PDA

View Full Version : OWA-NAS/new label



fishnbowljoe
10-11-2009, 15:57
I really wish everyone would back off a bit on the OWA NAS/new label thing. It has been explained that the juice is still 7 years old. If you don't want to believe it, fine. At least give things a chance. It seems like a lot of folks are panicking and getting up in arms for no apparent reason. And yes, I am aware of what has happened with different labels in the past. Buy a bottle of each and have someone help you do a blind test. See if you can tell the difference. If it's noticeably different to the point that you can pick the new label out blindly (several times in a row), then panic and complain. Till then, step back and let things run their course. Like I said, at least give it a chance. Joe

birdman1099
10-11-2009, 16:04
The problem that I see is not what is in there now. I fully believe it is 7 yrs and may well be into the future. The only problem I have is that obviously BT "plans" on it being less that 7 yrs old at some point. Otherwise they would have put the age statement on there. I hope they never do, but if they had intentions to leave it at 7 yrs, they would have put it on the bottle like the SR.

spun_cookie
10-11-2009, 16:21
The problem that I see is not what is in there now. I fully believe it is 7 yrs and may well be into the future. The only problem I have is that obviously BT "plans" on it being less that 7 yrs old at some point. Otherwise they would have put the age statement on there. I hope they never do, but if they had intentions to leave it at 7 yrs, they would have put it on the bottle like the SR.


The same is true with Wild Turkey 8 yr. It went to Old # 8 and was teh same juice for a couple years... then 2 yrs went by and the slide started... by the time it was just plane 101 it was nothing like the 8 yr.

From a BT standpoint, it makes good since. They can not play with this label as they need. The will not change it for at least a yr, but I have a nickel that it will change...

... now if we get lucky with a glut... then it might be a 10 yr :D

OscarV
10-11-2009, 16:26
Maybe there is a silver lining, BT might hold the price on the Weller 12yo and there has been some speculation that they might bring back Centennial because it has not been removed from their www.greatbourbon.com (http://www.greatbourbon.com) website.

Man, wouldn't that be cool if Centennial and OCProprierter's Reserve made a come back?!?!

jburlowski
10-11-2009, 16:38
I really wish everyone would back off a bit on the OWA NAS/new label thing. It has been explained that the juice is still 7 years old. If you don't want to believe it, fine. At least give things a chance. It seems like a lot of folks are panicking and getting up in arms for no apparent reason. And yes, I am aware of what has happened with different labels in the past. Buy a bottle of each and have someone help you do a blind test. See if you can tell the difference. If it's noticeably different to the point that you can pick the new label out blindly (several times in a row), then panic and complain. Till then, step back and let things run their course. Like I said, at least give it a chance. Joe

Joe is right. We all need to chill a bit. The reality is that the days of the big bourbon glut are over... along with plentiful stocks of very cheap, aged distillate. Distillers will rationalize their products lines; ultra niche bottlings like Centennial are gone, perhaps forever. We still have, by all objective standards, a plethora of excellent bourbons to choose from, in a variety of age expressions. Greater variety and quality than in most days past (contrary to some of the romanticism for the "good old days").

I would love for the world to stay the same. Hell, I'd love to see dollar gas and the nickel Coke. But the world has changed. Deal with it.... until the next glut occurs.

ggilbertva
10-11-2009, 16:40
The problem that I see is not what is in there now. I fully believe it is 7 yrs and may well be into the future. The only problem I have is that obviously BT "plans" on it being less that 7 yrs old at some point. Otherwise they would have put the age statement on there. I hope they never do, but if they had intentions to leave it at 7 yrs, they would have put it on the bottle like the SR.

Joe, you are correct that it's been explained that the juice is still 7 years old and I don't think anyone is disputing that fact. The issue, one I've already pointed out as did birdman is what this does to future bottlings. Emerald made the historical case with the change to the WT label from an age statement to NAS and the slide in age that happened a couple years later. I can attest to the fact as I've had both the 8 year and multiple Old No. 8 WT and there is a difference and not for the better. This is not a bunch of snobs beating up BT but the outlet of frustration over a label that was well liked by many and the potential reduction of age in the future. Maybe BT keeps 7 years in the bottle for years to come and good for them but then again maybe not. Again, you're correct that folks should do a side by side comparison and if you can't tell the difference, then so what. But the simple truth is, if BT reduces the age, there will be a difference and with wheat bourbons, going younger isn't always a good thing.

ggilbertva
10-11-2009, 16:43
Joe is right. We all need to chill a bit. The reality is that the days of the big bourbon glut are over... along with plentiful stocks of very cheap, aged distillate. Distillers will rationalize their products lines; ultra niche bottlings like Centennial are gone, perhaps forever. We still have, by all objective standards, a plethora of excellent bourbons to choose from, in a variety of age expressions. Greater variety and quality than in most days past (contrary to some of the romanticism for the "good old days").

I would love for the world to stay the same. Hell, I'd love to see dollar gas and the nickel Coke. But the world has changed. Deal with it.... until the next glut occurs.

John, I agree to a point. My concern is that many distillery's are now doing these one off and boutique bottlings, something not done 15+ years ago where all the juice went into standard labels. Now, the aged stuff is getting held back and used in super premium bottlings. Maybe the amount is insignificant in the grand scheme of all things bourbon, but it certainly makes me pause and ask the question. What is the net affect of premium bottlings having on the standard shelf offerings?

jburlowski
10-11-2009, 16:53
John, I agree to a point. My concern is that many distillery's are now doing these one off and boutique bottlings, something not done 15+ years ago where all the juice went into standard labels. Now, the aged stuff is getting held back and used in super premium bottlings. Maybe the amount is insignificant in the grand scheme of all things bourbon, but it certainly makes me pause and ask the question. What is the net affect of premium bottlings having on the standard shelf offerings?

I would guess: very little. Most premium offerings are miniscule in volume compared to the cases sold by the standard offerings. I think the distillers are doing the best they can (for their shareholders and customers in both the short and long term) with the stocks they have on hand.

Accurately predicting demand and producing accordingly is difficult... hell, damn near impossible; particularly for products that are aged 7, 10, or more years.

I think the next (mini) glut will come relatively soon. Based on recent demand, all producers have recently ramped up production. With the impact of the recesssion (particularly for more expensive, aged product) likely to linger for years and recovery coming only slowly at best, I woudn't be surprised to see a "surplus" in five or six years.

OscarV
10-11-2009, 16:56
But the simple truth is, if BT reduces the age, there will be a difference and with wheat bourbons, going younger isn't always a good thing.

True, wheaters can take barrel time better than ryed bourbons and they(wheaters), taste better for it.


My concern but it certainly makes me pause and ask the question. What is the net affect of premium bottlings having on the standard shelf offerings?

We are seeing it, good standard shelf bottles are going up in price and down in quality.
But I have to admit over the last several years the super-premium bottles sure have been good.

spun_cookie
10-11-2009, 16:58
I woudn't be surprised to see a "surplus" in five or six years.

I agree and I think it may be what saves the OWA label. If we see a mini glut, that may cause a return of the 7 yr juice. If you are making it at least X yrs, you are going to take credit for it....

As an odd add in to the WT history, the late 93 juice in the Old # 8 is actually better than the 8 yr juice from 88-90. The 91-92 8 yr is great and the 92-94 8yr and Old # 8 are some of the best WT ever made.... Maybe we will see surge of better juice with the new label to sell it on us... I do beleive this was the concept with WT... so, by early and often the new label :)

spun_cookie
10-11-2009, 17:00
But I have to admit over the last several years the super-premium bottles sure have been good.

I hear that.... but you do get what you pay for...

Anyone had the new label WSR to compair to the old one?

cowdery
10-11-2009, 17:06
The way the producers look at this is that they are committed to maintaining a consistent taste profile for the brand. That is actually easier to do if they aren't restricted to stock above the label-stated age. And, yes, it's certainly more cost effective to use a 6-year-old that matches the profile rather than under-produce the expression because you don't have enough whiskey over 7-years available, that matches the profile as well. Therefore, the producers don't feel they are cheating the consumer by switching to NAS. I noted yesterday that both Special Reserve and Antique are still well under $20 a bottle, which I think is part of the point. I've said before that age statements are likely to be untouched in higher price ranges. The cards are getting a little shuffle right now, it's not the beginning of the end for age statements.

BourbonJoe
10-11-2009, 18:00
Therefore, the producers don't feel they are cheating the consumer by switching to NAS.

I beg to disagree.
Joe :usflag:

OscarV
10-11-2009, 18:13
I hear that.... but you do get what you pay for...

Anyone had the new label WSR to compair to the old one?

The packaging looks like the 12yo and the new OWA except it has the 7yo statement.
Looks sharp.

wadewood
10-11-2009, 18:14
Joe - strongly disagree with your assessment. Distillers do this because they think they can get away it - that most consumers will not notice and they will lose very little business because of change and ultimately they will make more profits.

You can choose to be one of those consumers who do not mind about the change - I'm not.

ILLfarmboy
10-11-2009, 18:25
The way the producers look at this is that they are committed to maintaining a consistent taste profile for the brand. That is actually easier to do if they aren't restricted to stock above the label-stated age. And, yes, it's certainly more cost effective to use a 6-year-old that matches the profile rather than under-produce the expression because you don't have enough whiskey over 7-years available, that matches the profile as well. Therefore, the producers don't feel they are cheating the consumer by switching to NAS. I noted yesterday that both Special Reserve and Antique are still well under $20 a bottle, which I think is part of the point. I've said before that age statements are likely to be untouched in higher price ranges. The cards are getting a little shuffle right now, it's not the beginning of the end for age statements.

All well and good. But a NAS bottling is only as good as the intentions of the distillery. No doubt six year old juice can hit that same profile but hard choices may have to be made down the road, the inclusion of some six year old juice that doesn't quite hit the flavor profile, or a hiatus in some markets while stock age a bit longer. In this way, I view an age statement as a self imposed restriction that not only, unfortunately, ties their hands from including younger juice that matches the profile, but more importantly, from the consumer's point of view, provides an 'age' firewall against the inclusion of younger juice that doesn't quite hit the profile. It stands to reason that it is easer to let a NAS bottling slip than one with an age statement.

Am I missing something?

cowdery
10-11-2009, 18:46
Am I missing something?

Not at all. That's a perfectly fair way to look at it.

On the other hand, an age statement is no guarantee of good whiskey either, it's just a guarantee that the whiskey will be at least 7-years-old. My point is if the 6-year-old is closer to the profile than the 7-year-old at any given moment, which would you rather have? It's not really an answerable question.

spun_cookie
10-11-2009, 19:23
Why? It still says aged 7 years on the label. Now we're starting to second guess new labels that state the same as the old ones. All this over a change in bottles. Wheeeeeeew. I must admit that there's some things I just don't get. Joe


not that Joe... curious if it has thinned any like the 09 OWA compaired to the 07 version...

I bet the new OWA bottles is thicker than the 09 OWA old label I had a few weeks ago...

I have the older 1988 WSR and it blows the doors off the 90s and later... but I still like the WSR... fun drinker...

... and don't worry Joe... we will pick on any label that changes... don't forget about the WTRR and WTRRR that did not change anything but the label... though as far as I can tell... it only changed from bad to bad... oops... no change.. :D

and great topic Joe... I love a lively one

callmeox
10-11-2009, 19:26
I spoke to someone at Buffalo Trace and I was told that 7 year old barrels are selected and dumped for both OWA and WSR. Some juice is directed to be cut to proof for OWA and the rest is cut and bottled at 90 proof for SR. It all starts as the same batch of aged juice. They also added that if the SR ever loses its age statement, then we can worry. I think that's a pretty important thought.

IIRC, WSR outsells OWA by a factor of 5 or 6 so anywhere from 75 to 90% of the dumped aged stock gets bottled as SR. If the OWA label change was really intended to extend their ability to sell wheated brands without proper stock, why mess with the lower impact, lower selling brand? It's a drop in the bucket when compared to its stable mate.

I understand that this doesn't appeal to the emotional responses and those looking for bourbon industry villains, but it looks like a case of "as goes SR so goes OWA" and SR is still age stated bourbon.

ILLfarmboy
10-11-2009, 19:37
IIRC, WSR outsells OWA by a factor of 5 or 6 so anywhere from 75 to 90% of the dumped aged stock gets bottled as SR.

I never would have guessed that.

fishnbowljoe
10-11-2009, 19:40
Just another odd observance here. Now all the Weller variations have the same type of bottle. Has anyone ever noticed the similarity in the old WSR/OWA bottles and the ORVW 10/90 and 10/107 bottles, and also Rebel Yell? Maybe BT changed bottles to clearly differentiate the Weller products from the ORVW and Rebel Yell products. Maybe there's also a cost saving in using the same bottles and new labels. Joe

independant
10-11-2009, 20:16
What got me mostly upset about this whole thing is the responce from BT that there was just no room on the label for the age statement. Have they never seen the Rigdemount reserve bottle. What is the size of the age statement on that bottle. 3/8 of an inch total.
This is the kind of thing I can't stand

B3Nut
10-11-2009, 20:50
I hadn't even had OWA before the bottle change, but if the new bottles I have are any indication, I'm not worried, at least as long as its dumpmate SR carries the age statement (which the new bottle has.) I bought a bottle, liked it so much I bunkered one, and I'm about to fetch another to shove in the bunker with it. The SR's gonna be the one to watch....in the meantime I'm working on building up a nice reserve of OWA, since it seems to hit the shelf in spurts around here.

callmeox
10-11-2009, 20:56
I think that's been twisted around a bit as well. I believe that they said the age was the selling point on the SR and the proof on the OWA so due to space, that's what they retained on the neck band.

Josh
10-11-2009, 21:34
Since everybody else has weighed in...I think Birdman summed my feelings up perfectly. I'm sure the juice will be fine for a while, but they wouldn't take the age statement off if they weren't going to change the age of the product in some way.

It's not a cause for panic, tho. There are plenty of great NASs, like 4R Single Barrel and WTKS. I do believe that BT wouldn't remove the age statement unless they felt like they didn't have a choice. But I think experience shows that once an age statement is gone, it doesn't come back.

Personally, I don't really care for the SR that much and I don't buy the OWA very much. So I'm not blowing a gasket. I am disappointed. The age statement and the high proof are what made OWA special and now one of those is going away.

jimibourbonhammered
10-12-2009, 06:01
I can understand the finite supply even though they've been able to keep up with it for at least the 25 years I've been drinking the OWA 107. I mean it's not like holding it for 12, which I believe will eventually be deferred to premium status. It seems like the bean counters have gotten involved in everything these days and quality eventually suffers. My issue is more with the bottle shape and label. Its a top heavy perfume bottle shape with a plastic label that is not well attached because of all the curves. Just a bad design on the ones I've seen. The traditional "old fashioned" parchment label just seemed like one of the last cowboys. So why not just release another NAS expression in the new upscale bottle and leave the standards alone. Asking too much? Looks like all the mid-shelfers are deliberately going away.

unclebunk
10-12-2009, 07:25
I spoke to someone at Buffalo Trace and I was told that 7 year old barrels are selected and dumped for both OWA and WSR. Some juice is directed to be cut to proof for OWA and the rest is cut and bottled at 90 proof for SR. It all starts as the same batch of aged juice. They also added that if the SR ever loses its age statement, then we can worry. I think that's a pretty important thought.

IIRC, WSR outsells OWA by a factor of 5 or 6 so anywhere from 75 to 90% of the dumped aged stock gets bottled as SR. If the OWA label change was really intended to extend their ability to sell wheated brands without proper stock, why mess with the lower impact, lower selling brand? It's a drop in the bucket when compared to its stable mate.

I understand that this doesn't appeal to the emotional responses and those looking for bourbon industry villains, but it looks like a case of "as goes SR so goes OWA" and SR is still age stated bourbon.

Great post, Ox. Thanks for the info. That certainly shines a new light on things. I'm going to pick up one of each today and compare them to the '08 bottles that I already have, but it's all good in my book so I'm not too worried about the changes. Aesthetically though, I much preferred the older OWA label to the new (duller) one, which I mentioned to Fishnbowl Joe over lunch at Manny's on Saturday.

ILLfarmboy
10-12-2009, 08:01
I've also noticed we loose either proof or age statements but usually not both, at once. So, we end up with the new under-proof ten year Eagle Rare Single Barrel, on one end and NAS Antique at the other.

I would have been happier if SR was dropped all together, the word 'antique' dropped from the new premiumized label. Or, call it something very close to Special Reserve so that the uninitiated SR consumer who didn't know that OWA and RS are the same juice just thinks SR was getting a big jump in proof in a new classier bottle, with a price increase. Which would also be a valid way to look at it, realy.

The juice could have been put in the Eagle Rare/antique collection bottles. The age could be prominently displayed on the neck, just like the ERSB. That would appeal to the SR consumers, whom we've been told view the age statement as the major selling point. A less in your face portion of the label could tout some fluff about the 107 proof.

BBQ+Bourbon
10-12-2009, 19:54
I am confounded about the SR customers caring about the age. Let's see; this is a $15 bourbon at low proof that competes with the likes of Evan Williams Black, Early Times, Old Taylor, Ancient Age, Jim Beam Black... all of which are completely undistinguished and in the same price range. So the advantage that SR has is that it's 7 years old?

I'm trying to picture the SR customer whose decision point is the 7 year age statement.

I think that by stretching the OWA juice to a younger date, BT gets to add so many more bottles of the cash cow.

When the 06 OWA bottles run dry, I'll probably move on.

Josh
10-13-2009, 04:20
I am confounded about the SR customers caring about the age. Let's see; this is a $15 bourbon at low proof that competes with the likes of Evan Williams Black, Early Times, Old Taylor, Ancient Age, Jim Beam Black... all of which are completely undistinguished and in the same price range. So the advantage that SR has is that it's 7 years old?

FYI, Michigan State Minimum:
OWA $23.96
WSR $18.97

EW $11.77
ET $9.96
OT $11.95
JBB $22.95
AA $8.49
AAA 10* $15.47
AAA 10 yr N/A

SR has two advantages. 1) it has an age statement unlike any of those others you listed and 2) It's a wheater.

90 proof is lower than many premium bourbons, but it's higher than almost anything else in that price range. Plus the only other wheater that is under $20 in Michigan is Old Fitz Prime which is a measly 80 proof, and pretty crummy.

Plus I kinda like Beam Black and Distillers Series.:grin:

p_elliott
10-13-2009, 08:19
FYI, Michigan State Minimum:
OWA $23.96
WSR $18.97

EW $11.77
ET $9.96
OT $11.95
JBB $22.95
AA $8.49
AAA 10* $15.47
AAA 10 yr N/A

SR has two advantages. 1) it has an age statement unlike any of those others you listed and 2) It's a wheater.

90 proof is lower than many premium bourbons, but it's higher than almost anything else in that price range. Plus the only other wheater that is under $20 in Michigan is Old Fitz Prime which is a measly 80 proof, and pretty crummy.

Plus I kinda like Beam Black and Distillers Series.:grin:

Wrong JBB is age stated at 8 yrs

BBQ+Bourbon
10-13-2009, 20:26
FYI, Michigan State Minimum:
OWA $23.96
WSR $18.97

EW $11.77
ET $9.96
OT $11.95
JBB $22.95
AA $8.49
AAA 10* $15.47
AAA 10 yr N/A

SR has two advantages. 1) it has an age statement unlike any of those others you listed and 2) It's a wheater.

90 proof is lower than many premium bourbons, but it's higher than almost anything else in that price range. Plus the only other wheater that is under $20 in Michigan is Old Fitz Prime which is a measly 80 proof, and pretty crummy.

Plus I kinda like Beam Black and Distillers Series.:grin:

Thanks for that information. In Missouri, the stores that have OWA @23.99 move about one bottle a decade. Going price is $20 and WSR is $16, EWB is $10, AA $10, JBB is $17 and I've not seen AAA. This in the KC and surrounding areas.

I agree that the wheater profile attracts a following but don't know if the age statement is really a closer. Is there any data to suggest that it is?
Just a gut feeling and I have no data to back up my feeling. My impression is that WSR is probably not a connisseur pour and as such, consumed by people who are looking for a tasty bottle that disappears into a coke, and is reasonably priced and for some, a brand recognition. Again, that's my impression and I have no data to back that up.

ILLfarmboy
10-13-2009, 21:00
Thanks for that information. In Missouri, the stores that have OWA @23.99 move about one bottle a decade. Going price is $20 and WSR is $16, EWB is $10, AA $10, JBB is $17 and I've not seen AAA. This in the KC and surrounding areas.

I agree that the wheater profile attracts a following but don't know if the age statement is really a closer. Is there any data to suggest that it is?
Just a gut feeling and I have no data to back up my feeling. My impression is that WSR is probably not a connisseur pour and as such, consumed by people who are looking for a tasty bottle that disappears into a coke, and is reasonably priced and for some, a brand recognition. Again, that's my impression and I have no data to back that up.

This brings up broader a question. I had always figured that the mid-shelf brands that, percentage wise, are smaller players, get consumed neat, percentage wise, more frequently than, say, Beam Black or at least JD. Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe when I see someone else leaving the store with a bottle of seven year OWA, its no indication he's anymore enlightened than the person leaving with a bottle of JD.

I'd have to admit, given otherwise identical choices, and unless the NAS bottling was part of a special barrel purchase for a large retailer like Binny's, the age statement is a closer for me.

ILLfarmboy
10-13-2009, 21:33
I picked up one of the new NAS OWA in Peoria today.

I just opened it and am sampling a small pour. I have palette fatigue So I'll have to come back to it latewr. In the bottle it looks a bit darker than the 08 age stated seven year bottles that i recently bought.

On the whole I like the bottle design. lots of unobstructed glass but I don't care for the transparent label. It would have been better if they would have went with a painrted on label like Baby Saz.

It has occurred to me with all of the unobstructed glass any color variation (that may be indicative of younger juice) would be easer to spot side by side on store shelves.

Pieface
10-14-2009, 00:16
Wrong JBB is age stated at 8 yrs

Is it Paul?

Here JBB has a large "B" in a font that could easily be mistaken for an 8. Of course JBW is a mighty 74 proof here too so it might just be an export market thing.

cowdery
10-14-2009, 02:32
Beam Black went NAS in international markets a couple of years ago. It's still an age-stated 8-year-old in the USA. In fact, everything Beam makes is age-stated in the USA.

If age statements are important to you, Beam is your company.

Special Reserve
10-14-2009, 03:16
There's a simple question, what do you prefer an age statement or taste?

I'll take taste every time.

independant
10-14-2009, 03:46
In fact, everything Beam makes is age-stated in the USA. If age statements are important to you, Beam is your company.
You should clarify, anything with Beam in the name not everything Beam makes


There's a simple question, what do you prefer an age statement or taste?

I'll take taste every time.
Could not agree more

Josh
10-14-2009, 04:01
Wrong JBB is age stated at 8 yrs


Is it Paul?

Here JBB has a large "B" in a font that could easily be mistaken for an 8. Of course JBW is a mighty 74 proof here too so it might just be an export market thing.


Beam Black went NAS in international markets a couple of years ago. It's still an age-stated 8-year-old in the USA. In fact, everything Beam makes is age-stated in the USA.

If age statements are important to you, Beam is your company.

I stand corrected. I had originally written "almost". Guess I should have kept that in!

Anyway, my point was that I don't think WSR should be considered a bottom shelfer. At that price, here anyway, it's primary competition would be Maker's Mark, not Early Times or Evan Williams. I don't see people around here picking up a case of Milwaukee's Best, a bottle of Jack and a bottle of Weller SR on a Friday night. That was my point.

I do agree that taste is what matters in the end. I doubt anyone except empty bottle collectors with their arms in slings would disagree with that. But there's something I like about age statements. It makes me feel like the distiller is holding themselves to a standard. But other than making me feel warm and fuzzy, I don't think it really makes much of a difference.

ILLfarmboy
10-14-2009, 04:07
There's a simple question, what do you prefer an age statement or taste?

I'll take taste every time.

Sure, I agree, but then buying your favorite brands becomes like buying fresh fruit, buy one and try it, and if it is good, go back and buy more. Ok, I exaggerate, but the point still stands.

An age statement is no grantee of unchanged taste profile, but it helps.

p_elliott
10-14-2009, 08:38
Is it Paul?

Here JBB has a large "B" in a font that could easily be mistaken for an 8. Of course JBW is a mighty 74 proof here too so it might just be an export market thing.

I Can't say on this family originated web site what that B stands for but Beam should be supplying a tube of vaseline with every bottle sold in OZ.

cowdery
10-14-2009, 11:16
I should have said that every straight whiskey Beam makes except Maker's Mark is age-stated. What else isn't?

OscarV
10-14-2009, 11:30
JB Rye has no age statement, at least the old label that I have, can't speak for the new label.

doubleblank
10-14-2009, 12:08
There is still a lot of Weller 107 in the old packaging here in Houston. I just saw a shelf full of 750's, liters and handles. I grabbed a handle for $40 to pour at the Carnivore Party this weekend. Will probably grab a few more for hunting trips, etc.

Randy

Joshua
10-14-2009, 12:20
I grabbed a few of the "old" OWAs... I think the biggest issue for me is paranoia. Would I buy them to drink in the future? Sure--- at some point. Price is only going up it appears, so bunkering a few isn't a BAD idea...

But then look at any other brand that has changed with proof or going NAS, everyone freaks out. Something tells me in 5-6 years, there's going to be a fair number of "Wow, I got a bottle of dusty 7 year OWA!" statements made.

Has a brand ever IMPROVED by dropping the age statement (or also lowering proof, like ER)?

ILLfarmboy
10-14-2009, 13:28
There is still a lot of Weller 107 in the old packaging here in Houston. I just saw a shelf full of 750's, liters and handles. I grabbed a handle for $40 to pour at the Carnivore Party this weekend. Will probably grab a few more for hunting trips, etc.

Randy


I grabbed a few of the "old" OWAs... I think the biggest issue for me is paranoia. Would I buy them to drink in the future? Sure--- at some point. Price is only going up it appears, so bunkering a few isn't a BAD idea...

But then look at any other brand that has changed with proof or going NAS, everyone freaks out. Something tells me in 5-6 years, there's going to be a fair number of "Wow, I got a bottle of dusty 7 year OWA!" statements made.

Has a brand ever IMPROVED by dropping the age statement (or also lowering proof, like ER)?

Off topic, but when events lead to threads like this one I'm reminded of one of my favorite comedy westerns, The Hallelujah Trail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallelujah_Trail)

"In the year 1867 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1867), signs that the approaching winter will be a hard one produce agitation in the burgeoning mining town of Denver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver), Colorado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado), as the hard-drinking citizenry fear a shortage of whiskey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey). Taking advice from Oracle Jones (Donald Pleasence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Pleasence)), a local guide and seer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer) (but only when under the influence of alcohol), the populace arrange for a mass shipment, forty wagons full of whiskey, from the Wallingham Freighting Company."

Phantos
10-14-2009, 14:11
I haven't seen any new bottlings yet here in ATX.
but I did stache away 4 OWA7/107s yesterday!

so the new WSR and OWA is in the bulbous WLW12 styled bottle now? not the RY style bottle?

cowdery
10-14-2009, 14:25
JB Rye has no age statement, at least the old label that I have, can't speak for the new label.

Fair enough. That's two. Let's say bourbons, because ri1 and Old Overcoat don't have them either.

But I just checked Old Bourbon Hollow, and it does.

CygnusX-1
10-14-2009, 14:29
Fair enough. That's two. Let's say bourbons, because ri1 and Old Overcoat don't have them either.

But I just checked Old Bourbon Hollow, and it does.

What about Old Grand Dad?

callmeox
10-14-2009, 15:20
Fair enough. That's two. Let's say bourbons, because ri1 and Old Overcoat don't have them either.

But I just checked Old Bourbon Hollow, and it does.

Old Overcoat? Is that related to Old Nasty Apron? :-)

(Did the spell check gremlin get ya?)

independant
10-14-2009, 16:39
Fair enough. That's two. Let's say bourbons, because ri1 and Old Overcoat don't have them either.

But I just checked Old Bourbon Hollow, and it does.

I was thinking OGD and MM.

unclebunk
10-14-2009, 18:12
I grabbed two bottles of '08 OWA tonight for the paltry sum of $18 each to add to the one I've already got bunkered. The "old" label is still plentiful around here and, as I said in an earlier post, is far more pleasing to the eye, IMHO, than the newer "modern-looking" label.

cowdery
10-15-2009, 16:35
Okay, Grand-Dad doesn't either. I'm not sure about Old Crow, but the last time I had some it was a 36-monther, and that must be disclosed. The point isn't "prove Chuck wrong about something," though I know that's great sport. The point is that Beam is very committed to age statements. Every bourbon that says "Jim Beam" on the label has one, as do the four Small Batch bourbons, as does their unknown BIB. People who bemoan the loss of age statements should applaud Beam for that. The only case I know of in which Beam swtiched a product from age-stated to NAS is international Beam black label.

ggilbertva
10-15-2009, 16:44
I received a single barrel version of the OWA and it came in the new package. I'll have to admit, that I like the new bottle but then again, I liked the old bottle too. The new bottle has a classy look as does the Weller12. I'm happy that I've at least stockpiled 14 bottles of OWA for the NAS years to come.

unclebunk
10-15-2009, 17:30
I received a single barrel version of the OWA and it came in the new package. I'll have to admit, that I like the new bottle but then again, I liked the old bottle too. The new bottle has a classy look as does the Weller12. I'm happy that I've at least stockpiled 14 bottles of OWA for the NAS years to come.

I agree that the new OWA label looks classy but it's so similar to the Weller 12 that it loses something for me. I guess I just love that old parchment-type looking stuff (like the ORVW too with the two old guys on the label). Even my (bourbon hating) wife commented on how handsome the old OWA (and ORVW) look--I think she felt they were more "traditional looking" in her mind. But at the end of the day, it's the juice that matters and I'd drink OWA out of a shoe if that's the only way I could get it! :grin:

jburlowski
10-16-2009, 11:25
What matters most: the age statement or the quality of the juice inside?

I say the latter.

spun_cookie
10-16-2009, 11:27
What matters most: the age statement or the quality of the juice inside?

I say the latter.

Quality of the juice, but without guidlines you add in many degrees of fredome.... OWA has been so consistant for so long because it has been a 7 plus yr old juice....

Not many folks talk about the covited 4-6 yr bourbon, unless you are Barturtle.... he likes is 0-X yrs...

ILLfarmboy
10-16-2009, 11:32
Quality of the juice, but without guidlines you add in many degrees of fredome.... OWA has been so consistant for so long because it has been a 7 plus yr old juice....
.

well put!......................

jburlowski
10-16-2009, 11:38
Quality of the juice, but without guidlines you add in many degrees of fredome.... OWA has been so consistant for so long because it has been a 7 plus yr old juice....



I guess I'd disagree. OWA has been consistent because BT has maintained its taste profile; not because of it's age . There is older AS distillate on the market that (I would argue) isn't either as consistent or good. (e.g., EC 12).

Josh
10-16-2009, 11:43
I guess I'd disagree. OWA has been consistent because BT has maintained its taste profile; not because of it's age . There is older AS distillate on the market that (I would argue) isn't either as consistent or good. (e.g., EC 12).

I would argue that EC 12 is better, although maybe not as consistant. So...buttons.

spun_cookie
10-16-2009, 12:46
I guess I'd disagree. OWA has been consistent because BT has maintained its taste profile; not because of it's age . There is older AS distillate on the market that (I would argue) isn't either as consistent or good. (e.g., EC 12).


I agree that age statements do not guarantee good juice. I am not a big fan of the Weller 12 - it is the Lot B rejects as far as I can tell.

What I like to do is fix as many degrees of freedom as I can. Age, proof, location, distillation temp, entry proof, etc... same theory behind the BIBs by ensuring certain features to claim as the best juice.

If you remove the age guarantee, then you add the uncertainty of how the juice will act when watered down to the 107 from the barrel strength. The younger the bourbon, the easier it is to loose the deeper qualities of an older bourbon.

It takes a certain amount of time in the oak to breakdown the qualities we like in the oak. You get more the longer it is in until you then start to get into the qualities we do not like (over oaked, over charred, etc).

There is a balance that is maintained that is changed when you start to reduce time in the oak.... I plan on starting a new thread on flavors, age and proof...

OscarV
10-16-2009, 12:46
Quality of the juice, but without guidlines you add in many degrees of fredome.... OWA has been so consistant for so long because it has been a 7 plus yr old juice....
...


I guess I'd disagree. OWA has been consistent because BT has maintained its taste profile; not because of it's age . There is older AS distillate on the market that (I would argue) isn't either as consistent or good. (e.g., EC 12).


I would argue that EC 12 is better, although maybe not as consistant. So...buttons.

Good points all, I guess the only thing left to do is to keep drinking and analyzing them.
I'm in, how 'bout you?

spun_cookie
10-16-2009, 13:13
on it now baby... the SB new label I just got in dusts the 09 old label I have... Got to love the SB.

cowdery
10-16-2009, 13:59
I guess the real question for all of us is, at the end of the day (and I mean today), will you be able to find anything you can stand to drink?

OscarV
10-16-2009, 14:00
I guess the real question for all of us is, at the end of the day (and I mean today), will you be able to find anything you can stand to drink?



Hey, at the end of today it will be a success if I can just stand.:bigeyes:

unclebunk
10-16-2009, 14:19
Hey, at the end of today it will be a success if I can just stand.:bigeyes:

Ha ha. Very funny! That's how I felt last night at the end of the Phillies/Dodgers game. My tendency is to "pour big" when I'm on a roll and I was really enjoying the baseball, so down the hatch it went. :lol:

smokinjoe
10-16-2009, 15:23
Hey, at the end of today it will be a success if I can just stand.:bigeyes:

:lol: :lol:

Good one, O.

Virus_Of_Life
10-16-2009, 16:23
If somebody has one could they please post of picture of this 'new label'? I am sure I am not the only one having read, ok skimmed, this thread expecting to see it.

ILLfarmboy
10-16-2009, 16:39
If somebody has one could they please post of picture of this 'new label'? I am sure I am not the only one having read, ok skimmed, this thread expecting to see it.

New OWA label..........................

Sorry its just a crappy cell phone pic.

spun_cookie
10-16-2009, 16:42
Here ya go....

9687

Rughi
10-16-2009, 16:56
Here ya go....

9687

Man,
There is absolutely no place they could possibly fit an age statement on that!
It just wouldn't fit anywhere on that bottle :skep:

I am, however, reminded that there was an era when, nothing on the label would tell you, but Kentucky Tavern had some especially good juice in it (which may have been some of god's own Stitzel Weller, as the story goes). From early reports on this first release of the "age statement wouldn't fit" bottling being really exceptional stuff, I may bunker up some for my own bad self.

If I was a teenager maybe I would tell the clerk at the liquor store that my age statement ID wouldn't fit in my wallet, and my wallet was actually much nicer without it, and so I shouldn't be harassed about not bringing my age statement with me. Just trust me.


Roger

Virus_Of_Life
10-16-2009, 17:06
Thanks Em and Brad! I kind of like it, the script reminds me a little bit of the Weller 19, but I don't like that it isn't AS 7 year anymore.

No arguing the issue, if it doesn't say it, it either isn't or will not be 7 years old very soon. And that is very unfortunate. They should have chosen 1 weller to be NAS and maintained the Antique and 12 year - wait a minute, now I can't recall is Special Reserve NAS now too or did it maintain its Age Statement?

callmeox
10-16-2009, 17:12
It's particularly sad to see the negativity and cynicism that runs rampant on another site splash over here.

Just curious...have any of the sour-asses taken the time to let Sazerac or Buffalo Trace know that they don't agree with the decision to drop the age statement? You all know how to get in touch with them so make your voice heard.

callmeox
10-16-2009, 17:13
Thanks Em and Brad! I kind of like it, the script reminds me a little bit of the Weller 19, but I don't like that it isn't AS 7 year anymore.

No arguing the issue, if it doesn't say it, it either isn't or will not be 7 years old very soon. And that is very unfortunate. They should have chosen 1 weller to be NAS and maintained the Antique and 12 year - wait a minute, now I can't recall is Special Reserve NAS now too or did it maintain its Age Statement?

The relationship between the SR and Antique as it was described to me is in this post:

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=183106&postcount=19

ILLfarmboy
10-16-2009, 17:28
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=183106&postcount=19

For every bottle of the new first dumping of NAS OWA that you bunker within the next few weeks/months (I'm drinking from a NAS bottle now, and it is good), I'll trade you even up, three years from now, bottles I'll purchase at that time in future.

I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is......................

jburlowski
10-16-2009, 17:30
New OWA label..........................

Sorry its just a crappy cell phone pic.

Pringles?

C'mon man... show some class! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Virus_Of_Life
10-16-2009, 17:34
Thanks Scott. So much has been said so quickly in this thread I can't remember what I'd read and where and what I thought I'd read.

As for the cynicism, I think Wade said it best in the very beginning. Distillers do this because they can. And yes, good point, I will email BT to let them know my feelings on it and you're right all those who are upset should do the same.

ILLfarmboy
10-16-2009, 17:38
Pringles?

C'mon man... show some class! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I meant to move those before I snapped the pic. :bigeyes:

:lol: :lol:

Virus_Of_Life
10-16-2009, 17:39
Man,
There is absolutely no place they could possibly fit an age statement on that!
It just wouldn't fit anywhere on that bottle :skep:

Could have put it on the neck band, made it bigger or something.

callmeox
10-16-2009, 17:42
Could have put it on the neck band, made it bigger or something.

That's what he's being snarky about in his post. Apparently the neck band couldn't be made bigger/longer due to the curvature of the neck and they decided to go with the large proof statement instead of smaller proof and age statements.

silverfish
10-16-2009, 19:23
If somebody has one could they please post of picture of this 'new label'? I am sure I am not the only one having read, ok skimmed, this thread expecting to see it.

No, you're not the only one. I'm lucky (?!) enough
to still find the old version on the shelves and I
was curious as to what the the label looked like.
That said, the new bottle does appear to be a bit
more "upscale" but generic at the same time. It
may have a broader appeal to the general public
who really don't give a fig about an age statement.

cowdery
10-16-2009, 20:00
All three Wellers (excluding WLW) now bear the legend, "The Original Wheated Bourbon," which without being too cynical or snarky I will say is marketing fluff unsupported by facts. The only thing is, nobody has a better claim and I like them standing up to Maker's Mark, as it were, which is wont to pretend it invented wheated bourbon, when what is supported by the facts is that Stitzel-Weller was making wheated bourbon long before Maker's Mark did.

Where I think the cynical and snarky attitude is appropriate is on the "there was no room for it" answer. Saying that to this group is insulting, but that's a very small offense from a distillery that shows its love to this group like no other.

spun_cookie
10-16-2009, 20:13
... but that's a very small offense from a distillery that shows its love to this group like no other.

could not be put better sir....

B3Nut
10-16-2009, 21:30
Someone wondered upthread if Weller SR retained the age statement in the new bottle, and the answer is yes. The new SR bottling (same bottle as 12 and OWA) carries the age statement on the neck band, where Antique has the "107" labeling. Since they're from the same dump, OWA's still 7yo juice. I may have posted this before, but since I've had 2 pours of OWA I'm a little fuzzy. :D

Rughi
10-16-2009, 21:49
I just tried 3 different Antiques from the last few years, bottle indicated as: 06 and 08 "7yo" and 09 "new bottle." It is quite clear that the 08 is better than the 06 and the 09 is the best of the group. The 09 is a bit thicker, less hot, rounder and starts to display the stewed fruits that some are looking for in well made bourbon.

I stand by what I wrote; this may indeed be one of those blips of time when a label surpasses itself, like some recount that Kentucky Tavern did for a period. I can't imagine there'll be a better time for price, and perhaps not for quality either, to bunker up than this first release of the "no room for an age statement" bottle. This weekend, we may have a chance to try it versus SW Antique, VW10 or Centennial.

A different question that comes to me is if the high quality of the current Antique has a correlation to the "merging" of VW with BT. The 2009 Antique is indeed right about the 7 year marker from the "merge." (I don't really know exactly why that's the term, but I do believe it's the one Julian prefers, so that suits me). I've read posts by Julian where he talks about making some suggestions in how BT might modify the wheater whiskey, maybe this is showing to our benefit now.

Roger

BourbonJoe
10-17-2009, 19:26
I agree Roger. The new OWA is very good (may be the best of the bunch for the last several years). The question is "How long is it gonna stay that way?". I don't trust 'em. I'm stocking up now.
Joe :usflag:

OscarV
10-18-2009, 02:32
I've read posts by Julian where he talks about making some suggestions in how BT might modify the wheater whiskey, maybe this is showing to our benefit now.

Roger

That's good news.
It does seem like the choice between wheaters are decreasing.
With MM kinda bland, Old Fitz not very good, the dropping of Centennial and Pappy's skyrocketing prices it would be good if BT takes Julian's suggestions.

ILLfarmboy
10-18-2009, 07:04
If that's the case, and it is now showing up in Antique, it also bodes well for the ORVW bottling. (insert one of those lip smacking emoticons here)

Josh
10-18-2009, 10:56
If that's the case, and it is now showing up in Antique, it also bodes well for the ORVW bottling. (insert one of those lip smacking emoticons here)

:yum:

That work?

As for sourasses, I had a case of that last Thursday night. Not fun. I would suggest Pepto-Bismo and lots of fluids.

jburlowski
10-18-2009, 11:18
Because of all the fuss, I tried the new NAS OWA yesterday. Tastes as good or better than the AS version.

unclebunk
10-18-2009, 11:35
Because of all the fuss, I tried the new NAS OWA yesterday. Tastes as good or better than the AS version.

Okay. So now, at half-time of the Giants-Saints game, I'll have to run out and get a bottle of the NAS OWA to do a taste test with my already open (and quite delicious) "old" OWA. See what you guys have started? :grin:

jburlowski
10-18-2009, 15:27
It must suck to be you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

gblick
10-19-2009, 06:23
I just tried 3 different Antiques from the last few years, bottle indicated as: 06 and 08 "7yo" and 09 "new bottle." It is quite clear that the 08 is better than the 06 and the 09 is the best of the group.I've had several bottles of the 06 and 08, and I disagree that the 08 is better. I haven't seen the new 09 bottle, so I haven't been able to try it yet.

spun_cookie
10-19-2009, 06:34
I've had several bottles of the 06 and 08, and I disagree that the 08 is better. I haven't seen the new 09 bottle, so I haven't been able to try it yet.


With batches as large as OWA, you are going to get pallet to pallet variation.

The juice is not going to he homogeneous across 100, bottles, 1000 bottles, or 30,000 bottles.

You must have gotten a sweet 08. The 09 7yr one I had was thin and young. My 08 7yr is worse than 09. !bitter is how it has been described. The 09 NAS I have is a single barrel... It does not count.

I noticed a shift in the OWA from 06 and on. Each bottle became thinner and thinner...

It would be fun to blind 04-09 7yr and 09 NAS... That would be the only way to tell.

gblick
10-19-2009, 06:41
With batches as large as OWA, you are going to get pallet to pallet variation.

The juice is not going to he homogeneous across 100, bottles, 1000 bottles, or 30,000 bottles.I agree.


You must have gotten a sweet 08.You must mean Rughi, because the 08's that I've head were not as good.

spun_cookie
10-19-2009, 08:25
I agree.

You must mean Rughi, because the 08's that I've head were not as good.

I did... I have had some kick ass bottles of OWA... The Julio's SB right now is one of the. All in all, I have only had a couple that were marginal.

I know we beat BT up a lot when they make changes, but they really are the enthusiasts best friend..

doubleblank
10-24-2009, 14:46
I pulled examples of all the Weller 107 bottles that I have. They date from the '60's, '80's, early '90's and 2009. The word "Antique" doesn't show up until recently. The back labels and neck tags are interesting too. The oldest one describes how the seven summers in wood INCREASES the proof in the barrel to 107. That implies a really low barrel entry proof on the older SW whiskies. A later one describes how the master distiller adds water to reduce the proof to 107....just where he likes it. Anyway, just a little pictoral history. Perhaps not complete.

Randy

Pic 1 Old Weller.....Original 107 Barrel Proof
Pic 2 Old Weller.....The Original 107 Proof
Pic 3 Old Weller.....Antique......The Original 107 Brand
Pic 4 Old Weller.....Antique......Original 107 Brand - New Lable 2009

Gillman
10-24-2009, 14:51
Randy, that's great. Can we persuade you to do a vertical tasting (or perhaps blind)?

Gary

Virus_Of_Life
10-24-2009, 14:55
That first one is the one I was referring to in Chuck's thread about his 110 proof version. I have one just like that but the domestic version and noted it didn't use the term Antique.

cowdery
10-24-2009, 18:16
That first one is the one I was referring to in Chuck's thread about his 110 proof version. I have one just like that but the domestic version and noted it didn't use the term Antique.

Huh? What do you mean "domestic version"?

theDon
10-24-2009, 19:01
Huh? What do you mean "domestic version"?

Obviously it was made here, but I think he was referring to the 760ml bottle being a foreign bottle right?

doubleblank
10-24-2009, 19:08
Christian correctly identified the Italian tax stamp. And they printed 760 ml on the label too.

Randy

cowdery
10-24-2009, 19:46
I mis-read. I thought the reference was to my bottle as non-domestic.

funknik
11-03-2009, 07:20
Oh, boy . . . this may be beating a dead horse, but I want to weigh in on this briefly.

Ox's breakdown on the quantity of OWA vs. WLW SR kind of surprised me, but I guess it is reassuring in some way. Still, I wonder why BT has decided to keep the age statement on the SR though . . . it's pretty cheap (around here at least) and I don't think that typical drinkers of this bourbon would be especially concerned about its age (not to mention us -- I doubt there be nearly as much of an uproar on SB.com if SR had gone NAS & OWA stayed at 7yr) -- I think it would be easier to assimilate this flavor with younger juice also, but what do I know. It seems pretty industry-standard (not to mention common-sensical) to drop the age statement on your least expensive product to me, so I wonder why they chose to go the way they did.

Also, to me age statement does not necessarily imply better juice -- I'd take WT101 NAS over RR10/90 any day.

Something that hasn't been touched upon that I can tell is of lesser importance, but still very dear to me and that is the label. I love the old OWA bottle/label . . . part of the draw when I got into bourbon was the aesthetic of the label looking, well, antique. It gave me a sense that the whiskey was well crafted and suggests a heritage that I found intoxicating at the time . . . I think the OWA & ORVW labels are some of the coolest out there. This new bottle & label is a nice facelift for the SR, but the OWA had so much character . . . oh, well . . . call me an old crank . . .

not as brief as I thought guys . . . sorry

p_elliott
11-03-2009, 07:44
Andy

According to BT they could either put the proof or the age statement on the OWA they thought the proof was bigger selling point. Take that for what it's worth.

Paul

funknik
11-03-2009, 07:49
Andy

According to BT they could either put the proof or the age statement on the OWA they thought the proof was bigger selling point. Take that for what it's worth.

Paul
I read that but don't buy it -- you can always make room on the label. Sounds like a cop-out.

p_elliott
11-03-2009, 08:14
I read that but don't buy it -- you can always make room on the label. Sounds like a cop-out.

I totally agree !!!!!! to make this 16 characters

DeanSheen
11-03-2009, 09:30
I just got 2 bottles of the new make yesterday and had a few pours of it. I have no problem with the juice and will happily continue to buy it as an excellent bargain @ $23 out the door.

Thankfully no nasty char overtones and bitterness that I got from 2 of the 4 bottles I had purchased in the old style bottle.

bourbon-n00b
11-03-2009, 09:34
Is there a reliable way to determine if a bottle was part of this first-run bottling? Right now, obviously anything on the shelf is, but in the future that won't be the case. It'd be nice to know that I was getting some of this highly-rated stuff vs whatever they end up deciding to release down the road.

bourbon-n00b
11-06-2009, 16:01
Is there a reliable way to determine if a bottle was part of this first-run bottling?

Not sure if this is significant or not, but along the bottom of the bottle there are 9 dots in a pattern like this

.. . . ... ..

might be a bottling year of 09?

ILLfarmboy
11-06-2009, 16:13
Not sure if this is significant or not, but along the bottom of the bottle there are 9 dots in a pattern like this

.. . . ... ..

might be a bottling year of 09?

I don't have any dots. I've got an "8" and a two digit number that's illegible on one bottle and "SG" ? and a "78" or "72" on another. Whatever it may mean, I can't make heads or tails of it. ?????

Edited to add. I found the dots. How often is Antique dumped? Once a year/ The old bottles had two digit numbers on the bottom that corresponded to a year

bourbon-n00b
11-06-2009, 16:20
I don't have any dots. I've got an "8" and a two digit number that's illegible on one bottle and "SG" ? and a "78" or "72" on another. Whatever it may mean, I can't make heads or tails of it. ?????

Edited to add. I found the dots. How often is Antique dumped? Once a year/ The old bottles had two digit numbers on the bottom that corresponded to a year

Yeah, I probably wasn't clear...so for anyone else, these are not on the bottom of the bottle, but on the front face near the bottom edge, just below the sticker.

I've got some notations on the bottom too but I can't figure out what they are. Very faint.

funknik
11-09-2009, 10:08
Okay, Grand-Dad doesn't either. I'm not sure about Old Crow, but the last time I had some it was a 36-monther, and that must be disclosed. The point isn't "prove Chuck wrong about something," though I know that's great sport. The point is that Beam is very committed to age statements.
I had to comment on this -- it really made me laugh . . . let's give Chuck a break, people!

:slappin: :slappin: :slappin:

On a serious note, though, if OGD was NAS when Beam acquired it, why bother stating an age now? I think it's also pretty clear from the flavor that at least the OGD114 is very well aged -- wood abounds in the finish.

Also, getting over the initial shock of this OWA NAS thing, I'm with Chuck, Joe & the others -- as long as the juice stays good, why get persnickity over the age statement? I doubt BT would really want to dumb down this label, not to mention that there are very few (if any) low quality whiskies in their lineup and all of the wheaters are pretty great.

Uilliam Uallas
09-06-2010, 22:20
Just finished the last of a case of Old Weller Antique that I bought about a year ago. Went to get another case from the only store that sells OWA here in my neck of Colorado and found they had changed bottles. Weller Antique use to have the best looking bourbon bottle in Kentucky, now it looks like a bottle for a tangerine wine cooler marketed to sorority girls. I must say I took it personally when I found BT had changed my everyday drink for the past 25 years. The quality still seems to be there but I doubt it will much longer without the 7 year label. And I wouldn't want to be seen carying that bottle across the parking lot.

Special Reserve
09-07-2010, 02:49
Just finished the last of a case of Old Weller Antique that I bought about a year ago. Went to get another case from the only store that sells OWA here in my neck of Colorado and found they had changed bottles. Weller Antique use to have the best looking bourbon bottle in Kentucky, now it looks like a bottle for a tangerine wine cooler marketed to sorority girls. I must say I took it personally when I found BT had changed my everyday drink for the past 25 years. The quality still seems to be there but I doubt it will much longer without the 7 year label. And I wouldn't want to be seen carying that bottle across the parking lot.

You should not judge a book by its cover. The bourbon inside is excellent!

SMOWK
09-07-2010, 08:44
You should not judge a book by its cover. The bourbon inside is excellent!

Let us hope that it stays that way. I too was a bit scared when they dropped the age statement. But, so far so good.

Now that I think about it, it is kind of a wussy wine coolery bottle. :lol:

Josh
09-07-2010, 11:40
where are the complaints about the Weller 12 bottle? That's basically what the new OWA bottle is, right? And WSR is in the same one now too.

Gillman
09-07-2010, 11:47
Just want to pick up on something Robert said about some of the OWA seeming too aged in the former bottle. I wonder if that is because it was 9-10 years old in its last bottlings. I suspect the bourbon in the new bottle was made at Buffalo Trace. The bourbon in the older bottles would have been made, at least for many years after the brand name was purchased (because bourbon came with it), by UDV. Or so I always inferred.

Anyway I like the new juice too, the bottle not so much, but the bourbon is fine. I know they took off the 7 years statement but I thought I read somewhere it is still 7 years old.

Gary

DeanSheen
09-07-2010, 12:32
Yeah Gary, I definitely like it better now than some of the last run bottles I had. I've been through at least 6 of the new OWA and they have all been consistently good and sourced from 3 different states.

ILLfarmboy
09-07-2010, 16:58
I must be the only person who likes the new bottle design.

The juice inside is excellent. I just hope with the lack of an age statement witch makes it easier to allow quality to slip, it stays that way.

BourbonJoe
09-07-2010, 18:31
The juice inside is excellent. I just hope with the lack of an age statement witch makes it easier to allow quality to slip, it stays that way.

I agree with ya Brad.
Joe :usflag:

silverfish
09-07-2010, 19:58
I must be the only person who likes the new bottle design.


I had some of the NAS OWA tonight and as I was pouring it
into a glass, I thought "Boy, this looks nice." I wasn't so hot
for the new bottle but after cracking a few open and tasting,
I've found that it is becomming one of my favorite pours. The
"see through" label really shows off the color and makes for an
impressive looking bourbon. Between this and the Weller SR,
I think I'm hooked.

Uilliam Uallas
09-08-2010, 01:47
Since I have been drinking Weller (mid 80's) you knew what to expect when you bought it. A fine bourbon at a fair price. The same every time. That's the way it should be. Now since the BT bottle/label change last year, who knows what you get. Obviously BT changed the bottle to save a few cents by using a generic bottle from another line. The only reason to drop the 7 year label is to save a few more cents on the juice sometime in the future. 6 year? 5 year? Who knows. The new bottle I have now although damn ugly is good stuff, but I doubt it will stay that way much longer. This is an assult on a fine old Bourbon by BT in an attempt to make a little extra money.

jburlowski
09-08-2010, 16:41
I must be the only person who likes the new bottle design.

The juice inside is excellent. I just hope with the lack of an age statement witch makes it easier to allow quality to slip, it stays that way.

I'm also with Brad on both points....:bigeyes:

Special Reserve
09-08-2010, 17:16
Brad,

You better be seated, I agree with both you and John on all the points about the NAS OWA.

Will

Josh
09-08-2010, 17:17
This elitist likes it too.

Halifax
09-10-2010, 20:03
We still have a fair amount of the old bottles with age statement on the shelves here in NC. Humm... will this be a future dusty that we see in pics of here in years to come?

BourbonJoe
09-11-2010, 05:00
We still have a fair amount of the old bottles with age statement on the shelves here in NC. Humm... will this be a future dusty that we see in pics of here in years to come?

Yes, most likely, especially if the taste of the NAS heads south.
Joe :usflag:

onmytrack
09-11-2010, 12:45
I like what is being posted about the "new" OWA so I picked up a bottle. I hope it is as good as the "old" stuff. Can't really lose on this, it was only $17.49. Last one they had. I'll look for more.

Jim

PaulO
09-12-2010, 08:46
My own experience has been that all the newer bottles have been as good as the earlier label. As a matter of fact I recently passed up some old label OWA because I was looking for other stuff, and already had some of the new OWA at home. I like to think and hope BT won't lower the quality of one of my favorite brands. I think if they ever did, this site would light up like a Christmas tree.

silverfish
09-12-2010, 15:07
The latest issue of Malt Advocate (Fall 2010) has piece titled
TEN Great American whiskeys you may not know about (& why) (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/maltadvocate/2010fall/#/60).
OWA 7 yr/107 proof is listed but the image is the new NAS
bottle. Either way, nice to see it included!

Josh
09-12-2010, 17:30
The latest issue of Malt Advocate (Fall 2010) has piece titled
TEN Great American whiskeys you may not know about (& why) (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/maltadvocate/2010fall/#/60).
OWA 7 yr/107 proof is listed but the image is the new NAS
bottle. Either way, nice to see it included!

Yeah kudos to John and the folks over at MA. That was a great article, and it was nice to see OWA and some of my faves like HH White Label, Mellow Corn, OGD and VOB BiB.

Uilliam Uallas
10-17-2010, 00:07
There are a lot of BT apologists on this thread. I dont think anyone who enjoys Weller Antique would be defending a company that is in the process of gutting this fine old whiskey. Their comment that there was not enough room on the label for "Aged 7 Years" is insulting and certainly not the true reason for removing it.

dmarkle
10-17-2010, 04:05
I'd just like to say to the conspiracy theorists that I saw a handle of this in the store next to the 750s, and *it* still has the old label on it -- then again, maybe it is an old bottling...

jburlowski
10-17-2010, 05:23
There are a lot of BT apologists on this thread. I dont think anyone who enjoys Weller Antique would be defending a company that is in the process of gutting this fine old whiskey. ..

I went back and re-read the posts and can't find the "BT apologists" you reference. Seems like the vote is mixed over the new vs old bottle (about which you are clearly miffed). The consensus is pretty strong that the juice inside hasn't changed... at least yet. Unless and until it does, it seems a little premature to be dissing BT or the people who enjoy OWA.

Special Reserve
10-17-2010, 07:15
Given the choice between the "Aged Naturally 7 years in Wood" OWA and the NAS OWA I'd choose the NAS OWA. I have that choice. Nothing wrong with either.

Uilliam Uallas
10-17-2010, 20:08
Miffed is accurate. If Jack Daniels changed their bottle after a century and a half, or so, to a perfume bottle, could you imagine their customers praising their pretty new bottle of Jack. I couldn't either. BT deserves nothing but criticism over this.

DeanSheen
10-17-2010, 20:55
Given the choice between the "Aged Naturally 7 years in Wood" OWA and the NAS OWA I'd choose the NAS OWA. I have that choice. Nothing wrong with either.

Ditto. The dusties mean nothing to me because I prefer the taste of the new juice and I hope that the current quality continues.

I'm also not feeling nostalgic over packaging it's the contents that matter.

callmeox
10-18-2010, 07:23
Miffed is accurate. If Jack Daniels changed their bottle after a century and a half, or so, to a perfume bottle, could you imagine their customers praising their pretty new bottle of Jack. I couldn't either. BT deserves nothing but criticism over this.

Are you really using Jack as an example of maintaining a historic brand?

If their customers didn't mind buying more water and less whiskey after multiple proof reductions, I doubt that a bottle change would bother them .

B-F would just issue a press release "confirming" that the change is what their customers wanted.

silverfish
10-18-2010, 08:24
Are you really using Jack as an example of maintaining a historic brand?

If their customers didn't mind buying more water and less whiskey after multiple proof reductions, I doubt that a bottle change would bother them .

I disagree. I suspect that a change to the iconic JD bottle would probably
upset fans of the brand more so than the reduction in proof, unless it was
an improved design as in Gentleman Jack but even then I'm not so sure...

That said, the old OWA label had a certain rustic charm but having had both
old/new juice, the bottle redesign doesn't really bother me so much.

callmeox
10-18-2010, 08:36
I disagree. I suspect that a change to the iconic JD bottle would probably
upset fans of the brand more so than the reduction in proof, unless it was
an improved design as in Gentleman Jack but even then I'm not so sure...

That said, the old OWA label had a certain rustic charm but having had both
old/new juice, the bottle redesign doesn't really bother me so much.

Style over substance?

I'm a sheep. Fleece me!

cowdery
10-18-2010, 10:54
"I hate it when something I like changes" is a perfectly normal reaction. I remember a dean from my old college telling me that most alums want the campus to remain exactly the way it was during their student years. Companies that change products or reposition brands have to take into consideration the resistance many, perhaps most, people have to change. The gamble is that the changes will attract enough new customers to more than offset the old customers they alienate. Sometimes companies guess wrong. I hate to see those fairly normal reactions degenerate into bitterness and corporate-bashing, but there it is.

As American whiskey has grown in popularity and past supply gluts have vanished, replaced by supply tightness, many companies have dropped age statements, especially from inexpensive brands. If you think age statements are important, buy more Beam products, because they put age statements on everything, even their four-year-old Jim Beam white label. (Though not their semi-independent Maker's Mark brand.)

No American whiskey producer pays closer attention to the enthusiast community than Buffalo Trace. I'm sure they have heard the age statement preferences of OWA fans loud and clear.

ILLfarmboy
10-18-2010, 20:08
Given the choice between the "Aged Naturally 7 years in Wood" OWA and the NAS OWA I'd choose the NAS OWA. I have that choice. Nothing wrong with either.

Hmmmm. It Depends. If the age stated bottle if from a more recent dumping and has an 08 or an 09, especialy an 08 on the bottom of the bottle I'll take the NAS bottle. But if the age stated bottles are dusties from 04 and earlier, I'll take them over the NAS.

Rustic charm wouldn't get me to buy the age stated version anymore than my like of the new bottle and label would get me to buy the NAS.


Miffed is accurate. If Jack Daniels changed their bottle after a century and a half, or so, to a perfume bottle, could you imagine their customers praising their pretty new bottle of Jack. I couldn't either. BT deserves nothing but criticism over this.

Dude, do you drink whiskey because the bottle looks cool? See my above comment.

What BT deserves is criticism for dropping the age statement. Moreover, enthusiasts need to watch this product like a hawk to make sure the juice in the bottle doesn't slip and to make a lot of noise if it does.

p_elliott
10-18-2010, 21:29
People keep posting about old/new juice OWA where are you guys getting this from. They have not changed OWA they changed the bottle and label and suddenly the whiskey taste different. No one has come out and said that Weller SR suddenly taste different but yet they both come from the same barrels and the same dump. This new juice thing is all in your head. It's the same OWA that it was before just a different bottle.

DeanSheen
10-18-2010, 22:11
People keep posting about old/new juice OWA where are you guys getting this from. They have not changed OWA they changed the bottle and label and suddenly the whiskey taste different. No one has come out and said that Weller SR suddenly taste different but yet they both come from the same barrels and the same dump. This new juice thing is all in your head. It's the same OWA that it was before just a different bottle.

It comes from me buying about 5 bottles of 7yr and 8 or so of NAS. All of the NAS have been good but not all the 7yr have been.

It's a good point on the SR but I really dont see much talk about that bottling on here. I don't buy it so I cannot attest to old SR vs. New Bottle SR.

Uilliam Uallas
10-18-2010, 23:51
Making bourbon is a for profit business for BT and most others. The Colonel is right that they have made these changes to increase profits. Its their right. A cheaper bottle from another line, a cheaper label, and you could reasonably assume cheaper booze on the way. I dont much like their new business model and I would rather pay a little extra to keep it the same as before. In my mind OWA was a special whiskey. Smoother than many 80 proofs, a wheater with unique flavors, and a fine looking bottle to boot.

In response to the comments from the neo-connie waterboard boy,

"Dude, do you drink whiskey because the bottle looks cool?"

I would just say that some things are fine left unchanged. Weller Antique was one of them.

Doggerlander
10-19-2010, 14:23
This is a fascinating thread that seems to have come back to life. I tried the OWA in the new bottle and was very impressed. I bought some 7 yr label OWA, but now I think I'll go out and stock up on the new label since the quality might be up (based on earlier posts). I think I'll pick up some Weller 12 yr also with the hope that some Centennial juice is winding up there.

I'm not worried about the quality slipping in NAS OWA as long as SR has the 7 yr statement based on the post that points out the relationship between SR and OWA. I like BT products. It could be that this was just a marketing decision to emphasize 107 proof over age since it already has the word "antique" in the name. I always thought it was funny that the antique was the same age as SR.

jburlowski
10-19-2010, 14:43
I suspect BT has less aged wheated stock then they would like. There have been recent shortages of Weller 12. BT seems to be emphasing that brand and I'm betting that they are positioning themselves to have more Weller 12 available down the road.

At a minimum, they probably want to have the flexibility to put younger juice in OWA / WSR if needed. (Do they really need to have both of those expressions?)

Maybe the wheated bourbon that has been made at Tom Moore / Barton will play in this somehow......

OscarV
10-19-2010, 14:50
In response to the comments from the neo-connie waterboard boy,



Hey UU, let me clue you in, we just pretend that he is OK cuz we just luv everybody here on the mighty mighty SB.com.

Oh, btw, did you mean neo-connie or neo-commie?
Brad ain't neither, at least I hope he's not a neo-connie.:bigeyes:

DeanSheen
10-19-2010, 15:01
At a minimum, they probably want to have the flexibility to put younger juice in OWA / WSR if needed. (Do they really need to have both of those expressions?)


No. If it came down to it I'm sure they would discontinue WSR. Who needs that stuff?

callmeox
10-19-2010, 17:22
No. If it came down to it I'm sure they would discontinue WSR. Who needs that stuff?

Texas.

Contrary to what some folks here may think, WSR is the label that drives the train. I'm too lazy to look, but I think the sales split is 70/30 or higher WSR to Antique.

T Comp
10-19-2010, 18:22
No. If it came down to it I'm sure they would discontinue WSR. Who needs that stuff?


Texas.

Contrary to what some folks here may think, WSR is the label that drives the train. I'm too lazy to look, but I think the sales split is 70/30 or higher WSR to Antique.

Thanks callmeox as that finally explains to me why there is a lot of WSR but not much of any other Weller or BT products in Eagle County, Colorado, which has a lot of visiting and second home Texans. I always wondered about that in my frequent stays and dusty hunting due diligence throughout that area.

M14Shooter
10-20-2010, 06:59
When I was in Texas and Oklahoma.Weller Special Reserve seems to be on the shelves of most bars.Did not see any OWA 107.
Mike

Whiskey Willie
10-20-2010, 08:21
No. If it came down to it I'm sure they would discontinue WSR. Who needs that stuff?

I need it...It's my everyday wheater. It has a place on my shelf right next to the BT and WT101.

DeanSheen
10-20-2010, 09:01
I need it...It's my everyday wheater. It has a place on my shelf right next to the BT and WT101.

Heh, that's cool. I'm just saying I wouldn't be sad if SR went away, OWA oto.......... is my everyday wheater.

doubleblank
10-20-2010, 10:14
Hey Scott, I think the ratio is even higher than 70/30. IIRC, I think its 85/15 WSR/W107.

It is indeed very common to see WSR as the well bourbon at any decent bar in Texas. As the price of WSR has risen the past few years, Beam White has made serious inroads to replace it.

Randy

Whiskey Willie
10-21-2010, 07:02
Heh, that's cool. I'm just saying I wouldn't be sad if SR went away, OWA oto.......... is my everyday wheater.

That's fine. I like OWA too, but it has disappeared from the shelves of my fave booze stores lately. Hence, SR has taken its place in my liquor cabinet.

Halifax
10-21-2010, 11:52
Our state controlled ABC recently dropped WSR. Fortunately they still have OWA. We've still got an ample supply of older WSR and OWA w/AS on the shelves. I still pick up a few for the bunker here and there. I have had a few bottles of the new OWA. Personally I see no difference in terms of quality and taste when comparing it to the older bottle. I have yet to open up a bad bottle of either. Hopefully that trend will continue.

Parkersback
10-25-2010, 10:15
For any New Yorkers on the board, there's a place under the BQE near Clinton Hill that has about 7-10 more liter bottles of OWA with the age statement for $23 even. The bottom of the bottle has '99, and the proof of purchase number has 88004, which means it's BTAC, I think. I really liked my first few pours. Last night's was not as good, but I think that was the Thai food I had that messed with my palate.

They had one 750 of the gold threaded older bottles ('95 on the bottom) but I already bought it. I kept needling the guy, asking if they had any more, but he claimed they did not.

dean_martin
10-26-2010, 14:51
I did a little hunting over the weekend and found two places that had just put out what looked like one case each of the OWA with age statement. Distributors for NW FL must still have a few cases on hand.