Entry Proof - Surprise?!?

[squire]

It's their brand, they can do with it as they like.

[squire]

Are you saying filling a purchased brand with a lesser whisky hasn't happened?

[cowdery]

Are you saying filling a purchased brand with a lesser whisky hasn't happened?

Why are you being so coy? You pointed that particular finger at Maker's Mark and while certainly brands have been debased after acquisition -- Old Crow is a prime example -- I don't believe it's a fair charge against Maker's Mark, which is the sole point of contention here.

[squire]

Not being coy, I speak succinctly out of habit because I learned long ago that short sentences help keep the jury awake.

Apparently we agree on Crow and I suspect Taylor and Yellowstone as well so I'll skip to Makers. I liked Makers more when the family owned/operated the place, my sentiment. Of course I'm not without curiosity about brands generally, that's part of why I read your blog.

[henrihenrynl]

well, hello, this topic is interesting.

the old versus new discussion has its basis in the proof, older versions like the black blotte and the early VIP's where higher proof, so thats why more ppl liked them, nowadays all bottlings are the same content only the waxing can be different, thats a real shame. MM says its because the small factory line-up, (they did expand to provide more 2 the world) its just down to dollars folks, thats the business sense of an acquisition. if they dont higher proof (age statement) their whiskies, i fear they are going 2 lose it from elijah. all that said, MM is not a bad whisky, in my book its the best vanilla soft clean bourbon for the money (in Europe around 25 euros a liter).

[nblair]

So I picked up The Book of Classic American Whiskeys by Mark H. Waymack & James Harris from the Amazon Marketplace the other day and found some more interesting tidbits related to Maker's. All of this information is found on pages 137 and 138. (Link to these pages on Google Books)

A) The entry proof around 110 was confirmed.

"...the white dog comes out of the doubler at around 65 percent, or 130 proof. It then goes into the barrel at 109-110 proof."

Chuck was a little surprised that the gentleman in the article I attached in the first page of this thread, actually hammered out the bung instead of using a drill like everyone else. The following could just be some BS the distillery told the authors (you know, the "we're the best because we do it 'this way' stuff). Granted, this book was written about 16 years ago...but if they still take these extra steps and use different wood for the bungs, then maybe it really is easier for them to get the bung out...?

"...the barrel bungs are walnut, whereas everywhere else they use poplar for the bung. The argument is that at Maker's Mark they do a lot of taste-testing of the spirit as it ages. So to maintain accessibility as well as a good sealing, they lay a small square of burlap over the bung hole and then hammer in the walnut bung. The burlap provides the repeated access and the walnut, a denser, strong wood than poplar, provides the durability and sealing strength."

C) Lastly...

"As we walked from the still to the cistern room, we noticed a couple of metal pails, each nearly full of what looks like a gritty black powder with a small handful of white power thrown on top. Though we have visited many distilleries, this is something we had never seen before, or since. We asked one of the workmen and we got the beginning of an answer:

'Oh, those? Yeah, they go in the dog before it goes in the barrels'

We started to develop a hunch, that we later tested over lunch with Bill Samuels. Samuels straightforwardly explained that the stuff is mostly carbon, ground pure charcoal, that is stirred into the spirit as it collects in the cistern. Its purpose is to act as a kind of filter, like an activated charcoal filter. The carbon absorbs some of the more volatile and (at least in the Maker's Mark philosophy) undesirable congeners. One can certain notice a remarkable difference between the white dog as it comes straight off the still, and the spirit after the carbon treatment, just prior to being barrelled. Many of the coarser grain notes and highlights are subdued or entirely gone, and a mellowness, with rounded edges, is already present-effects that are in keeping with Maker's Mark intentions.

I could not believe they did this. Does this describe the "charcoal filtered" process I see on some Heaven Hill bottles? I always assume that since "filtered" was in the phrase, it was done at the end of the aging process, but I guess this makes more sense. Either way, I had no idea that Maker's utilized this process!?!? Any thoughts?

[cowdery]

The process Maker's uses is more like what Daniel's and Dickel do, in it's effect if not in the process itself. Producers such as Beam and Heaven Hill that put "charcoal filtered" on the labels of some products are mostly trying to confuse the consumer into thinking it's the same as the Daniel's process. In fact what they're referring to is the chill-filtering step that takes place right before bottling, which does involve activated charcoal. The amount of charcoal involved is very small, but charcoal is involved.

[nblair]

So usually when chill filtering, charcoal is used. Gotcha. So is what Maker's does unique as far as bourbon goes? It seems so odd to just dump ground charcoal into it right off the still.

[cowdery]

I've never heard of it before, including at Maker's, but it makes sense. Plenty of loose charcoal gets into the spirit in the barrel, all of which is filtered out before bottling.