New Elijah Craig 12 Label

[Josh]

Saw this on the shelf at one of my usual haunts a couple weeks ago. Not much of a change, but definately a change. The new bottle is on the left.

[Gillman]

Good catch Josh. I'd presume no change to the product given it still says 12 years old.

Gary

[WhiskyToWhiskey]

I looked at the pic and got depressed...here we pay the same amount for the 12 as you can get the 18 for

[ebo]

I looked at the pic and got depressed...here we pay the same amount for the 12 as you can get the 18 for

[Jwilly019]

The 18 is available in Ohio. I saw it in a couple stores earlier this week.

[mrviognier]

EC 18 will soon be a rare site everywhere...at least for a while.

[ebo]

The 18 is available in Ohio. I saw it in a couple stores earlier this week.

[WhiskyToWhiskey]

At least you GET the 18. Ohio sucks.:smiley_acbt:

[Josh]

EC 18 will soon be a rare site everywhere...at least for a while.

OK, I'll bite. Why is that?

[Bmac]

EC 18 will soon be a rare site everywhere...at least for a while.

Curious bourbon drinkers want to know. :bigeyes:

[mrviognier]

I was told by the HH folks that they're short on 18+yr barrels. Of course, there's been a lot of misinformation going around these days. :grin:

[cigarnv]

I was told by the HH folks that they're short on 18+yr barrels. Of course, there's been a lot of misinformation going around these days. :grin:

Given it has been removed from the private barrel program I suspect your information is correct...

[Jwilly019]

I live in the Massillon/Canton area. I have NEVER seen the 18 available in any stores.

I'm not willing to drive any great distance just to buy a bottle of bourbon. :grin:

If I can't get it within a 15 mile radius.... I don't need it!

Fair enough, I didn't know certain areas of the state got certain bottles and others didn't.

Anyway, if you're ever in Columbus, we've got it here.

[jburlowski]

On the plus side, they are using the new labels for private barrels ( of EC12) that are not chill-filtered.

[Bmac]

I was told by the HH folks that they're short on 18+yr barrels. Of course, there's been a lot of misinformation going around these days. :grin:

Not to start another conspiracy thread but doesnt HH have the most barrels aging than any distillery? They probably have some of the oldest as well. Who can boast that they still have a 50yr bourbon cask still aging? They probably have the goods...maybe they want to save some of the 18yr barrels for a future PHC release.

[Rughi]

On the plus side, they are using the new labels for private barrels ( of EC12) that are not chill-filtered.

That's a choice one has with the McKenna Bond as well. I've teamed with Ledgers Liquors on 4 (soon to be 5) McKennas, and not chill-filtering was one of the major considerations. HH's being open to a wide range of profiles in the McKenna bottling was the other.

Roger

[mrviognier]

Doubtful that that's the reason.

[ThomasH]

Ebo, I have seen bottles of EC18 at Fishers on Fulton in the past. Have them order it in. I also sent you a PM!

Thomas

[BradleyC]

Saw this on the shelf at one of my usual haunts a couple weeks ago. Not much of a change, but definately a change. The new bottle is on the left.

[ATTACH]13388[/ATTACH]

Josh,

Did you happen to notice the proof on the newer bottle? It looks like it might be 132 proof. Too bad your pic cut off the price marker.

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12067001000462

[c2walker]

Josh,

Did you happen to notice the proof on the newer bottle? It looks like it might be 132 proof. Too bad your pic cut off the price marker.

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12067001000462

Given the handwritten-like font, I think that the new label allows for flexibility in proof (maybe this implies that it's now possible for retailers to bottle there EC12 barrel picks at barrel strength?), but I highly doubt that it means that we'll be seeing a national release of 132 proof EC12.

[mrviognier]

When the COLA is approved, the TTB allows you to use the same permit for your label...provided the only thing that changes is the alcoholic content. In other words, the 132 is an arbitrary number, and probably doesn't reflect what the final product will be.

[CorvallisCracker]

When the COLA is approved, the TTB allows you to use the same permit for your label...provided the only thing that changes is the alcoholic content. In other words, the 132 is an arbitrary number, and probably doesn't reflect what the final product will be.

Can you cite where that is stated? I would like to pass that along to an Oregon distiller.

[Josh]

Josh,

Did you happen to notice the proof on the newer bottle? It looks like it might be 132 proof. Too bad your pic cut off the price marker.

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12067001000462

I was at that store today and believe it was 92 proof. It's also worth noting that Michigan retailers don't really do private bottlings. The closest I saw was a store that had Knob Creek in wooden boxes with the store's name on it a few years ago. I would guess that the state control system makes it impossible to do a retailer bottling.

[StraightNoChaser]

The HH fire was almost 18 years ago so makes sense they might soon be short of 18yr+ barrels

[dohidied]

That's a choice one has with the McKenna Bond as well. I've teamed with Ledgers Liquors on 4 (soon to be 5) McKennas, and not chill-filtering was one of the major considerations. HH's being open to a wide range of profiles in the McKenna bottling was the other.

Roger

Any idea if they're still stocking #4? I have been looking to finally try McKenna BIB and I'd love for it to be non-chill-filtered.