Page 1 of 1

Comments on Mike's review of Makers Mark

Unread postPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:18 pm
by forumadmin
This is an automatically created topic for discussion about Mike's review of Makers Mark;.

Unread postPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:18 pm
by Bourbon Joe
I'm glad you liked it Mike. I hear a lot of people bitchin about the taste of Makers Mark. I, for one, like it and agree with your review.

Unread postPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:24 pm
by bourbonv
Maker's Mark is a decent bourbon. It used to be more than decent - it used to be down right great! My big complaint is that the brand has been sliding downhill in quality. Think of it this way - how would you feel if 15 YO Pappy sild down the taste scale to place it on par with a decent wheater, but not outstanding product such as, well Maker's Mark of today. That is about the same degree of decline that Maker's Mark has taken in the last 30 years.

Unread postPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:13 pm
by Mike
Who knows what mysteries lie in the heart of bourbon, or in the hearts of its lovers? (The Shadow, maybe?)

This particular 375 ml bottle of MM was excellent to much so that I will be buying a full 750 and hope it is likewise as good.

Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:22 am
by brendaj
It used to be more than decent - it used to be down right great!

I know I haven't cut Maker's any slack in the past, but you've made a believer out of me! The difference is undeniable. I now understand why my Dad would get so excited when he got his hands on a bottle. It reminded me of Stizel stuff.

The way I see it now, Maker's serves a purpose as a good entry-level Bourbon. Their marketing is genius (which by the way, was originally orchestrated by a fella named Jim Lindsey) and they help bring people into the fold. Have they made a fortune on colored wax?...yep. Have they dumbed down their Bourbon for the money?...yep. Still, I've talked with a lot of folks that started their Bourbon journey by drinking Maker's. I just think for what it is now, its way over priced. If it still had the flavor, the depth, the finish that it had in the early 60's, I would consider it a bargain. But for what they're bottling now, yer payin' a bunch for that red wax... :wink:

Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:36 am
by gillmang
I had a dram in a restaurant recently that was much like what Mike describes.

It had good flavor and depth, maybe it settled down in the bottle (I find "new" Maker's can be a bit spirity) or was just a particularly good bottling like Mike's seems to have been.

However I found the late 1960's one tasted with Mike Veach recently in a different class. It is probably the difference between small and large scale production.

For the price, I might choose a number of others but it is still a good drink.


Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:14 am
by Mike
Being the brave soul that I am I went out and bought a 200 ml bottle (the bottle I was drinking from for the review is gone).

It was quite nice but not as good as the previous one. I paid $8.75 for the 200 ml. I almost always have some MM in the cabinet and since I found what appears to have been a very good expression of it, I will continue to keep it on hand.

Bourbon drinking is not science and there are so many variables in the drinker and in the drink that surprises happen quite often. At times they can be unwelcome, but I wouldn't want it any other way.

Let the chips fall where they may!

Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:07 am
by bourbonv
You did a very good job of summing up the state of Maker's Mark, as far as I am concerned. The product was great and deserved the reputation it has now. In its prime, Maker's Mark also made whiskey as good as anything that ever came from Stitzel-Weller. It is just too bad those days are past. It is possible that the large corporate culture, dominated by accountants and marketing people at Jim Beam, may make things worse by making it even cheaper - raising barrel proof and reducing aging time to meet demand.

Unread postPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:41 am
by Brewer

It definitely sounds like you got a rare, exceptional bottling there. As so many have said before, MM ain't bad, it just doesn't compare well with a lot of the competition that has lots of complexities. This review sounds almost like the by-gone era good 'ole days of MM. I had the pleasure of tasting an older variety of MM courtesy of Mr. Veach at Bourbon Festival a few years back, and it was damn good. It is too bad that the accountants and book-keepers have caused this to generally become a relatively simple tasting, and therefore somewhat expensive bottling. Glad you got a good one here though!

Unread postPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:47 pm
by brendaj
It is possible that the large corporate culture, dominated by accountants and marketing people at Jim Beam, may make things worse by making it even cheaper - raising barrel proof and reducing aging time to meet demand.

Yepper, that scares me too. Maker's has thrown so much money at advertising that they have become almost the poster child for newbie Bourbon. So, its kinda important that MM remain at-least-decent entry level Bourbon.

IMHO, they have their process tweaked about as tight as a wheat mashbill will go. Wheat is so subtle that it really requires that lower barrel proof, and longer aging to unfold. If they try to wring any more money out of their process, it won't be pretty... :roll:

Unread postPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:27 am
by Mike
Being a bit of a foolish person, during the Super Bowl I was sipping a wee skosh of Weller whiskies and enjoying the bourbon, the game, and myself. I reviewed this 375 bottle of MM (I happened to find the last bit in that 375 ml bottle, it was not all gone as previously reported) in November and since I found the Weller Centennial to be superb bourbon I muttered to myself, muttered I, 'I wonder how that MM I liked earlier would stack up agin this wonderful Weller Centennial?' No sooner had I muttered these words than my faithful drinking companion and dog, 'Barleycorn' handed me a sip of the MM. The MM made a creditable showing and I was impressed, but the Centennial is a bit more complex. Still, MM in this instance is a fine bourbon. Barleycorn, who put his smeller in both glasses, allowed as how he knew it would be the Centennial that came out on top. Damn shitass dog, don't it just gall you when somebody (even a dog) knows you so good?