OWA-NAS/new label

[spun_cookie]

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]

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]

Therefore, the producers don't feel they are cheating the consumer by switching to NAS.

I beg to disagree.
Joe

[OscarV]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..

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

[callmeox]

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]

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.