1. 42% ABV (where Maker's was headed) is fine for a mint julep. Here, Eric Felten of the WSJ gives an appropriately glowing review to Evan Wiliams based juleps. Evan Williams is 43% ABV. (Maker's is 45%.) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120916374801546109.html Yes you make it with lots of crushed ice and some branch water but that doesn't mean you need "~100 proof liquor," which is 50% ABV seen in contemporary "barrel strength" bottlings but not in any bottled whiskey available historically when the julep became popular. In other words, the julep is meant to be a little "watery," and in fact has enough water to open up the bourbon so you can more fully taste it. You might prefer it with a strong whisky but that's really an orthogonal issue as the julep became popular when made with standard strength bourbon (and anyone who wants a meaningfully potent bourbon will upgrade to barrel or cask strength anyway).

2. Other than the julep and perhaps the "whiskey highball" (not drunk nearly as much today as 50 years ago) you should not find many "bourbon drinks" with lots of ice.

The most popular cocktails today made with bourbon are the Manhattan and the Old Fashioned (both arguably better with rye, but whatever). The Manhattan is traditionally served "up" (no ice); the old fashioned is properly served with either one very large cube or a few medium large cubes. Anyone serving with smaller ice (bad idea) is not going to go to the trouble of serving a 50%+ ("~100 proof") ABV barrel- or cask- strength bourbon. And anyway over proper ice a 40% ABV bourbon is just fine, thank you, in an old fashioned.

Another popular bourbon drink would be the whiskey sour, served either iceless or like an old fashioned (ice wise).

3. In no way are whiskey cocktails particularly likely to be icey or watery vs cocktails made from other spirits. Gin has the Tom Collins, Gin Rickey, and Gin & Tonic, all watery enough to compete well against the julep and whiskey highball. Rum has the mojito, for which the same holds true; vodka the Moscow Mule and screwdriver.

Anyway, I agree that this was a dumb move on the part of Maker's Mark, but not because it involves any actual functional issue in terms of mixing drinks. It's dumb because the brand stood for a particular flavor profile, and people paid extra to get that flavor profile, and you don't go changing it out from under them. Life is complicated enough without liquor brands getting all dynamic on us.

For traditionalist sticklers, you can purchase Evan Williams 100 proof fairly commonly (white label).

99% of people honestly could not care less and probably shouldn't. I only care for traditionalism's sake that I grew up on the KY border and simply like to do it the "right way" down to the pewter goblets, ya know? (us dirt farmers don't mess with silver)

EW is solid, it's what most higher end bars use as rail whiskey. They make a single barrel small batch also that's really fantastic. I'll have to give credit to John C. Dvorak for the recommendation on that one. $25 a fifth too.

Had no idea about the white label 100, I bet that's even better for derby juleps :) I will defer to the dirt farmers here. I come from a line of Texas circus performers, I don't think they knew much about cocktails because they tended to put the booze directly in the glass (not necessarily a good thing, given the number of broken homes!)

Anyone who pours perfectly good cask-strength bourbon into a cocktail deserves whatever they get. :)

Actually, I sometimes make a Old Fashioned with my cask-strength single barrel Four Roses, brown sugar, orange bitters. Remarkably good, very sharp.

If I took 1,000 people at the Kentucky Derby and did a blind taste test of 90-proof Makers and 84-proof Makers, what % would you think could notice the difference?

Products are diluted and reformulated all the time to save cost. The half-eaten box of Girl Scout Samoa cookies on my desk right now reminds me every year. But why make it such a public thing so loudly? Were they afraid whisky fans would start an uproar and this was a preemptive notice?

To me Makers was already a subpar julep liquor for the reason it was 90 proof. Making any weaker simply takes it totally out of contention for serious bartenders. The reality is people who are not serious already don't care and they'll make a julep out of regular Jim Beam. Makers is not in that market though, I generally think of Makers as a good default fallback whiskey if I can't get some great 100 proof small batch whiskey. If they simply turn it into Jim Beam, they're neutering their brand. You have to have SOMETHING so you can charge an extra 7 or 8 bucks, even if it's exclusively perception.

Are you sure about this? Cocktails are already heavily diluted; isn't the booziness of the bourbon a rounding error?

Here's a great Dave Arnold article:

http://www.cookingissues.com/2009/10/29/cocktail-science-v-i...

You mean those people paying $2,000 for a bottle of champagne in Vegas are just getting regular ol' $50 bottles of the stuff? I'm shocked! =)

So that they can impress girls at the club who they have to pay for afterwords?