OWA-NAS/new label

[fishnbowljoe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.