunteer Randy and Chuck (as multiple SB tasters of the year) to conduct a 3 way test. Regular MM from off the shelf. Sample of selected barrel for staves right before stave inserted at same proof as MM 46. Sample of MM46.

Will Makers Mark be up for this challenge and respond?

[cowdery]

Would be a lot easier to toss in a couple of these, and I expect the result would be about the same.

Don't jump to that conclusion. You need to try it. The infusion spirals are all about increasing surface area. What Maker's is doing it about doing something original to the wood itself that changes it qualitatively, not just quantitatively, which is all the infusion spiral does. It's not just about putting some more wood surface in the barrel, it's about processing the wood in such a way that it produces different (and yummy) flavors.

I'm not promising you'll love it as much as I do (I'm a well known wheater-lover, for one thing). I'm just suggesting you not invest too much in not liking it. Wait and see.

[Ultra]

I am anxious to try this stuff. Thanks for increasing my desire for another bourbon guys.

[CorvallisCracker]

Don't jump to that conclusion. You need to try it. The infusion spirals are all about increasing surface area. What Maker's is doing it about doing something original to the wood itself that changes it qualitatively, not just quantitatively, which is all the infusion spiral does. It's not just about putting some more wood surface in the barrel, it's about processing the wood in such a way that it produces different (and yummy) flavors.

You're referring to the staves being seasoned for longer than the usual one year of a standard whiskey barrel? And the "searing"?

There's no reference to it on the infusion spiral home page, but if you check the tech sheet you'll see that these are made from oak seasoned for three years and that they're available in four toast levels.

So the statement, "The infusion spirals are all about increasing surface area" is not entirely correct. Infusion spirals are all about increasing surface area of seasoned, toasted oak.

I have my own theory about why MM used their own technique, but I'll briefly defer that.

I'm just suggesting you not invest too much in not liking it.

I'm not doing any such thing. If/when it become available in Oregon, I plan to try it. I very well may like it; after all, I like wheaters too (so does my wife). If I like it a lot, I'll continue to buy it, despite my feelings about the company.

MM hater? No and yes. I have nothing against the whiskey itself. The basic stuff is good (but not great); it's certainly better than any version of Old Fitz other than the VSOF. On months when it's on sale, it's less than Weller Reserve and a better buy.

But I don't like the people who run the company. Because no one is going to confuse a tequila that comes in a round bottle and has a distinctive label for MM just because said tequila is sealed with wax, the MM lawsuit is a clear-cut case of corporate bullying.

Which is why I think MM didn't use a seasoned toasted infusion spiral; because they didn't invent it, and can't sue somebody else for using them.

I will bet you any amount of money that if someone duplicates the MM technique, the company will sue them.

I consider the people who run MM to be dirtbags, but I don't hold that against the whiskey itself. After all, I don't like the French, but I buy their wine.

[cowdery]

the MM lawsuit is a clear-cut case of corporate bullying.

[nblair]

Just tried a tiny bit at the distillery. I liked it, but it wasn't the optimal tasting environment. I was surrounded by tons of people and drinking out of a plastic cup. It was maybe .25 oz. I will say I didn't think it was like WR Seasoned Oak at all, I enjoyed it.

I am heading home with a bottle though. I didn't expect them to be selling bottles of the new stuff. Needless to say I chose that over a Coach Cal bottle...

[craigthom]

I think they dripping red wax is a valid claim. They sell hats and glasses and who knows what with it. It is their identity, more than the bottle shape or even the logo.

I agree that the tasting today was less than optimal. I didn't like it much. All I could tell with the little plastic cup samples is that the regular stuff has no finish and the 46 does. It tasted hot and astringent. I bought home a bottle, though, since it was reasonably priced.

I suspect, since what they are selling is in generic straight-sided 750ml bottles, that they are just waiting for the glass to start getting this out the door.

[Big TR]

How does this method compare to that of Pritchard's?

[nblair]

How does this method compare to that of Pritchard's?

[jburlowski]

I'm pretty sure that Pritchard's just mingles different barrels together, then puts the mingled product back into barrels for a few months longer. No toasted staves, spirals or other flavor components are added.

I could have sworn I read that at one point Buffalo Trace was doing the same thing for their flagship bourbon. I wouldn't doubt if others do it as well, I think Pritchard's just advertises it on the label.

BT has done several re-barrelings in their experimental releases. Maybe that's what you are thinking of.

[nblair]

BT has done several re-barrelings in their experimental releases. Maybe that's what you are thinking of.

Thinking of standard BT. Check out this thread, about halfway down Jeff mentions it. I've read it other places too.

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4402&page=2

[Bourbon Geek]

But I don't like the people who run the company. Because no one is going to confuse a tequila that comes in a round bottle and has a distinctive label for MM just because said tequila is sealed with wax, the MM lawsuit is a clear-cut case of corporate bullying.

[Josh]

See also: http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11255

[jburlowski]

Thinking of standard BT. Check out this thread, about halfway down Jeff mentions it. I've read it other places too.

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4402&page=2

Hmmm... first I ever recall hearing this. Hard to imagine BT doing this with the volumes they produce. I wonder if anyone from BT can confirm / deny.

[CorvallisCracker]

Bullying a corporate rival about five times bigger than they are? That's some mighty fine bullying. I shed no tears for Diageo.

Please explain to me how it is corporate bullying on the part of Maker's Mark when the world's largest spirits company, Diageo, blatantly attempts to steal and/or invalidate a longstanding and valid trademark from the MUCH smaller Maker's Mark

I see y'all are defining "bullying" in the narrow sterotypic sense of a Big Guy picking on a Little Guy. My definition is broader and is based on the reality of Little Guys bullying Big Guys anytime they think they can get away with it, one example being North Korea, which bullies the USA every chance it can get.

Accomodating guy that I am, I'll forego my reality-based definition in favor of your sterotype-based one, and change my statement to:

a clear-cut case of a corporation letting its unvaccinated lawyers off their leashes

which works better for me anyway because I don't much care for lawyers and lawsuits. I just did a Google search on "litigious society" and ran across this gem at answers.com:

"Some of the most minor and just plain stupid issues and disputes wind up going to court. Unfortunately, too many are given credence by everyone involved. The person who insists on suing, the lawyer taking the case and just as important, the people on juries who are willing to give plaintiffs millions of dollars to people who spill hot coffee on themselves and then sue because the cup did not warn them the coffee was hot."

I can add nothing to that except to invoke the principle that "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". It's manifest that neither Makers Mark nor its apologists are part of the solution.

...and Maker's Mark seeks to defend their trademark?

Bottles have been sealed in wax for a long time, and I suspect the practice was widespread before the invention of the foil cap. Red was probably used as often as any other color, and, to coin a phrase, "drips happen". If MM had attempted their lawsuit in 1959, it wouldn't have survived its first encounter with a judge.

After all, the purpose of a trade mark is to distinguish a product from those made by competitors, and I still have to ask if anyone is really going to confuse a round bottle with a white, blue and gold label, the name "Jose Cuervo" printed on it and residing in the tequila section of the liquor store for a bottle of Makers Mark.

(pardon my appeal to common sense; how diogenesian of me)

I also have to ask: where will it all end? After all, I'm sure the MM attorneys are still unleashed, unmuzzled and still have not had their shots, and wonder: what's next? Clear glass?

Maker's has been dealing with this for 7 years ... at substantial legal expense. All they got for their effort was the right to keep their trademark ... Diageo didn't even have to pay for their infringement.

Well amen to that. A pyrrhic victory is all they deserve. Because allowing Diageo/Cuervo to continue with its use of red wax would not have resulted in a single lost sale of MM bourbon, they p*ssed away a ton of money for no good reason. The only "winners" here are the MM lawyers, whom I sure all went out and bought themselves diamond studded collars.

Borrowing a phrase, I shed no tears for MM.

Anyway, back to my original point, that there might have been a simpler way to acheive the effects used for the new expression.

White oak is white oak. Seasoning is seasoning. Exposing it to a flame long enough to produce a color change but not so long as to char it is the same thing regardless of whether you call it "toasting" or "searing". As I see it, the staves used in the MM 46 are not qualitatively different from the spirals .

I could be wrong; perhaps Idependent Stave soaks them in some concoction brewed from virgin's milk, phoenix eggs and phlogiston.

Maker's and Independent Stave went through a long process of trying different wood treatments, to find the finish that best matched the MM profile. I don't know if the point is really whether or not what they did is different from the spiral,

Assuming no such Magic Brew, I have no doubt that an equal amount of experimentation with a different and simpler technology (e.g., spirals) would not have produced the same results.

MM is:

1. Draining the barrel

2. removing the head

3. drilling holes into the sides of the barrel (Whoops! Went too far with that one!)

4. Stringing the staves onto dowels

5. fixing the stave/dowel assembly into the holes

6. replacing the head, and having to do it well enough that it doesn't leak

7. refilling the barrel

My original point (which seems to have gotten lost) was: why go to all that trouble when there are simpler methods?

and I would be calling the kettle if I told someone else to not be so cynical.

Well, perhaps I shouldn't let my speculation be influenced by my irritation with MM for allowing their slavering solicitors to run around biting people. Perhaps MM has been buying barrels from IS, and having a pre-existing relationship with them, asked for their ideas on how to acheive the results MM wanted. IS likely did not want to use infusion spirals because these were invented by a rival barrel producer.

So it's not so much a case of advancing the art as one of not invented here.

The engineer in me doesn't care about such considerations, but only evaluates the goal and the methods used to acheive it. 30 years of designing computer networks has taught me that simpler is better.

Occam and Thoreau would understand, even if no one else does.

[dean_martin]

Accomodating guy that I am, I'll forego my reality-based definition in favor of your sterotype-based one, and change my statement to:

a clear-cut case of a corporation letting its unvaccinated lawyers off their leashes

which works better for me anyway because I don't much care for lawyers and lawsuits. I just did a Google search on "litigious society" and ran across this gem at answers.com:

"Some of the most minor and just plain stupid issues and disputes wind up going to court. Unfortunately, too many are given credence by everyone involved. The person who insists on suing, the lawyer taking the case and just as important, the people on juries who are willing to give plaintiffs millions of dollars to people who spill hot coffee on themselves and then sue because the cup did not warn them the coffee was hot."

[gblick]

After all, the purpose of a trade mark is to distinguish a product from those made by competitors, and I still have to ask if anyone is really going to confuse a round bottle with a white, blue and gold label, the name "Jose Cuervo" printed on it and residing in the tequila section of the liquor store for a bottle of Makers Mark.

Also, the tequila bottle comes in a box so you usually won't even see the wax on the bottle.

[CorvallisCracker]

This isn't posted for your benefit Scott since you've made your biases known by lawyer-bashing.

I freely admit to bias. I suppose it's partly because the only tort attorney I've ever known personally is my ex-brother-in-law, someone I intensely disliked even before he divorced my sister.

I meant no personal offense, and apologize for any taken. It does seem to me that we have more lawyers in this country than we really need, and this is one of the things that drives a lot of the ridiculous lawsuits. I can't help but wish that many of them had chosen another career.

The courts are clogged with business vs. business lawsuits which no one seems to complain about except court administrators in mundane, official judicial administration reports.

I thought I was complaining about that.

All we hear about in the media is how stupid regular folks' lawsuits against businesses are.

Apparently that's what sells cars, beer and remedies. Seven second sound bites and all that.

I find it interesting and rare to read heated debate on a business vs. business case.

Perhaps you should send some of the text from the Victor-vs-Victoria case to answers.com. Or send it to me (might make for some fun reading) and I'll send it along, with a suggestion that they change their page.

Sorry to drift so far off-topic, but as a lawyer with interests and hobbies, it's not easy to sit on the sidelines when my profession is attacked on one of my regular "escapist" discussion boards.

Again, my apologies to you and any other attorneys on sb.com.

Returning to topic, I'll repeat that I plan to try the MM 46 if and when it reaches OR, and not let my feelings and biases about the MM corporate weenies and their attorneys color my evaluation of it. If it's as good as Chuck says it is, then the artisans directly involved with it deserve commendation for their creative efforts, particularly since I suspect these were done within constraints mandated by upper management.