BT single oak and a diatribe

[RWBadley]

I need to pounce on my soapbox for a minute... This is an observance I have been formulating thoughts on for the last year -two years.

If I am wrong- off base about this I'd love to hear your take on it...

A few recent threads have got me thinking. Namely one on 'trends' and the other on recent price increases affecting the direction of our avocation.

Yesterday I was in my local retailer. Great place, good guy. He came out holding a case with newest batch of BT single oak experimental.

Four or five different barrel numbers. Priced at $70 per 350ml. I was rather stunned when he told me the price, and I hastily slid the bottle back in the case while mumbling a 'maybe next time'...

Now, while I am grateful to have the opportunity to purchase these fine items, a couple things hit me....

If I purchase One, then I have no comparison to the others and contrast/compare of the flavor profiles within the experiment becomes moot and thus somewhat pointless.

The purchase of several would mean a rather severe depletion of funds that could go to other related items that are a rather more known quantity, and most likely a better value--- an example of Take your pick ; OWA, Parkers 7th, MM, KC, OGD 114 etc...

The soapbox part of this whole thing is this: The demise of what we might term as the value / quality sector would appear to be written on the wall, and we maybe should take heed of. My belief is those stocks are/will be destined for 'premium' or 'super premium' labels for here/overseas in the now/ near future. The day of the $20-30 pretty- dam- fine bottle of bourbon may be fast disappearing. It may be the day of the $40-70 super- premium is going the way of the Dodo bird as well, as we see with the allocations/sell outs and high demand based on market forces. Retailers seeing bourbon as a 'golden goose' combined with high secondary black market prices creating what might be seen as a hoarding/bubble mentality

Not much I can see to change any of this. Maybe realization these are the 'good old days' in some respects; and if we are able to, take advantage and buy an extra bottle or two of our favorites while we can.

Great..., so my best answer to this whole thing is to 'hoard while you can' hehheh :skep:

As for the BT experiment, I resisted the impulse and left with several bottles of 'something else'.

thanks, off my soapbox now :cool:

Cheers,

RW

[wadewood]

The BT single oak project is crap. It's market research and they expect you to pay to participate.

[Richnimrod]

...And, pay 'thru the nose' at that, eh?!

...And, what if you do find a particular one you absolutely LOVE, through some quirk of fate.

How will you ever be able to buy more of the same???

On the whole program I say; PASS!!!! Just my own opinion, of course.

[sailor22]

Wasn't there a thread on here where a few guys collaborated, sharing the cost of buying and tasting the entire set to date?

[RWBadley]

Wasn't there a thread on here where a few guys collaborated, sharing the cost of buying and tasting the entire set to date?

Maybe, tho they have been relinquishing bits and pieces of this set for several years now, and may have another year left of issue.

[squire]

Oh whatever, let 'em sell it overseas, I an not interested anyway.

[Oboe Cadobro]

The soapbox part of this whole thing is this: The demise of what we might term as the value / quality sector would appear to be written on the wall

The short version of RW's rant goes like this:

"Buy enough now to last the rest of your life!"

[Grain Belt]

Any time we purchase something that we cannot create/replicate ourselves, we are risking that the product will eventually no longer be there. We rely on someone else to produce what we want and vote for what we want with our dollars. The manufacturers use basic commodities to produce their product. They vary the production of these basic items to maximize profit. An example is breakfast cereal. Think of how many types hit the shelves. How many stick around for the long haul? Of course cereal eventually goes bad. Whiskey can last a good amount of time. Some lament that there are not multiple producers anymore. In the old days the distillery often only produced one type of whiskey or only a couple mashbills. Today you get the feel that with age statements leaving us and labels changing or being discontinued, that the corporations are just swinging for the fences on what will be "the next big thing." Well, if your big thing was Ancient Ancient Age, you sir, are screwed. It is unfortunate. I, as a very middle class man, worry that I might get priced out of a damn fine hobby. My wheelhouse is enjoying the mid to low shelf world of bourbon. I hope that area still has quality in the years to come.

[Harry in WashDC]

The short version of RW's rant goes like this:

"Buy enough now to last the rest of your life!"

Lemme see . . . 60 bottles a year times my life expectancy equals . . . Now, which store delivers . . .

Seriously, folks, I learned with wine that after a certain price I have trouble tasting anything measurably better - too many "cheaper" (a relative term meaning under $50 a bottle to me) wines I like out there to spend more. Realizing several decades ago that I was mortal, I stopped buying ports - when what I have is gone, I'll go exclusively to by-the-glass. The major distillers won't be getting my high end. I'll buy EWB, JBB, 4RSmB (which you all convinced me to try - THANKS!), & stuff like that there, but I'll put my high end experimental spending in regional distillery/NDP products unless a critical mass of SBers like something. Is why I haunt this board. The cigar bubble caused me to give up brands I'd smoked for years (freeing up cash for bourbon BTW), but I have no intention of giving up this last vice.

[Pikesville]

Any time we purchase something that we cannot create/replicate ourselves, we are risking that the product will eventually no longer be there. We rely on someone else to produce what we want and vote for what we want with our dollars. The manufacturers use basic commodities to produce their product. They vary the production of these basic items to maximize profit. An example is breakfast cereal. Think of how many types hit the shelves. How many stick around for the long haul? Of course cereal eventually goes bad. Whiskey can last a good amount of time. Some lament that there are not multiple producers anymore. In the old days the distillery often only produced one type of whiskey or only a couple mashbills. Today you get the feel that with age statements leaving us and labels changing or being discontinued, that the corporations are just swinging for the fences on what will be "the next big thing." Well, if your big thing was Ancient Ancient Age, you sir, are screwed. It is unfortunate. I, as a very middle class man, worry that I might get priced out of a damn fine hobby. My wheelhouse is enjoying the mid to low shelf world of bourbon. I hope that area still has quality in the years to come.

I'm actually optimistic about the mid-low shelf, as the big producers (generally) don't seem to have been cutting quality as in response to surging demand. Dropping age statements sure, proofs in some cases, but the master distillers at the helm today are by and large well respected and seem genuinely focused on making good product. Demand seemed to really pick up a few years ago, maybe 2009-2010? I've got to imagine that production was ramped as well, and we should be seeing a good steady supply of quality NAS booze coming down the pipe which should help keep prices in check. Already seeing some relief in Rittenhouse BiB, which 12-18 months ago was hard to get in CA and now is more readily available.

The tricky spot is going to be in the 10-12+ ages. Production sure wasn't ramping in 2002. After the many rumors Weller 12 is really drying up (gone in CA). EC12 at $26 may not be with us for too long.

[GaryT]

I agree with Wade - not interested in paying for their market research. First off, if they REALLY wanted the feedback, they wouldn't charge you that much for a half-bottle. I understand they don't want college kids who might not provide the type of feedback they want, but there is some middle ground here. I'd probably pay $25 for a half bottle for the novelty of it. The other piece for me is - what if it sucks? You could be spending premium bucks for a failed experiment!! And it isn't like you get a refund if that happens.

I think they should have bottled small samples (200 mL would be enough) and sold those for $15 a piece. People serious about tasting the different influences might be interested enough to buy into several bottles, and you could do several tastings with each (and wouldn't feel like you were kicked in the nuts if the bottle sucked). But, they weren't interested in getting lots of feedback. They wanted lots of profit - so, you go the route they did.

[weller_tex]

I agree with Wade - not interested in paying for their market research. First off, if they REALLY wanted the feedback, they wouldn't charge you that much for a half-bottle. I understand they don't want college kids who might not provide the type of feedback they want, but there is some middle ground here. I'd probably pay $25 for a half bottle for the novelty of it. The other piece for me is - what if it sucks? You could be spending premium bucks for a failed experiment!! And it isn't like you get a refund if that happens.

I think they should have bottled small samples (200 mL would be enough) and sold those for $15 a piece. People serious about tasting the different influences might be interested enough to buy into several bottles, and you could do several tastings with each (and wouldn't feel like you were kicked in the nuts if the bottle sucked). But, they weren't interested in getting lots of feedback. They wanted lots of profit - so, you go the route they did.

Exactly! Could not have said it better. BT is the biggest culprit in leading to the premiumization of bourbon..

[danz]

I agree with Wade - not interested in paying for their market research. First off, if they REALLY wanted the feedback, they wouldn't charge you that much for a half-bottle. I understand they don't want college kids who might not provide the type of feedback they want, but there is some middle ground here. I'd probably pay $25 for a half bottle for the novelty of it. The other piece for me is - what if it sucks? You could be spending premium bucks for a failed experiment!! And it isn't like you get a refund if that happens.

I think they should have bottled small samples (200 mL would be enough) and sold those for $15 a piece. People serious about tasting the different influences might be interested enough to buy into several bottles, and you could do several tastings with each (and wouldn't feel like you were kicked in the nuts if the bottle sucked). But, they weren't interested in getting lots of feedback. They wanted lots of profit - so, you go the route they did.

Well, shoot, normally I like to complain more than the next guy, but here I will play devil's advocate. I just looked up the price of the single oak 12 pack x 375ml from a well-known Chicago outfit and they look like about $58.33 per bottle, so the original post at $70 per bottle is a little higher than ideal, but not as bad as some markups I have seen. Making the case for Buffalo Trace on this one, it seems like there would be a lot more labor involved in putting these sets together, compared to running a lot of the regular Buffalo Trace through the line.

That price is higher than I want to pay, but I can understand some higher pricing on it. Woodford Reserve experimental releases have also been highly priced, if I remember correctly.

[smokinjoe]

Exactly! Could not have said it better. BT is the biggest culprit in leading to the premiumization of bourbon..

But, wouldn't the vast majority of participants on this site state unequivocally, that bourbon is a premium spirit? For all the reasons you can find posted on these boards thousands upon thousands of times, we enthusiasts believe bourbon to be a premium, if not the premium spirit on the planet. So why should the distilleries not treat it as such?

[oke&coke]

But, wouldn't the vast majority of participants on this site state unequivocally, that bourbon is a premium spirit? For all the reasons you can find posted on these boards thousands upon thousands of times, we enthusiasts believe bourbon to be a premium, if not the premium spirit on the planet. So why should the distilleries not treat it as such?

[HighInTheMtns]

The short version of RW's rant goes like this:

"Buy enough now to last the rest of your life!"

[mbroo5880i]

I recall the WR ryes coming out as a package for $99. I have seen some places selling them separately for $35 each.

I guess it would be interesting to hear from retailers whether these experimental offerings from distilleries actually sell or they just sit on the shelves. In the case of the WR Ryes, one store had several of the sets and then one day they just disappeared. Do retailers choose to carry these items or are they pretty much forced to by the distributors?

[squire]

Distributors who carry popular brands are in a position to demand a store carry the less popular or introduction products as well. It's a balance really but the distributor has the high cards.

[Quantum]

Well, shoot, normally I like to complain more than the next guy, but here I will play devil's advocate. I just looked up the price of the single oak 12 pack x 375ml from a well-known Chicago outfit and they look like about $58.33 per bottle, so the original post at $70 per bottle is a little higher than ideal, but not as bad as some markups I have seen. Making the case for Buffalo Trace on this one, it seems like there would be a lot more labor involved in putting these sets together, compared to running a lot of the regular Buffalo Trace through the line.

Yes, it does cost BT more to produce single oak bottles. They are experimenting with individual custom built barrels, and that gets expensive. Research and development is expensive in any industry. My problem is that they are passing that cost directly to the customer, and not even giving us a reasonable method of comparing them. Imagine if Brooks Brothers introduced an experimental line of non-iron dress shirts. You get to pay 3x normal cost, get a shirt in a sealed package labeled "dress shirt", and there are no returns. If you do happen to like it, you probably won't be able to find another one exactly like it. What you can do, is send Brooks Brothers your thoughts on the shirt, and you may see some of those features available in 6-12 years.

I would pay $100+ for a bottle of bourbon every once in a while, if I know it is something I really enjoy. Are all of these really better than the BTAC, LE Four Roses, ORVW/PVW, and PHC? For as many bottles as there are out there, I must have missed these reviews. I can get two different 375 ml bottles for $100, but if one of them is just "pretty good" then the second better be good enough to make WLW seem like a decent mixer.

I think they should have bottled small samples (200 mL would be enough) and sold those for $15 a piece. People serious about tasting the different influences might be interested enough to buy into several bottles, and you could do several tastings with each (and wouldn't feel like you were kicked in the nuts if the bottle sucked). But, they weren't interested in getting lots of feedback. They wanted lots of profit - so, you go the route they did.

Putting it in smaller bottles, sold in a set, seems like the natural way to do this. If the whole point of this is to compare individual variable, then give us a chance to do that. I would spend $100 for a set of 5 200 ml bottle, because I enjoy comparing things like this. The price per ml is terrible, but I will pay for the tasting and comparing experience. If I want to compare 5 different barrels now, I need to spend at least $265, and then hunt down each individual bottle. Wow, that really entices me to fund their experiments and do market research for BT.

[Old Dusty]

I think they should have bottled small samples (200 mL would be enough) and sold those for $15 a piece. People serious about tasting the different influences might be interested enough to buy into several bottles, and you could do several tastings with each (and wouldn't feel like you were kicked in the nuts if the bottle sucked). But, they weren't interested in getting lots of feedback. They wanted lots of profit - so, you go the route they did.

This thread has produced some interesting ideas-like the quote above. Any of you email BT with these thoughts or just vent on a message board that they may not see? Not being a BT apologist here but they do seem to be trying lots of interesting things and instead of keeping them behind the scenes or limited to small focus groups they are making them generally available. BTEC and Single Oak for example. I for one think the OPTION to buy these is pretty cool. You, can, like me so far, vote with your wallet and choose not to buy of course. But griping about them being for sale or the price kind of misses the point in my humble opinion.

If they are recouping some of their R&D costs on the R&D itself, I'd rather they do that then pass it on to the standard brands.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Old Dusty

[smokinjoe]

OK, maybe they blew the portion size and price point, but you can't say that BT isn't thinking about pushing the envelope for us enthusiasts. It was a really cool idea (FWIW, I didn't participate), though. Exactly the kind of thing whiskey geeks like us should appreciate, if not exactly running out to buy. I hope they keep doing things like this, because contrary to what some would like you to believe, the real and potential innovation in bourbon whiskey does not lie in the craft world. It has, is, and will be led by the legacies.

[RWBadley]

OK, maybe they blew the portion size and price point, but you can't say that BT isn't thinking about pushing the envelope for us enthusiasts. It was a really cool idea (FWIW, I didn't participate), though. Exactly the kind of thing whiskey geeks like us should appreciate, if not exactly running out to buy. I hope they keep doing things like this, because contrary to what some would like you to believe, the real and potential innovation in bourbon whiskey does not lie in the craft world. It has, is, and will be led by the legacies.

Several good points Joe,

Back in the last millennium, I brewed and judged beer and competitions. The intense home brewing movement begat the craft brewing industry. Craft brewers became adept and nimble at the addition of all sorts of unique flavors and techniques, partly as a result of those home brewing experiences. We have seen the result in a 'trickle up' over the years. Now even A B tries new things and presentations.

I suspect we are seeing some of this currently in the spirits industry.

That being said, my money still flows to the legacies, because that is my own preference in taste/ value.

Cheers,

RW

[squire]

I'm glad BT is experimenting, I'm glad they are bottling and sharing the experiments, I believe they could recoup the R&D costs by raising the price of their other brands by a nickel a bottle.

[weller_tex]

I'm glad BT is experimenting, I'm glad they are bottling and sharing the experiments, I believe they could recoup the R&D costs by raising the price of their other brands by a nickel a bottle.

I am glad they are experimenting too, but..

It's pure profit for them to charge the prices they do for the Single Oak. So does BT think that only the upper middle class and wealthy can be their bourbon tasting group? If they truly wanted the bourbon drinking public to help out, they would have released it in mini bottles as has been said. The whole thing points towards if there is a release from all this..the vast majority won't be able to get it or afford it...

[squire]

Of course we don't want them as customers, they don't have any money. Let 'em drink swill.