Jefferson's Ocean - Bottle variation?

[passthebourbon]

I just read David Driscoll's note on the whole Jefferson's Ocean fiasco with K&L, ending with a suggestion to go to eBay if you want to find one. Out of curiosity I went and saw that some of the bottles were darker in color, while some were lighter. The two I picked up from Binny's (not trying to brag) fell on the lighter side, so I'm wondering if anyone knows if there was variation in proof in bottling.

The web notes 88 proof across the board (going from memory as I type on my iPhone), so does anyone have one that says otherwise? Or doesn't note proof at all? I'm fairly certain mine state 88, but I'm too tired to go down to the bunker to confirm.

Cheers,

Pete

[Tico]

Maybe some bottles got caught in high tide?

[HighInTheMtns]

Color variation doesn't necessarily correspond to proof variation.

I hope you like your Jefferson's Oceans. I like coastal Scotch a lot, may the sea character treat that bourbon well!

[compliance]

Could also be the lighting/camera hitting the bottle differently.

[StraightNoChaser]

Could also be the lighting/camera hitting the bottle differently.

Most likely this

[tanstaafl2]

I just read David Driscoll's note on the whole Jefferson's Ocean fiasco with K&L, ending with a suggestion to go to eBay if you want to find one. Out of curiosity I went and saw that some of the bottles were darker in color, while some were lighter. The two I picked up from Binny's (not trying to brag) fell on the lighter side, so I'm wondering if anyone knows if there was variation in proof in bottling.

The web notes 88 proof across the board (going from memory as I type on my iPhone), so does anyone have one that says otherwise? Or doesn't note proof at all? I'm fairly certain mine state 88, but I'm too tired to go down to the bunker to confirm.

Cheers,

Pete

[ThirstyinOhio]

Rumors seem to abound regarding this particular bourbon. I would love to get one but that seems highly unlikely. Altohugh I originally saw it being discussed at 88 proof the lone bottle that supposedly makes up the allocation at K&L (kinda wonder if ownership didn't end up with a bottle or two but perhaps not) appears to be down to 82.3 proof. First I heard 600 bottles would be produced and now I hear/read it is down to 250. I also was told from someone in the business that several barrels were damaged and some or all of the contents were lost because the metal rings rusted from exposure to the sea. Stainless steel anyone?

I have no idea what is in fact true. But for $200 or more (again only what I have read, don't know what the actual cost is. The bid on K&L is already over $300) it seems to be getting less and less appealing even if I did have a chance to buy one. But I probably would given the chance. Of course then I would want to drink it and the more expensive it gets the harder that would be to do!

Edited September 17, 2012 by ThirstyinOhio

[LostBottle]

Auction, huh? Wow, already at 150% of retail. Stay classy, K&L

[MyOldKyDram]

I dont fault them. I mean, they had one bottle. Why not?

[berto]

Auction, huh? Wow, already at 150% of retail. Stay classy, K&L

Edited September 17, 2012 by berto

[tanstaafl2]

A little less than 4 hours to go on the K&L auction and the Jeff Ocean bid is currently at a modest $975.

Just a bit out of my price range...

[Clavius]

A little less than 4 hours to go on the K&L auction and the Jeff Ocean bid is currently at a modest $975.

Just a bit out of my price range...

I'm sure it's interesting and I would definitely like to taste it... but that is just crazy.

[passthebourbon]

Sold! A mere $1,025.

Unreal.

[michaelturtle1]

Seeing that makes me angry that I didn't immediately order a few bottles when I saw them for $181...oh well I still think that would have been too much $$ no matter how rare it is

[sku]

Sold! A mere $1,025.

Unreal.

Everyone mark this moment when an independently bottled bourbon originally listed for $90 sold for over $1,000. This, more than any single event, marks the end of the golden age of whiskey and portends the crash.

Jefferson's Ocean Aged = pets.com

[LostBottle]

Everyone mark this moment when an independently bottled bourbon originally listed for $90 sold for over $1,000. This, more than any single event, marks the end of the golden age of whiskey and portends the crash.

Jefferson's Ocean Aged = pets.com

Agreed.

It also marks the moment I decided I will not give this retailer any more business. I encourage others to think before buying bourbon. A retailer that encourages this madness via auctions and gouging and then claims this was done out of "fairness" sets a very bad precedent. While businesses are free to charge what they want, I am free to shop elsewhere.

Edited September 21, 2012 by LostBottle

[sku]

Agreed.

It also marks the moment I decided I will not give this retailer any more business. I encourage others to think before buying bourbon. A retailer that encourages this madness via auctions and gouging and then claims this was done out of "fairness" sets a very bad precedent. While businesses are free to charge what they want, I am free to shop elsewhere.

I can understand being upset but blaming the retailer here is sort of killing the messenger. They only got one bottle and chose to auction it. It was idiot consumers who bid it up to $1,000.

[SDpappy]

KL is a fantastic store and runs a classy operation. They also have a wine auction division. I see wines I want for $50 but some of those wines sell for $$$$$. Supply vs Demand. I want to buy Pappy for $40, Screaming Eagle Cab for $200, and Pliny the Younger in keg version. Just not gonna happen

[LostBottle]

KL is a fantastic store and runs a classy operation. They also have a wine auction division. I see wines I want for $50 but some of those wines sell for $$$$$. Supply vs Demand. I want to buy Pappy for $40, Screaming Eagle Cab for $200, and Pliny the Younger in keg version. Just not gonna happen

With all due respect, that is a bit of a straw man argument. No one sells Pappy for $40 or Screaming Eagle for $200 as that is way below normal retail pricing. Those examples would never happen; however, it did happen that most places sold the Jefferson's at the suggested retail of ~$200.

Edited September 21, 2012 by LostBottle

[mrviognier]

I got a bottle for a mere $180, but haven't opened it yet. Of course, I'm willing to sell it for an even $1,000. Hell, I'll even throw in free shipping.

[smokinjoe]

I got a bottle for a mere $180, but haven't opened it yet. Of course, I'm willing to sell it for an even $1,000. Hell, I'll even throw in free shipping.

Throw in a couple tix to the WLOCP?

[MauiSon]

I think K & L Wines is a great retailer. They have auctions I've bid in and their auction program adds value to their business. Everyone losing in that auction can be entirely satisfied that they could have bought the bottle by bidding higher than all others - what system is more fair than that? In the generally secretive liquor business, this was a shining beacon of clarity. The auction price system is used for many commodities on a wholesale basis and is generally considered to lower prices overall by removing barriers to the supply/demand process.

You want cheap hooch? Buy cheap hooch - it's readily available. You want the single bottle available from one retailer? Pay the piper. I'd bet K&L donates the excess profits to charity because the publicity over the auction was worth a darn sight more than the hammer price.

Edited September 21, 2012 by MauiSon

[tanstaafl2]

It seems this thread has made it's way to the K&L Spirits Journal blog and the company is in fact donating the additional profit from the auction to a local (unidentified to my knowledge) charity.

I suppose it is a good thing. But the point made by SKU in this thread and reemphasized by David Driscoll at the end of his blog is probably the real take home message.

[David D]

It seems this thread has made it's way to the K&L Spirits Journal blog and the company is in fact donating the additional profit from the auction to a local (unidentified to my knowledge) charity.

I suppose it is a good thing. But the point made by SKU in this thread and reemphasized by David Driscoll at the end of his blog is probably the real take home message.

Hi guys. This is most likely going to the Stanford Childrens Hospital. That's where we usually focus most of our charitable donations. I'll take a photo of the check and post it on the blog later so you know I'm not full of crap.

Thanks!

[sob0728]

Hi guys. This is most likely going to the Stanford Childrens Hospital. That's where we usually focus most of our charitable donations. I'll take a photo of the check and post it on the blog later so you know I'm not full of crap.

Thanks!

I don't think anyone assumed you were lying about the charity stuff but just to be safe, make sure that you are holding a copy of today's newspaper next to the check and that both Julian Van Winkle AND Harlen Wheatley are in the frame and jointly holding a bottle of PVW 23 or no one will believe anything.