Maker's Mark Cask Strength Inconsistencies

[tarheel]

I've seen this topic mentioned here and there on the threads, but was hoping to get some more opinions.

 

I bought my first bottle of MMCS probably 2015 sometime, and I thought it was sublime. I honestly thought it was as good as the WLW I had a few years back. Tremendous.

 

I bought my second bottle last December and it was nowhere near as good. In particular, I got a strong acetone/chemical note on the nose that I just couldn't get over. On the palate it was also nowhere near as rich as my first pour. I gave it time, and it really didn't improve much.

 

I am really hesistant to give it another shot. Any advice? Has anyone else experienced this? In my ~7 years of bourbon experience I've never had anything like this happen before. Thanks.

[smokinjoe]

Hard to say, really.  I've been through several bottles, both early 375ml and later off the shelf 750 mls, and enjoyed all of them equally.  I'm guessing your palate has changed to where MMCS just doesn't hit your sweet spot any longer.  

[kevinbrink]

I have had pours from two bottles, one is mine one my brothers, and honestly I find them both heavy on the Acetone/Chemical thing, to say I dislike it is an understatement. 

[T Comp]

I haven't experienced this either tarheel and been through three including first gift shop release. As a batched non single barrel there really wouldn't be much variation. Even the proof on the releases has been within a few points. If you are getting acetone-chemical look for who snuck some Brown-Forman make into it . 

[jcal1985]

After visiting Maker's Mark this past weekend and seeing how they do the MMCS, I understand the inconsistencies. They are pretty much single barrel batches.  I expect variations on their products now. 

 

Btw....It's a great facility. 

[0895]

4 hours ago, tarheel said:

 

 

I am really hesistant to give it another shot. Any advice? 

 

Yes.

Air time!

I struggle with a lot of wheaters in this problem.  Just not good to my palate, until they get lots of air and the medicinal taste wears off.

 

Leave the bottle open for awhile / decant it back and forth a few times.

Leave your glass sit for 30 minutes to an hour before drinking.

Add a couple drops of good quality water if necessary.

 

Makers in general has been very rough in a newly opened bottle for me.

My cask strength got really good at half empty.  Also, take note of which batch (proof) your old one was.  I bet you could find it.  These tend to sit for awhile @ stores.

[Kpiz]

2 hours ago, jcal1985 said:

After visiting Maker's Mark this past weekend and seeing how they do the MMCS, I understand the inconsistencies. They are pretty much single barrel batches.  I expect variations on their products now. 

 

Btw....It's a great facility. 

 

Are you referring to MMCS or Maker's 46 Cask Strength? The Maker's 46 CS is done as a single barrel, but at least the first couple batches of MMCS consisted of many barrels vatted together.

[smokinjoe]

2 hours ago, jcal1985 said:

After visiting Maker's Mark this past weekend and seeing how they do the MMCS, I understand the inconsistencies. They are pretty much single barrel batches.  I expect variations on their products now. 

 

Btw....It's a great facility. 

Are you sure on this for the regular cask strength?  Or, do you mean the 46 Cask Strength?  I am pretty sure that there are more barrels used on the regular MMCS batches than just one.  

[tarheel]

3 hours ago, T Comp said:

I haven't experienced this either tarheel and been through three including first gift shop release. As a batched non single barrel there really wouldn't be much variation. Even the proof on the releases has been within a few points. If you are getting acetone-chemical look for who snuck some Brown-Forman make into it . 

 

Yeah, you guys are convincing me to just give it another shot. I'll buy a bottle and report back. At $49 here in NC for a cask strength, non chill-filtered wheater it deserves it. 

[fishnbowljoe]

3 hours ago, T Comp said:

I haven't experienced this either tarheel and been through three including first gift shop release. As a batched non single barrel there really wouldn't be much variation. Even the proof on the releases has been within a few points. If you are getting acetone-chemical look for who snuck some Brown-Forman make into it . 

 

I'm with Thad on this. I had a few of the early release 375's, and a more recent 750. They all tasted good to me.

 

Joe

[smokinjoe]

2 hours ago, fishnbowljoe said:

 

 They all tasted good to me.

 

Joe

 

As this is a wheater we're talking about, this is not the least bit surprising...you wheater whore...

[fishnbowljoe]

3 minutes ago, smokinjoe said:

 

As this is a wheater we're talking about, this is not the least bit surprising...you wheater whore...

 

Hey, what can I say?  Once a whore.......

[heydobro]

You guys are making me thirsty. I'm going to pour some tonight :-)

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[Clueby]

I don't dislike it but I find it pretty one-dimensional with sweetness being that one dimension. It tastes like a high proof version of Bernheim instead of regular MM to me.

[b1gcountry]

I get the grass taste pretty strong sometimes. Some days it is enjoyable, some days it isn't.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[DeepCover]

I get the inconsistencies with my MM private select bottle. It tastes a little different every time I go back to it. The store let me try a sample before buying and it was excellent. I'll continue to try and make it work, letting it sit in the glass for a while, etc.

[kevinbrink]

8 hours ago, DeepCover said:

I get the inconsistencies with my MM private select bottle. It tastes a little different every time I go back to it. The store let me try a sample before buying and it was excellent. I'll continue to try and make it work, letting it sit in the glass for a while, etc.

Well the private selects should vary that is the concept really since they all have different staves added.  

[DeepCover]

5 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

Well the private selects should vary that is the concept really since they all have different staves added.  

The private stocks should vary barrel to barrel, yes. I'm saying my bottle is different than the test bottle (from the same barrel) and also that the profile seems to change every time I go back to it. So I've seen some inconsistency even with the same barrel, acknowledging the profile is different than the standard MMCS.

[kevinbrink]

6 minutes ago, DeepCover said:

The private stocks should vary barrel to barrel, yes. I'm saying my bottle is different than the test bottle (from the same barrel) and also that the profile seems to change every time I go back to it. So I've seen some inconsistency even with the same barrel, acknowledging the profile is different than the standard MMCS.

I follow, I'll be honest I find MM to be very consistent the problem is I consistently don't care for the acetone I get from it regardless of air time.

[smokinjoe]

1 hour ago, DeepCover said:

The private stocks should vary barrel to barrel, yes. I'm saying my bottle is different than the test bottle (from the same barrel) and also that the profile seems to change every time I go back to it. So I've seen some inconsistency even with the same barrel, acknowledging the profile is different than the standard MMCS.

Is it possible that the change creating different profiles from pour to pour might be you?

[DeepCover]

7 hours ago, smokinjoe said:

Is it possible that the change creating different profiles from pour to pour might be you?

I haven't noticed this phenomenon with other bottles I have and I don't think I've ever had this after a glass of a different whiskey. That said, because of the profile change I've noticed, I do tend to analyze/scrutinize this one more than the other bottles I own.

[smokinjoe]

6 hours ago, DeepCover said:

I haven't noticed this phenomenon with other bottles I have and I don't think I've ever had this after a glass of a different whiskey. That said, because of the profile change I've noticed, I do tend to analyze/scrutinize this one more than the other bottles I own.

Sounds like an extremely complex whiskey, and you are able pull out the multiple different layers in its makeup.   Good on both the whiskey and your tasting abilities.

[tarheel]

14 hours ago, smokinjoe said:

Is it possible that the change creating different profiles from pour to pour might be you?

It's no doubt this might be the case. After having been a daily drinker of bourbon and scotch for almost ten years now, my best guess is that it's the whisky and not the taster (me) however.

 

Had a pour of OWA 107 at a restaurant after dinner last night and it was just delicious. That's what a wheater should taste like. Have no chance of finding it out in NC though. MMCS is in every ABC store.

[Flyfish]

On 3/29/2017 at 0:35 PM, 0895 said:

 

 

 

Makers in general has been very rough in a newly opened bottle for me.

My cask strength got really good at half empty.  

I have had this happen so many times that I'm convinced distillers could make a fortune selling the "second half of the bottle."

[EarthQuake]

I picked up a bottle of Maker's Mark CS a week or two ago and am disappointed with it. I don't really like MM in the first place so I don't know what I was expecting, but I read so many glowing reviews so I thought I would give it another chance. It's rough and hot for the relatively low 112 proof. CEHT barrel proof and Stagg Jr are in my mind much better while being higher, and significantly higher in proof respectively. But then I would take a standard bottle of Buffalo Trace (or Eagle Rare 10, or CEHT small batch) over MM any day so I guess that shouldn't be surprising. I guess the real lesson here is not to buy barrel proof versions of whiskeys that I don't love in the first place.

 

I'll probably vat it with something else and maybe throw it in one of my little barrels to age it some more and see if it gets better.

 

As far as wheaters go, I managed to find a bottle of OWA which to me is quite a bit better than MMCS at a pretty similar proof.

Edited March 31, 2017 by EarthQuake