Whiskey drinkers and Whisky drinkers, do you prefer a “Less potent drink” or are the people at Jack Daniels completely going off the deep end of the barrel?
I do not prefer a “Less potent drink” and will actually go out of my way to try a whiskey with a higher proof on the bottle. Am I in the minority?
I prefer the higher proof stuff. If they were really interested in providing people with a less potent drink, they would have cut it by something a little more noticable than 3% and marketed it as such.
Quietly knocking off six proof the way they did seems more like they were trying to water down the booze without anybody noticing. At least that’s what I’ll be thinking when I see Old Number 7 on the shelf at the store…
EZ
I actually think the more potent the drink, the more I can taste the full flavor of the whiskey. But my drink is Maker’s Mark (not an exceptionally high proof) so what do I know?
Actually, I think that the flavor comes out more in lower proof whiskeys. Not the higher proff whiskeys have less taste, but the taste is competing with the alcohol. Note that scotch whisky drinkers often add water.
As for the JD, I’ll have to try the 80 proof before I comment. I do like the JD green label. It’s not a ‘light’ version of the black label, but a different whiskey. But I also like Old Crow, so what do I know?
My favorites are the 90-proof Woodford Reserve and the 115+ proof Booker’s, so no, I’m not looking for a weaker whiskey. As far as scotch drinkers who add a splash of water, IME it’s a very small splash of water, designed to interact with the whiskey and bring out the flavor as opposed to diluting it.
On the other hand, I’m not often a good representative of the mainstream, so their market research may be right. As I pointed out in the other thread, though, it’s a lot easier for those who like it weaker to dilute it a little than for those who like it stronger to do the reverse. I suspect cost-cutting had more to do with it than drinker preference. If you take 7% of the non-water product out of the bottle and still charge the same price, you gain a nice bit of profit.
I don’t actually know what the proof of my favorite whiskey (Power’s Irish whiskey, if anyone is interested) is, but if they changed the proof, the flavor would probably change as well, and then I’d be upset.
Powers, being a blend, is 80 proof.
For real whisk(e)y drinkers, lowering the alcohol content will not improve the experience. I cannot see such a relatively small change making Jack more palatable to non-whiskey drinkers. This was strictly an economic move, and I hope that they pay for it with lower sales.
That being said, I am looking right now at bottles of Knob Creek (100 proof), Wild Turkey (101 proof), and the last bottle of JD I will buy (86 proof), so I guess you can tell which side of the issue I fall on.
As I mentioned before, my prefered bourbon is Weller Antique, at 107 proof. I am also fond of the various Wild Turkey bottlings, also at 107. JD will never get another sale to me.
That’s the last Jack Daniel’s I will ever buy, and I live mighty close to the distillery.
Most people wanted a less potent drink, my eye. They’re just pulling a very old cheap-ass-watering-hole trick and cutting the hooch.
Fuck that.
Maker’s Mark gal, myself. Don’t know nothin’ about proof, just hand me the Maker’s bottle.
I usually drink JD in the form of a Jack and Coke anyway, so I don’t need the company to be cutting it for me so as not to offend my delicate sensibilities.
It’s the principle of the thing. The “less potent drink” claim is total BS.
Now I just need to find a brand to switch to. I drank JD as a “southern pride” thing and because it was easy to order, more than anything else. And Southern Comfort is just nasty.
In fact, contact them and let them know how you feel. I just did.
Thanks for that email link, Ogre. I put it to good use! 
I thought this thread was going to be about real whiskey like Lagavulin instead of a pussy drink like Jack Daniels.
Me too. Is nothing sacred anymore?
I’ll take Knob Creek over even the Classic Jack anyday. Taste is the thing. I don’t think 151 proof rum tastes any better than the reg’lar stuff. If proof was the real deal, I’d gag down Everclear, :eek: but it’s not.
I’m a little confused as to why they don’t run a test first?
Maybe produce 2 different kinds of JD (one 86 proof, and another 80 proof).
That way they can see whether their marketing research is correct, without screwing over the drinkers.
Or am I missing something that going to make me look real stupid here?
:dubious:
Jack Daniels has never suited me. It taste so bad they run it through charcoal before it hits the shelf anyway. Prefer Makers Mark if I’m going to have whiskey but I usually drink tequilla, El Jimador.
I’ve read repeatedly that whisky was formerly much higher proof than it currently is. The story I’ve seen is that the whisky was watered to improve productivity in WW1 or WW2, and was never restored to full potency. Is this true? It might explain why formerly whisky was always taken with water, but now this is seen as adulterating the noble spirit. So was whisky formerly much higher proof before The Great War, and is now a shadow of its former self?
Cheers.