fishnbowljoe Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdman1099 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spun_cookie Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OscarV Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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 website.Man, wouldn't that be cool if Centennial and OCProprierter's Reserve made a come back?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburlowski Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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. JoeJoe 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggilbertva Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggilbertva Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburlowski Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OscarV Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spun_cookie Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spun_cookie Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BourbonJoe Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Therefore, the producers don't feel they are cheating the consumer by switching to NAS. I beg to disagree. Joe :usflag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OscarV Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadewood Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILLfarmboy Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnbowljoe Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 · Hidden Hidden I hear that.... but you do get what you pay for... Anyone had the new label WSR to compair to the old one?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 Link to comment
spun_cookie Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callmeox Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILLfarmboy Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnbowljoe Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
independant Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3Nut Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callmeox Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts