Another Age Statement Bites the Dust (And More Recent COLA Findings)

[Rutherford]

It looks like they have them for bourbon, rye, wheat, and corn:

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12296001000186

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12296001000207

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12296001000194

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12296001000201

[HighInTheMtns]

These all look mightily like bottles that HH will charge over $100 for and sell only in their gift shop.

I'd say that the "hand selected for" section points toward this not being a gift shop exclusive. And the paper label points toward it being less expensive than PHC. I'm betting $50 range, to compete with the FR barrel proof selections.

[redbear]

So, if you're right, they would basically be going in to the same market that Willet uses them for.

I'd say that the "hand selected for" section points toward this not being a gift shop exclusive. And the paper label points toward it being less expensive than PHC. I'm betting $50 range, to compete with the FR barrel proof selections.

[tanstaafl2]

So, if you're right, they would basically be going in to the same market that Willet uses them for.

I think somewhere earlier in the thread (I am too lazy to look!) someone suggested it might be for barrel selected bottlings by a store, restaurant or perhaps an individual or group. Seems like a reasonable possibility.

[HighInTheMtns]

So, if you're right, they would basically be going in to the same market that Willet uses them for.

[HighHorse]

It's strange for sure. Each of the labels has a barrel number on it and I can't imagine making up a label for a one-barrel offering. That's why I'm guessing the label is designed to leave the quasi-handwritten portions blank for filling in at will. Also, when we mixed two barrels for a duel barrel EC12 selection back in April we had to get special permission as they supposedly had not done a dual barrel before and.. while we loved it at barrel proof, we had to get it at the stock 94 proof because that's what the EC12 label had on it. (It's good .. but not as good as at barrel proof). Having labels that can be filled out would give them more leeway in barrel selection requests. And the other "hint" that makes me think this way is the way they simply had put tape labels on the barrel proof EC12 they offered in the gift shop only. That tape label states: "barrel proof".

But .. why four different labels? why all at 62.5% ABV? ..

The barrel number on the COLA's just makes no sense. A one-off label?

[HighInTheMtns]

Four different labels for four different types of whiskey. Same proof because it is a placeholder.

[HighHorse]

Four different labels for four different types of whiskey. Same proof because it is a placeholder.

What is a placeholder?

[HighInTheMtns]

What is a placeholder?

The proof on an approved label can change (see: Willett, FR, etc) but they have to put something there. So they put 62.5% (barreling proof) to hold the place for the proof of each individual barrel. Same with the barrel number. Lots of things provide a barrel number but they're not getting each separate barrel number approved.

[timd]

Safe bet is that HH is setting these up for private barrel programs.

The labels will be filled in based on proof, age, etc. - I wouldn't expect there is a price point set, it'll simply be relative to whatever juice is selected by the individual(s) buying the bottling. Could be single barrels, blended small batches, etc.

They are "generic" to allow them to, essentially, provide whatever a customer wants...

[Kalessin]

The document detailing allowable changes to approved COLA labels can be found here:

http://www.ttb.gov/labeling/allowable_revisions.shtml

All kinds of things can be changed: artwork, fonts and type size (though mandatory standards have to be upheld), content statement, age, proof.

[c2walker]

Looks like Sazerac wants to capitalize on the success of George T. Stagg. Say hello to Stagg Jr:

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12355001000176

[mosugoji64]

Looks like Sazerac wants to capitalize on the success of George T. Stagg. Say hello to Stagg Jr:

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12355001000176

Good catch! That is intriguing. Wonder what the "Jr." implies, beyond the reduction in proof. I look forward to hearing more about this one.

[Trey Manthey]

Aged for nearly a decade!

[c2walker]

Good catch! That is intriguing. Wonder what the "Jr." implies, beyond the reduction in proof. I look forward to hearing more about this one.

It appears to be barrel proof, but as Trey pointed out, the label places a 10 year ceiling for the age.

[tanstaafl2]

Aged for nearly a decade!

Is nine years "nearly" a decade? Eight? A blend of several different ages?

They want to give them selves wiggle room of course and I guess it is good it will have a decent age range on it, depending on the retail price of course, but it would be nice if it said it was specifically at least ten years old. Or nine. Or whatever rather than the somewhat vague "nearly a decade".

On a side note it lists DSP-CA-63 and DSP -MD-11, both of which are presumably Sazerac owned Barton Brands of California and Maryland respectively (MAJESTIC DISTILLING CO., INC. in the case of Maryland).

Are these most likely bottling locations? Or is this just a full list of all Sazerac owned distilleries that show up on any Sazerac COLA filings?

This page (from the Czech Republic of all places) suggest that while Majestic Distilling may have once been the source of Maryland Rye it is now mostly a bottler and "rectifier" so perhaps I have answered my own question...

[squire]

Actually, the term 'nearly a decade' is a limitation applied only to the youngest whiskys in the melding of the barrels in a particular bottling run.

What I see is uncut, unfiltered, fully aged whisky which is exactly what I want to see more of in the market.

[mosugoji64]

It appears to be barrel proof, but as Trey pointed out, the label places a 10 year ceiling for the age.

Oops - missed the "Barrel Proof" text on the label. Saw the written-in "100 Proof" and thought this would be a reduced-proof version. Now I'm wondering what the difference will be between this and CEHT Barrel Proof. That one struck me as a younger version of GTS. Could this be a regular offering where the Taylor was a one-off?

[squire]

Those are my thoughts Brian, I expect they can lay hands on enough stock to make this one a regular issue.

[Tico]

So this is their way of bringing back ER 10/101?

I guess antlers sell better then wings?

[oke&coke]

Well if its good juice at a decent price and I can get my hands on a bottle then I don't care if it has wings, antlers or a big giant ass.

[MyOldKyDram]

We're so calling this Bambi, right?

[luther.r]

We're so calling this Bambi, right?

+1 on this initiative.

[squire]

Oh God, that one was inevitable wasn't it.

[Trey Manthey]

The CEHT Barrel Proof bottles I have are almost 135 proof, so this is quite a bit tamer than that. And it was $70, which is only $10 less than I pay for Grand Stagg.

I think the antlers are a great mark, evoking a vision of a powerful, uncompromising product. (However, I would be willing to agree to "a big, giant ass" for something more affordable and readily available.)

Is this the OWA for those who prefer a rye mashbill? I guess the price and availability will tell.