MM Proof Change

[Bourbon Boiler]

I don't mind this move at all. I often call MM the "entry" bourbon, and a lower proof will make it all the more pallatable for the non-whiskey drinker. I keep MM around for the sole purpose of giving people a "drinkable" whiskey when others are drinking the special WT products and BTAC. I think that purpose won't be lost.

Now, if I were a MM fan, I would understandably be upset. "I can provide my own water," is a pretty sound argument.

[Bourbon Boiler]

"The best advice Pappy ever gave my father", Bill (Samuels Jr.) said, "was to make a premium product, and to keep it in short supply. I can thank your grandfather for that as long as I live."

[squire]

Sound advise but the Samuels family hasn't been making the decisions at MM for about 30 years now.

[White Dog]

Maybe, Maker's has peaked. OK. But, it's still a great "brand". Companies would give their left wingnut to have the brand recognition that Maker's possesses. I would expand, and keep with the line-extension they began with the 46. I'm not sure of a better brand from a marketing standpoint, to raise the bar into the uber-dollar, uber-premium, segment with. Can you? I can't think but that they are so shortsightedly cheapening this good name...You're right Chuck, this is a mystery...So many things just not right, here. These ain't dumb people. What gives?

I've been thinking that while reading this entire thread. While I'm no great fan of Sazerac, can you imagine what that company would have done with this brand, rather than Beam.:bigeyes:

[ErichPryde]

Less whiskey going into the bottles of maker's mark, more whiskey they have to age, potentially, for another release other than 46. I can dream.

[oke&coke]

Always passed up Makers because I always figured it would be around so could grab it any time. May have to grab a bottle before the change shows up here.

[squire]

I can't count the number of times I've left something on the shelf thinking I would get it on another trip. People say it's never too late, how wrong they are.

[Rockefeller]

Does anyone have a sense of the quality of water MM will be using to dilute/cheapen their product? Mineral, spring, mountain melt, filtered tap?

[Josh]

Does anyone have a sense of the quality of water MM will be using to dilute/cheapen their product? Mineral, spring, mountain melt, filtered tap?

They draw their water from a spring-fed pond on the property. I assume its filtered.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Josh

[jeffrey r]

I had wondered whether BT and Heaven Hill might capitalize on this MM proof change, and BT answered my question this morning with a Facebook post stating that they do not water down their bourbon, linking to an article about the MM change. Then, curiously, they just pulled the post.

Having no links to the industry or the region, I am curious if the big distilleries view each other as brethren or rivals, but I wonder if BT got squeamish about calling out MM.

In any event, this would seem like a reasonable opportunity for HH to call out their 92-proof Larceny, and BT to call out the obvious age and proof benefits of the Weller line. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

[BourbonJoe]

I've been thinking that while reading this entire thread. While I'm no great fan of Sazerac, can you imagine what that company would have done with this brand, rather than Beam.:bigeyes:

I think the Beam's are getting greedy.

Joe :usflag:

[Josh]

That is kind of silly for BT to say that. Of course they water it down. All of them do.

[HighInTheMtns]

I had wondered whether BT and Heaven Hill might capitalize on this MM proof change, and BT answered my question this morning with a Facebook post stating that they do not water down their bourbon, linking to an article about the MM change. Then, curiously, they just pulled the post.

Having no links to the industry or the region, I am curious if the big distilleries view each other as brethren or rivals, but I wonder if BT got squeamish about calling out MM.

In any event, this would seem like a reasonable opportunity for HH to call out their 92-proof Larceny, and BT to call out the obvious age and proof benefits of the Weller line. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

They were wise to have pulled it; they have done the same thing in the past (ER10/101 for one) and probably can't say whether they will again. Same with HH (Evan Williams Black) although I do agree that they could use proof as a selling point for Larceny.

[Josh]

They were wise to have pulled it; they have done the same thing in the past (ER10/101 for one) and probably can't say whether they will again. Same with HH (Evan Williams Black) although I do agree that they could use proof as a selling point for Larceny.

Excellent point on the ER 101!

[jeffrey r]

Agreed on the wording of BT's post. It came off a bit disingenuous when I read it to be honest. They should be touting their products, rather than calling out the practice of watering down bourbon, which all of these guys do to some extent.

[Rockefeller]

Say what you will about the Pappy craze/availability, but when faced with the choice of putting out the better product vs producing 18% more bottles ... they chose to discontinue the ORVW10/90.

[barturtle]

One thing I've noticed is lots of people saying "it's just Maker's, who cares"

Well, I think we all should.

Maker's has been preaching "no changes, no compromise" longer than anyone, and I think they should be held to their own standard.

If they can get by with this change without anyone giving a shit, then so can any of your favorites.

Write to Bill and Rob expressing your displeasure in them sacrificing their own long espoused values and traditions. Publicly post on fb, twitter and your blogs.

[T Comp]

Say what you will about the Pappy craze/availability, but when faced with the choice of putting out the better product vs producing 18% more bottles ... they chose to discontinue the ORVW10/90.

That struck me as a bit strange though, the discontinuing of the 90 proof ORVW. The Lot B and 20 year are still 90.4 proof. I understand the scarcity of the 20 but always wondered why the Lot B 12 year, sandwiched between the 10 and 15 year, is only 90.4 proof.

[Rockefeller]

Over/under the number of days before MM reverses its decision (if at all)? I'm reminded of this little failed campaign:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1179702/never-mind-pepsi-pulls-much-loathed-tropicana-packaging

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/business/media/23adcol.html?pagewanted=all

[shoshani]

I guess I'll have to read this now. It's only ~$10 (ebook) at B&N.

It has its own chapter on Maker's Mark and how it got started. BTW, at $10 I definitely suggest grabbing it. I paid $15 for my ebook, still far lower than the print version.

[T Comp]

A quick check of Google news shows the story is picking up steam beyond the bourbon world: Atlantic Magazine, Business Insider, CNN Money. Samuels double downed on the decision, yesterday, to Louisville's WFPL too.

[bourbonandbacon]

i dont buy makers for home since i generally have better options there, but find myself often ordering it when out at a bar or restaurant because A) it is widely available and even places that dont have a good whiskey selection, i.e. an Italian restaurant and because i like the consistency and knowing what i am getting. i guess at a certain point, maybe i stop ordering it, but will try the 84 proof before i make any big proclamations. in any event, the facebook page for makers is pretty entertaining to read. people are getting pretty up in arms about it

[Rockefeller]

Any chance they will regret this little post?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Rockefeller

[ThirstyinOhio]

Any chance they will regret this little post?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14743[/ATTACH]

[squire]

If there really is a shortage wouldn't that drive the price up?