Entry Proof - Surprise?!?

[nblair]

My father-in-law cut out an article in the Courier-Journal the other day and gave it to me on Christmas. It was an interview with Bobby Joe Corbett who works at Maker's Mark. In the article he mentions, "I usually get here around 5:30 in the morning, usually start the filter up, reduce it down to 110 proof - it goes into the barrel at 110 proof." :shocked:

I've always heard that Wild Turkey entered the barrel at the lowest proof in the industry, around 110. Four Roses is 120. BT is 125. I believe Beam is 125, but I think that can vary depending on the label it's destined for. I had no idea that MM had one of the lowest barrel entry proofs. Does this surprise anyone else or is it common knowledge around these parts?

doc0020.pdf

[cowdery]

I thought it was a little higher than that, maybe 115, but 110 doesn't surprise me.

The Beam products vary in terms of proof off the still and whether or not they have to be diluted for entry, but they all go into the barrel at 125.

It's an interesting article for more than that. Thanks for sharing it. For instance, there has been some debate about whether or not MM really rotates. What Bobby Joe describes sounds about right. They don't rotate every barrel, just the ones that need it.

I'm more surprised that he routinely uses a thief rather than a power drill like everybody else.

[nblair]

Glad you enjoyed the read, Chuck. I guess I thought that since Fortune Brands owns Beam & Maker's both, that the barrel entry proof would be similar. Since they aren't, I assume they let Maker's operate pretty independently.

If everyone is using power drills instead of thiefs nowadays, are they all using wooden pegs as well? If so, isn't there a chance the barrel would leak, or is the time savings from not having to hammer out bungs just worth the risk?

[squire]

Interesting observation Chuck, good question Nathaniel. I would think a widespread practice is grounded on good reasons. Does the use of a drill allow for less moving around of the barrel?

[ILLfarmboy]

Thanks a bunch for posting that. That's the kind of tidbit one could spend a lot of time looking for and never find.

I'm surprised. I figured since Makers doesn't have a lot of wood in the finish their entry proof was the 125 max.

[cowdery]

Drills are pretty commonly used. Advantage is that you don't have to remove the barrel from the rack. Leaks aren't a problem. Yes, they plug the hole with a wooden peg.

Bobby Joe spoke of using the thief on a barrel removed from the rack, one that was being rotated. I guess if you have easy access to the bung hole that makes sense. On the other hand, removing the bung almost always means replacing it.

Of course the whiskey thief is more romantic than the power drill.

[squire]

I like the idea of a thief but that's the Romantic in me.

[Leopold]

The other difference between using a drill and using a thief is that if you use a drill, the contents are kept under constant positive pressure. Especially so if you're in a hot rickhouse.

[OscarV]

reduce it down to 110 proof - it goes into the barrel at 110 proof." :shocked:

[nblair]

I happened to crop out the date when I scanned it, the article was printed Tuesday, December 21, 2010. I'd say it's definitely a recent interview, I don't see any other dates on the clipping I have.

I was kind of thinking the same thing as you, Oscar. I've always heard that MM was different a few decades back (some people would argue it was much better back then, but I don't want to start that debate). My understanding is that many distilleries increased the entry proof in that time frame and I thought that explained the change with MM. Apparently not, though.

[BluesDaddy]

Great article, thanks for sharing.

[squire]

My introduction to Makers was back when the family still owned the business, then on up through about 1984, and only intermittently since. I will say I liked the original stuff better than what is available now.

[ebo]

Does drilling holes in the barrels devalue them for re-sale to the scotch whisky makers?

[OscarV]

I happened to crop out the date when I scanned it, the article was printed Tuesday, December 21, 2010.

[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I'm suprised, the font and the boldness of the print look like it's from the 1960's.

[nblair]

I'm suprised, the font and the boldness of the print look like it's from the 1960's.

That is my fault. I didn't think that many people would find the article interesting or I would have scanned it with an actual scanner. I used an app on my iphone to scan it and that's why the print is a little different, and you can see the creases, etc.

[SMOWK]

All of the MM that I've tried from the early 80s into the early 90s has been MUCH better than the current stuff that was tasted right next to it.

Especially the 101 stuff.....YUM!

[squire]

I had forgotten about that, we always chose the 50.5% when we had a choice.

[cowdery]

Although Maker's wasn't as badly affected as many, Maker's was a victim of the great whiskey glut of the 1980s and probably was selling product that was a little older than their standard profile. That said, as much as every distiller tries for consistency, products do change over time for a variety of reasons and not necessarily because they have been deliberately 'cheapened' in some way.

I'm not prepared to confirm the impression of some that "Maker's used to be better," but I'm not in a position to refute it either. That said, I think changes attributed to ownership or distiller changes mostly reflect prejudices on the part of the person making the attribution.

Regarding drilling, only barrel heads are drilled and, no, a plug or two in a barrel head does not affect the barrel's resale value. In most cases, especially when they are shipped long distances, the barrels are knocked down and reassembled and any wood that shows damage for any reason is replaced. I've drilled and plugged a few barrels myself. Never had a leaker and I'm a rank amateur at it.

[squire]

Relying on my faulty memory alone is a poor way of making comparisons so I try to be specific before posting something was 'better' in the day.

I do feel confident in saying Dant, Crow, Charter and Taylor were better 40 years ago.

[trumpstylz]

That is a low entry proof. However, I'm pretty sure WT still has it beat- I'm pretty sure WT goes in around 105 if i'm not mistaken.

[cowdery]

Even if something was certifiably better 40 years ago, that doesn't prove the decline occurred due to something nefarious.

[squire]

Nor do I suggest any such thing Chuck. If a provider buys an established brand name and chooses to fill the bottles with a lesser whisky that's their business, literally. As a consumer I have the choice of buying or leaving it alone.

[cowdery]

Nor do I suggest any such thing Chuck. If a provider buys an established brand name and chooses to fill the bottles with a lesser whisky that's their business, literally. As a consumer I have the choice of buying or leaving it alone.

You are suggesting exactly what I meant by 'nefarious.' You apparently believe a provider has bought an established brand name and chosen to fill the bottles with lesser whiskey. You're entitled to reach that conclusion but my analysis of the evidence does not lead me to that conclusion.

[squire]

Chuck you are reading something into my post that isn't there. What I said, and what I believe, is that when a provider buys a brand it's theirs to do with as they wish which is a perfectly acceptable business decision. Whether I buy the brand or not is my decision.

[cowdery]

Chuck you are reading something into my post that isn't there. What I said, and what I believe, is that when a provider buys a brand it's theirs to do with as they wish which is a perfectly acceptable business decision. Whether I buy the brand or not is my decision.

"...and chooses to fill the bottles with a lesser whisky"

But you just mean it hypothetically, I suppose.