MM Proof Change

[Brisko]

WHich made me think

The 75cl bottles are going from 56.25cl whisky to 52.50cl whisky

Why don't they just start bottling it all as 50cl cask strength. This will give even more bottles and have a huge enviromental impact as shipping water around the globe is kinda silly seen from an enviromental point of view

Steffen

[Rockefeller]

Can someone of reasonable expertise explain the following:

- Did they arrive at the 3% dilution cut because at 4% there was a noticeable difference?

- Does the lack of perceivable difference translate across consumption methods? i.e., you may not be able to notice it when drinking neat, but does the same hold when drinking on ice, or mixed in a cocktail?

[Josh]

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

[stevegoz]

Why not just keep the current bottle size, put a shot or so less in the bottle itself (while noting the actual quantity on the label -- 700ml or whatever; I don't do math on Mondays) and ultimately give the consumer the option to add the water to get to the full 750ml of 84 proof bourbon should s/he choose?

[callmeox]

Standard sizes in the US don't include 500 or 700ml options.

[Lazer]

I don't care about the environmental stuff (sorry) but this is the way I would like to buy my bourbon. 50cl cask strength. If every distillery started doing this I would feel like a kid in a candy store. :grin:

WHich made me think

The 75cl bottles are going from 56.25cl whisky to 52.50cl whisky

Why don't they just start bottling it all as 50cl cask strength. This will give even more bottles and have a huge enviromental impact as shipping water around the globe is kinda silly seen from an enviromental point of view

Steffen

[The Boozer]

TPS lists the quantity of MM stock as 417 bottles of 750ml, 773 bottles of 1.0L and 150 bottles of 1.5L. I wonder if they know something we don't.

[Gillman]

Bill Samuels, Jr. has a message about the change on the Makers Mark website, in the News area:

http://www.makersmark.com

He supports the decision, and says also that current tastings at Maker's itself for visitors are using the new 42% version. Any Bardstown-area SBers interested in this issue might drop by for a tour - the tour is always great - (Doug Philips if you are reading?) to check it out.

As I read him, Bill says the change in no way affects the taste profile, and that proof in and of itself does not define the whiskey meaning its essential attributes (which is fair enough).

Gary

P.S. This is a long thread and if his message was noted earlier here I'd ask the mods to delete this posting, I wish only to draw attention to the fact that he has said something about this.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Gillman

[Smokewagon]

Prices just went up a few bucks after the new year around here. So now folks will be paying more for less? Also, I don't buy the "scarcity" reason for dilution. I travel and visit about 9-10 of the same states, every year a few times a year. One thing I have never noticed being scarce in any liquor store I visit in any of these states is Maker's, of any size. (The states I visit are in the New England area and the Midwestern part of the US).

~SW

[Kalessin]

I read Bill Samuels Jr.'s post in the Maker's Mark website news section.

While the post "feels" genuine, it also sounds like damage control and repeats a lot of what was said in the letter to the brand club. The fact that a post like this is there at all is telling. Just a few minutes of reading out around the internet shows that customers and media are reacting badly.

Maker's Mark has had a very long-running marketing message of not compromising or changing their core product, the one on which their brand is built (and it's not like they've been producing many other products).

Sometimes betraying a years-long marketing message doesn't affect a company negatively at all: I remember years of Jim Koch on Boston-area radio stations, starting right around the initial release of Samuel Adams Lager in 1984, insulting light beer and promising that Boston Beer Co. would never, ever produce a Samuel Adams Light. Yep, never, ever until they released Samuel Adams Light in 2001. It helps that they produce a lot of different and excellent beers, but I remember the brand turn-off I had when the light beer came out. I still avoid Sam Adams unless there's no other decent beer at a bar, and I don't buy it for home. But Boston Brewing Co. remains huge in the market, and their sales haven't suffered from the change.

On the other hand, sometimes companies end up in a "New Coke" situation.

On a personal level, I think Maker's Mark is doing the wrong thing, and I think they're betraying their original product, passion and message. I guess that their corporate ownership hasn't given them a choice about it. I'll probably buy a few bottles at 90 proof to stash in the basement, and then I'll move on to other brands because there are other fine wheaters out there at 90 proof and higher.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Kalessin

[squire]

Older as well . . .

[Kalessin]

Older as well . . .

[Smokewagon]

Older as well . . .

[squire]

Weller 12 is what came to mind but the 107's no slouch either.

[JPBoston]

Weller 12 is what came to mind but the 107's no slouch either.

[SFS]

I'm becoming extremely partial to both, mixed at 1:1.

[Gillman]

Weller 107 seasoned with some 12, enough to bring it down to 100 proof, sounds very good too.

Gary

[p_elliott]

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.

I would venture to guess the person in charge of the FB page took it upon themselves to call out MM. Then the higher ups at BT said we don't do that in this industry and take it down. The bourbon industry is a brotherhood they help each other out.

Edited February 11, 2013 by p_elliott

[jeffrey r]

I would venture to guess the person in charge of the FB page took it upon themselves to call out MM. Then the higher ups at BT said we don't do that in this industry and take it down. The bourbon industry is a brotherhood they help each other out.

That's what I would have thought, though BT did follow up their "super"-snarky original post on FB, with the following "just"-snarky post on FB that has not been pulled:

"90 PROOF" with a picture of BT.

Perhaps b/c it is the BT page, they don't and won't refer to the Weller wheated bourbons, but that is the logical distinction for the distillery to point out--wheated bourbons of greater age and proof than MM, at a better price (that most of us here would also say taste better than MM).

Anyway, the whole thing is pretty interesting, and will be more interesting to see how it plays out in the short and long term.

[Josh]

Larceny posted a similar one, with a picture of the bottle with "92 Proof".

[squire]

Trying to steal the attention?

[qman22]

I saw this linked on the MM facebook page. I wonder if this guy still works at Beam...

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/derbycitycents/2013/02/11/irony-makers-mark-owner-beam-criticized-jack-daniels-for-watering-down-whiskey-in-2004/

[ThirstyinOhio]

This is a response that I just received back from an email I had sent. It is obviously a canned response, but it does show that they are getting a bit of a beating from their fans:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts regarding our recent announcement. We always appreciate open and honest conversation about Maker’s Mark, and we’ve gotten plenty of feedback, both supportive and otherwise. In order to respond to everybody quickly, please allow me to offer several thoughts that might answer most of the questions we’re hearing.

And by the way, I asked Rob if I could write this response since many people have wondered if I’m on board with the decision to lower the alcohol-by-volume (ABV) level. I am, and here’s why.

First, it’s important to understand that our primary focus now and for the past 50 years hasn’t changed. It’s product quality and consistency, batch-to-batch, year-to-year, with the primary measure of that consistency being the unique Maker’s Mark taste profile. That’s all that truly matters in the end.

Since we’re a one-brand company that’s never purchased bourbon from other distillers when supplies are short, forecasting is very difficult. Over the years, our one variable that helps us avoid market shortages has been the age of the whisky in the Maker’s bottle. That range is between five years nine months and seven years. Because Maker’s Mark is aged to taste, Dad never put a specific age statement on the bottle. It wasn’t the age that mattered; it was the taste, the quality and the consistency.

Some people are asking why we didn’t just raise the price if demand is an issue. We don’t want to price Maker’s Mark out of reach. Dad’s intention when he created this brand was to make good-tasting bourbon accessible and to bring more fans into the fold, not to make it exclusive. And, with regard to the price, the value of Maker’s Mark isn’t set by alcohol volume. It’s about the quality of the recipe and ingredients that go into it, all the handcrafting that goes into the production and how it tastes.

Some of you have questioned how we reduce the alcohol content. The fact is, other than barrel-strength bourbons, all bourbons are cut with water to achieve the desired proof for bottling. This is a natural step in the bourbon-making process. Maker’s Mark has always been made this way and will continue to be made this way.

As we looked at potential solutions to address the shortage, we agreed again that the most important thing was whether it tastes the same. The distillery made up different batches that Rob and I tested every evening over the course of a month. Every batch at 42% ABV had the same taste profile that we’ve always had. Then, we validated our own tastings with structured consumer research and the Tasting Panel at the distillery, who all agreed: there’s no difference in the taste.

For those of you who have questioned if the supply problem is real, I can assure you that it is. While not every part of the country has seen shortages yet, many have, and the demand is continuing to grow at a pace we’ve never before experienced. While we are investing today to expand capacity for the future, by producing 42% ABV Maker’s Mark we’ll be able to better meet our ongoing supply issues without compromising the taste.

Ultimately, all I can ask is that you reserve judgment until you actually taste the whisky, like I did. If you can make it down to the distillery, we’re doing tastings every day with the 42% ABV whisky to give you a first-hand opportunity to try it for yourself. If you can’t make it to the distillery, please give it a try when it gets to your city. And please write me back at that point. I want to hear what you think.

In the meantime, I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to write. It shows that you care about Maker’s Mark, and that’s what we’ve been striving for over the past 50 years. I hope you’ll give us the chance to continue earning that devotion and allow us to prove that we didn’t screw up your whisky. All the best.

Bill Samuels, Jr.

Chairman Emeritus

Ambassador-at-Large

Maker’s Mark Distillery

3350 Burks Spring Road

Loretto, KY, 40037

WE MAKE OUR BOURBON CAREFULLY. PLEASE ENJOY IT THAT WAY.

Maker's Mark® Bourbon Whisky and Maker's 46® Bourbon Whisky. 42% and 47% ABV.

© 2013 Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. Loretto, KY.

[squire]

In other words, we're just following orders.

[ebo]

If MM would come out with a once a year 100+/barrel proof product, I don't think there would be this much bitching over a 3% drop in ABV in the standard product.