Jim Beam’s latest bottle celebrates 85 years of lawful whiskey making, and we’ll definitely drink to that.
The iconic distillery is launching Jim Beam Repeal Batch, an 86-proof, non-chill filtered version of their Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey that harkens back to full-flavored booze James B. Beam produced following the repeal of the 18th Amendment in 1933, which ended Prohibition in the United States.
A ’30s era label from the Jim Beam whiskey bottles that inspired Repeal Batch. Jim Beam Repeal Batch’s label.
Fred Noe, Jim Beam’s seventh generation master distiller, told Maxim exactly how Repeal Batch differs from their flagship bourbon.
“Much like my great-grandfather’s recipe produced after the distillery reopened after Prohibition, Jim Beam Repeal Batch is non-chill filtered to create a fuller mouthfeel,” says Noe.
“The lack of chill filtration, as well as the aging process, contributes to the bourbon’s unique flavor and honors the style of bourbon my family produced back in the ’30s.”
Each dram of Repeal Batch has a “light amber color along with oaky notes with light vanilla and brown spice aroma.”
Sippers can expect “char and caramelized tones with light sweetness and a pleasant finish of sweetness, oak and char.” Sounds about right to us.
Jim Beam Repeal Batch will be available for $17.99 at your local liquor store this September. Visit their website for further details.
Follow the Fashion Week catwalks or pick up any magazine right now, and you’ll notice the lingerie-as-daywear trend. Yep, it’s totally okay to leave the house baring your bra—thanks, Millennials!—if done right.
That tiny caveat is why we wanted to take a minute with Bare Necessities buyer Kelly Himes. She’s sharing her best styling advice, and taking trepidation out of the equation, so you can step out in confidence.
“Silky, lacy pieces used to never see the light of day, and that’s a shame. All that’s changing now. These separates are making their way out, and why not? What’s the point of saving your prettiest underthings for the dark?” says Kelly. “These pieces blur the line between innerwear and outerwear, doubling the use you can get out of them. Of course they’re perfect in the bedroom, but don’t be afraid to incorporate them in with the rest of your closet. It’s a cool, modern way to think about getting dressed.”
The key to not feeling overexposed: balance. Pair something frilly with deconstructed denim; a crop top with a high-waist bottom, fitted with flared.
“Find your own style within each category,” suggests Kelly. “You can go fully lined if you’re not a lingerie lover, or you can go sheer if you’re expert-level. Try it out, mix it up, see the reaction you get and have fun. It’s only fashion.”
A PRETTY TEDDY
This is the intersection of comfort and cutting-edge. The surprisingly versatile teddy is basically a fancy bodysuit that goes beautifully with a more casual contrast, like ripped jeans or a denim miniskirt. Choose color here so the look reads more bold, less strictly boudoir.
“Loungewear and athleisure had a moment last year; this is kind of like a dressed-up take on loungewear,” explains Kelly, who suggests wearing an outfit along these lines for daytime—say, going out on the weekend with friends.
A FASHION BRALETTE More structured and detailed than your everyday basic pullover bralette, the sexy bustier-inspired style is all kinds of talented: It can be layered under a sheer top, worn with a cardigan and paired with an of-the-moment high-waist skirt or pant.
“I would reserve this look for a night out,” says Kelly, who also finds it works for a music festival in warmer weather. “Or break it out on date night.”
A SERIOUS STATEMENT-MAKER
Attire with attitude is sort of the opposite of the more touchable, approachable stuff. Think faux-leather, bondage-inspired straps and risqué cutouts. They’re more brazen and tough than delicate and pretty.
“Put these pieces with leggings, jeans—anything basic really,” says Kelly. “Just add a heel or boot to command control of any room.”
While Elon Musk has been having a pretty crappy couple of weeks—slammed for smoking weed on Joe Rogan’s show, lost members of Tesla’s board—he’s still got some interesting stuff going on, like sending giant machines into the earth to make tunnels for super-fast trains.
Elon Musk getting musky
Let’s be frank, running those huge machines with an Xbox controller sounds like an idea from someone who just smoked a bomber joint. Yet it’s undeniably amazing to watch.
Electrek explains why Boring Co. workers were even bothering:
Currently, boring machines, including the one used in the Hawthorne tunnel by the Boring Company, require a worker moving around with the tool in order to guide it in the right position, which is both inefficient and dangerous.
It looks like the startup is attempting to find new ways to control and place those sections.
Who knew playing Xbox might lead to such an awesome sci-fi kind of job?
If new ways to run those massive machines end up as simple as attaching them to game controllers, a lot of high school kids might end up with awesome summer jobs, courtesy of the Boring Co.
The ever-vigilant WAGs-watchers at Barstool caught this: It looks like pics of golf pro Dustin Johnson can no longer be found anywhere in Paulina Gretzky’s Instagram profile.
That’s significant. It means Barstool folks pay unusually close attention to Gretzky’s Insta (who are we to judge?) and it may signal the couple is over and done.
Seriously, Tiger Woods is still there but Johnson is gone? Something is definitely afoot.
Other online publications have taken the tack of posting thumbnails of Paulina Gretzky’s entire feed to prove the point, but we’ll avoid that and just say we believe them.
Gretzky is, of course, is a longtime Maxim favorite, and it’s not like we need to explain why.
We’ve covered this couple in the past, and it’s worth noting that some there are some telltale missing Instas from this post published in 2016.
Our intense 5-minute sleuthing does lend some credence to the assertion that images of the happy couple are indeed gone from Gretzky’s account.
Which is a great reason to remind you how killer that account truly is, regardless of who else is in photos with her.
Serena Williams blew up in her losing bid for the US Open title Saturday and many were upset on her behalf—including her opponent and eventual winner of their match, Naomi Osaka.
Chair umpire Carlos Ramos, who first penalized her for receiving what appeared to be signals from coach Patrick Mouratoglou then later for breaking her racket, may have contributed to Williams’ loss. Some observers thought so.
Williams’ responses to the umpire’s calls have been characterized as meltdowns, but that may not be totally fair. She reacted like pretty much any world-class athlete to what she saw as unfair rulings
Williams abused her racket, but Ramos did something far uglier: He abused his authority. Champions get heated — it’s their nature to burn. All good umpires in every sport understand that the heart of their job is to help temper the moment, to turn the dial down, not up, and to be quiet stewards of the event rather than to let their own temper play a role in determining the outcome. Instead, Ramos made himself the chief player in the women’s final. He marred Osaka’s first Grand Slam title and one of Williams’s last bids for all-time greatness. Over what? A tone of voice. Male players have sworn and cursed at the top of their lungs, hurled and blasted their equipment into shards, and never been penalized as Williams was in the second set of the U.S. Open final.
Pretty good case, especially the last sentence.
That said, the words Williams spoke in anger sparked less even-handed coverage. She reportedly told Ramos “You will never, ever be on another court of mine as long as you live. You’re the liar. When are you going to give me my apology? Say it! Say you’re sorry! You’re a thief too.”
Some felt she overshadowed Naomi Osaka’s win. Osaka was a model of good sportsmanship through it all, but clearly upset after her win, saying “I know everyone was cheering for her. I’m sorry it had to end like this.”
Williams was compassionate toward her opponent. “I felt bad because I’m crying and she’s crying (…) I was like, wow, I definitely don’t want her to feel like that. Maybe it was the mom in me that was like, ‘Listen, we got to pull ourselves together here.'”
Viewers used social media to vent for and against Williams’ behavior.
In statements following the match, Williams has been clear about what she felt: “I’m here fighting for women’s rights and for women’s equality and for all kinds of stuff. For me to say ‘thief’ and for him to take a game, it made me feel like it was a sexist remark.”
When past umpire reactions to the words and actions of men on the court are compared to Williams’, you can see her case.
Regardless of whether Serena Williams is right about sexism or not, she’s apparently going to pay for this.
Still, it sounds like professional tennis should address issues regarding differing standards for the behavior of players—standards that may be based in gender.
