MM Proof Change

[PaulO]

No, they're changing out the hand-dipped wax for a plastic shrink-wrap capsule with red wax printed on it, that can be applied by a machine. But that's the last change, honest. ...

I had to re-read this to make sure it said what I thought it said. :bigeyes: I'm still not sure if this is serious, or just Chuck's sense of humor. If MM looses the trademark red wax too, it will be obvious to most people that Beam is downgrading the brand. If it really happens, will MM threaten to sue the other companies that use plastic shrink-wrap capsules?

[Gillman]

I would call Four Roses Yellow Label a premium 80 proof and Jack Daniels too, also Basil Hayden albeit it is far from my favorite. Maker's can still claim this territory and of course it will still be above 80 proof, but it is a much milder tasting drink due to its formulation (the wheat content in part but just its overall profile). So some distinctiveness has been lost IMO by the drop to 42% ABV, it is less premium than it was.

Gary

Edited February 13, 2013 by Gillman

[squire]

Four Roses Yellow label is a good example of what a Maker can do with a 80 proof expression, of course Bourbons sold overseas have been 80 proof for years and Canadian spirits at 80 proof sell right smartly here.

Fortunately, in our domestic market, we have access to a good many Bourbons in the 86-90-100 proof categories.

[silverfish]

I'm on MM overload and too lazy to read through the entire thread so can

someone help out with a couple questions:

Has MM said that this proof drop is a temporary thing and it will return to 90

sometime in the future (like WT did with the Rye reduction)?

Can anyone think of an example of a brand that reduced proof which was later

returned to the higher proof?

[jeffrey r]

Has MM said that this proof drop is a temporary thing and it will return to 90

sometime in the future (like WT did with the Rye reduction)?

They are saying this is a permanent move. Quite surprising imho to say that so definitively, but that is what they are saying.

I might add, though I have not purchased MM in quite some time, that particularly due to the "permanent" qualifier they are using, I did put some MM on hold at a local store to pick up. May as well have a bit of the 90-proof stuff around the house.

Edited February 13, 2013 by jeffrey r

[squire]

Can't think of one offhand, at least not one that came back under the same brand.

[higgins]

I haven't seen anyone mention this quote from the Fox News article, directly preceding Chuck Cowdery's appearance:

"[bill Samuels Sr.] never really was wed to 90 proof anyway," [bill Samuels Jr.] said. "It's just that he had to pick something, and he knew that anything over 90, the alcohol smothered the taste of whiskey and he was a little nervous about going too much lower."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/02/12/maker-mark-reducing-alcohol-volume-to-stretch-supplies-its-bourbon-amid-strong/?intcmp=features#ixzz2KhdgGXNe

Strange thing to say, since they had a 101 proof expression in the past, and currently one at 94. The fact that this is their current talking point seems to offer even less of a hope that we'll ever see anything approaching 100 proof from this distillery.

[MyOldKyDram]

Almost gave in and bought a 45er today. Almost.

[smokinjoe]

I'm surprised that things are happening this quickly, but my local whiskey monger tells me that the shipment of MM 750's that he is getting in this week will be the lower proof stuff.

[Gillman]

Smothered the taste of the whiskey? Even if it was drunk in a cocktail, with soda pop or in a highball or even with ice alone, which I would think is the way 100 proof or any bourbon is usually drunk? Sounds odd to me.

To me proof has simply been a value proposition, i.e., I've always assumed that the more alcohol in the bottle, the better the value on a unit of alcohol basis. There is nothing magic in how the distiller puts water in (IMO), I can put in my own to get it (should I choose) where I want it to be.

I wonder if the numbers bear this out though. E.g. an interesting spreadsheet would be one which indicated the cost of different proof bourbons on a unit of alcohol basis. It would have to be done within a given age range though, say all bourbons from 4-5 years old, 6-8, 8-10, etc., something like that. An arbitrary factor would be involved but that's okay within reason. I would think the higher alcohol bourbons are better values, but am not 100% sure. At any rate, Makers, for those who view it as I do, at 90 proof is surely a better proposition than at 84 proof because the price hasn't come down.

Gary

Edited February 13, 2013 by Gillman

[Smokewagon]

I wonder if the numbers bear this out though. E.g. an interesting spreadsheet would be one which indicated the cost of different proof bourbons on a unit of alcohol basis. It would have to be done within a given age range though, say all bourbons from 4-5 years old, 6-8, 8-10, etc., something like that. An arbitrary factor would be involved but that's okay within reason. I would think the higher alcohol bourbons are better values, but am not 100% sure.

Gary

[smokinjoe]

This would be kind of neat to see. Of course the time involved puting something like that together might be limiting. Anyone know someone who has a fondness for spreadsheets and is a wee bit on the obsessive/compulsive side?

~S

[savagehenry]

Well I've never purchased a bottle of MM, so after reading this news I'm sure that trend will continue.

[Josh]

I nominate Squire.

[msk2718]

It's begun. I saw Maker's Lite 750s at a store in Chicago today. The 1.75s were still the 90 proof.

[kickert]

damn... that was fast!

[squire]

Fast as a Bedford Forest calvary attack, this was a done deal long before we heard about it.

[squire]

Spreadsheet? Me? I still write with a fountain pen.

[SFS]

Everything on the shelf today in the local Total Wine was still 90 proof, in all three sizes.

[Yeti]

Against all of my better nature I swung by to pick up 2 bottles, but at $29 I passed. I seem to remember this at <$25 very recently around here. Not a huge difference, but since I was talking myself into it to begin with, no go.

[HighInTheMtns]

Against all of my better nature I swung by to pick up 2 bottles, but at $29 I passed. I seem to remember this at <$25 very recently around here. Not a huge difference, but since I was talking myself into it to begin with, no go.

I laughed at this. I've gone to the store to bunker a bottle or two of Maker's twice so far, and both times when it came down to taking one off the shelf, I ended up passing. It already costs too much, adding water just makes it worse.

[White Dog]

Picked up a damn handle for $40. While paying I muttered, "can't believe this is a friggin' dusty." The clerk said, "huh." "Nevermind," I replied.

[shoshani]

It's begun. I saw Maker's Lite 750s at a store in Chicago today. The 1.75s were still the 90 proof.

[Yeti]

Astorwines.com has a 15% off American whiskey deal today which makes a 1.75 MM $42.50. It also results in lots of other good deals ($25 ER, $30 willet rye/HW DR), but it's a good price point for MM specifically.

MM is the "top shelf" bourbon we had at my wedding (and the bourbon in my flask in my jacket pocket, and what i drank at the after party following the reception) and the idea of not having some in the closet to pull out at some random point in the future is starting to register with me. On one hand I haven't bought a bottle in years. On the other hand there's a damn good chance that I've had more fluid ounces of 90 proof Mark than any other bourbon in my lifetime. A pair of the big guys at a god price should put my mind at ease.

[msk2718]

Here's a short, but good, piece on what MM has done to its brand.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2013/02/14/makers-mark/