MM Proof Change

[cowdery]

If you haven't bought a bottle of Maker's Mark in the last 30 days, what you think doesn't matter.

And another thing.

Enough with the outrage.

Whenever one of these capitalist companies does what a good business does, the bourbon enthusiasts all turn into communists. It's spin, sure, trying to put the best face on something they know a lot of people won't like, but there is nothing immoral, unethical, dishonest, or stupid about it.

[MyOldKyDram]

I'd buy some just so that I could maintain my bitching rights, but I doubt I'd be able to find any.

[JPBoston]

If you haven't bought a bottle of Maker's Mark in the last 30 days, what you think doesn't matter.

And another thing.

Enough with the outrage.

Whenever one of these capitalist companies does what a good business does, the bourbon enthusiasts all turn into communists. It's spin, sure, trying to put the best face on something they know a lot of people won't like, but there is nothing immoral, unethical, dishonest, or stupid about it.

I don't think anyone has said they want to FORCE their opinion on MM, so your comparison to communism is quite silly. They're simply venting that a staple of the bourbon-world is lowering their quality and that sad fact bums them out. I've seen no call-to-arms for fellow SB'ers to gather their pitchforks and Molotov-cocktails and head for Kentucky. I've seen no one asking how we can lobby congress to stop this from happening. I don't know, maybe I missed a few of the more entertaining posts.

But I HAVE skimmed a few posts bemoaning the point of business practices and how the simpletons who are upset just don't 'get it'... which comes off as masturbation at best and condescending blow-hardery (new word, deal with it) at worst. Little newsflash for you, someone can be annoyed at how a business decision affects them or their hobby, while still UNDERSTANDING the business reasons behind it.

This IS a bourbon forum after all... Where else are bourbon hobbyists going to vent? If we wanted to debate business ethics, practice and strategy, we'd be posting on the Forbes forum.

[JPBoston]

I'd buy some just so that I could maintain my bitching rights, but I doubt I'd be able to find any.

LMAO!!

*geting around posting minimum guidelines, please ignore. *

[camduncan]

Geez, it's been 80 proof (in a 700ml bottle) here in Australia for the last 3-5 years, and we have to pay an average of $40 if we want to enjoy the only wheated bourbon available on our market. I'd take what you guys are being offered at the prices you pay in a heartbeat!

[theglobalguy]

I'd buy some just so that I could maintain my bitching rights, but I doubt I'd be able to find any.

Could picket in front of the distillery, but Chuck does seem to have a point.

Now, when they push the laws to be changed to hide the proof...then i'll get pissed. Still have respect for Maker's as it was my first bourbon and my first distillery tour.

[squire]

I'd forgotten about that Cam . . . I feel your pain brother.

[MyOldKyDram]

Could picket in front of the distillery, but Chuck does seem to have a point.

Nah, I really and truly do not give a rip. I don't think most people here do. Just busting some Maker's balls. I'm sure they'll get over it.

[G-Rat]

If you haven't bought a bottle of Maker's Mark in the last 30 days, what you think doesn't matter.

And another thing.

Enough with the outrage.

Whenever one of these capitalist companies does what a good business does, the bourbon enthusiasts all turn into communists. It's spin, sure, trying to put the best face on something they know a lot of people won't like, but there is nothing immoral, unethical, dishonest, or stupid about it.

Please note that I definitely agree with you. When I said "puts a nice shine on it..." in reference to Bill Samuels letter I meant it positively not negatively. To me this is what happens when you make a product that people want to buy and want to distribute it to an enormously large market...these companies play an amazing balancing act to put out a great product at a high volume and at a price point that sustains their companies growth over the long haul. So the fact they dropped the proof to stay in the market is what happens to get that much whiskey out there. For instance, EWB black is honestly the Holy Grail of bourbons (aside from VOB or EW White Label...or fighting cock...can you tell whose bourbon I like!?). $20 a handle where I'm at. That's outrageous. And its distributed all over the world. But it used to have an age statement (although I found a dusty old 7yr age stated and didn't think it was too different) used to be 90 proof. But its hard to do something at that high of a level and not have the forces of entropy massively at work against you. I'm still glad I can get it for the same price it used to be because to me it still tastes like Evan Williams. I think we can all agree the large majors do something quite amazing in creating a consistent product that still has artisan roots that doesn't cost an arm and a leg...makes me tear up a little with gratitude...

That being said...sometimes a little communist social anger and outrage creates a challenge that forces things to happen. Enter small artisan distillers...these folks end up pushing the majors to do things they never really would have without their presence. For instance JD's making rye whiskey for the first time ever...and is gouging people for the white dog because the little guys have created a demand for it. I think a little of both is good. With the majors though I think we should expect this sort of thing to happen. I'll still respect the people who I think do it better (ahem...HH...)

...well maybe holy grail is a little strong...I just like it i guess is the point.

End rant.

Edited February 9, 2013 by G-Rat

[doubleblank]

Hey Josh......there is a pic posted somewhere deep on this sight of the Weller Water to add to your Weller Bourbon. I recall even seeing an ad for it in Texas Monthly a long long time ago. It might be found in a search of Texas Monthly's online records.

[cowdery]

I am silly and I do masturbate, so I guess I can't take too much offense at JPBoston's just-a-little-too-hostile response to my earlier post. I will point out, however, that quite a few of the posts in this thread have accused Maker's Mark of dishonesty, at least, so I stand by my critique.

To which I would add that I frequently am frustrated by people who attack people and companies and governments for the wrong things, such as in this case where the right thing to attack Beam for, assuming they sincerely regret the need to cheapen Maker's Mark, is for failing to avert the problem years ago, which they did by postponing the distillery's planned expansion for more than eight years.

I would also point out that metaphorical masturbation is never as enjoyable as the real thing.

[SFS]

Thanks for that Cam (#80, I mean). It reminded me that perspective is everything, and different for everybody.

[shoshani]

In the long run of things, it's not the first nor will it be the last time a major whisky, even a historic one, has lowered its proof. The question is whether the proof will ever return to its old strength, which is not addressed in the Ambassadors' letter I received via email.

Jimmy Russell, by contrast, is adamant that the only reason he doesn't have a 101 rye on the shelves at the moment is because he doesn't have enough stocks that have aged to his liking for the 101 profile, and when he does it will be back. I hope the same is true eventually for Maker's, which is admittedly one of those bourbons I keep on hand because I feel my shelf is naked without it, even though I drink far more OWA.

[squire]

I thought the Rye 101 was four years old, according to an interview with Mr. Russell that I read some 20 or so years back.

[Clavius]

I guess this means MM will be changing the advertising on their cases:

[squire]

Be careful what you commit to writing.

[shoshani]

I thought the Rye 101 was four years old, according to an interview with Mr. Russell that I read some 20 or so years back.

Jim Murray's whiskey books from the late 1990s maintained that it was four years, but in that video that was linked here on the SB forums, I believe he said he likes it around 6. I haven't watched it recently so could be misremembering, but he definitely said in there that as soon as they have rye stocks aged enough, 101 will return.

[JPBoston]

I am silly and I do masturbate, so I guess I can't take too much offense at JPBoston's just-a-little-too-hostile response to my earlier post. I will point out, however, that quite a few of the posts in this thread have accused Maker's Mark of dishonesty, at least, so I stand by my critique.

"Too hostile" --

Coming from the guy who called his fellow SB'ers "communists" and telling them their opinion (of bourbon) doesn't matter (on a bourbon forum). Go figure.

But I'm done arguing as I have no horse in this race. MM isn't bad (imo of course), but doesn't stand up to anything else in its price range (even at 90 proof). Can't find a way to blame fans and other enthusiasts for venting though, as lower proof at the same price is never a good thing for us, the consumers.

[macdeffe]

It has been mentioned that a cut of 3% isn't much

Here are some maths which I based on the whisky being 60% from the cask (http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.dk/2013/02/why-is-makers-mark-watering-its-whiskey.html)

Lowering the proof will expand number of bottles with around 7%

45% ABV MM holds 25% water and 75% whisky. Thats 18.75cl per bottle

42% ABV MM holds 30% water and 70% whisky. Thats 22,50cl per bottle

This means, if I haven't messed up my calculations (very likely) that every bottle of Makers mark will hold 6.6% less pure whisky

Steffen

[macdeffe]

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

[mrt]

http://qz.com/#52478/makers-mark-waters-down-its-bourbon-to-meet-rising-demand/

Here's the link I accessed via Linkedin. Hopefully they will not make JBW 37% ABV

Regards,

[barturtle]

Not only are they putting 6.5% less stuff out of a barrel in each bottle (and charging you the same), but they are also paying less in excise taxes for each of those bottles...this could nearly double the 6.5% figure as far as profit goes...money grab.

[squire]

Has anyone done a direct taste comparison of the regular MM with the 37.5 % expression available overseas?

[funknik]

I think you are spot on here and it is exactly what I was thinking. There aren't that many whiskey purists who have MM and JD as their go to whiskey. The people I know who always reach for it will probably agree that it the best part of the change is the less alcohol burn (it will make it smoother!!).

[ebo]

For those of you that have tasted the gold wax version of MM..... is it substantially better than the red wax?

Another thing..... why wouldn't MM put the gold wax back on the market as maybe a once a year release for the enthusiast? That seems like a smart move to me, instead of alienating a segment of your customers, albeit a small one. I suppose that when that small segment doesn't really matter to your bottom line, that probably isn't something that they would even consider, unfortunately.