So, 8 years is the new 11 years and $65 is

[mosugoji64]

The latest BevMo store selection is priced ridiculously at $79. I got one on sale and with a coupon, otherwise it would still be on their shelf. At that price, I'll stick with the standard SB.

[GaryT]

While I would love to have them stick around $45-50, I think they were undervalued there (I mean - NAS Bookers is in that range, and while I do like Bookers - it beats very few FRSB's I've picked up). I think $60 isn't unreasonable, although it is now in the arena of a "try before I buy" - which unfortunately around here is difficult (unless your whiskey monger has a bottle open to sample!)

[Quantum]

it's inevitable, and you cant really blame them. runaway demand for a commodity in a free market pretty much guarantees increased price, and few here wouldnt do the same if they owned the company. That said, the degree to which they raise prices will/should affect consumer opinion of them. If a consumer believes he's being fleeced, he will shop elsewhere. Given the circumstances, 10% or so seems justifiable to me, and I hope they put the extra income into new projects and development so we can in turn enjoy the benefits down the road.

I tend to agree with this. I will buy less of it at $65 than I would at $45, but I am not going to feel like I am being "fleeced".

[TunnelTiger]

Maybe I'll make that two cases.

Dealer move price from $32 to $39 but I still bought a case. Can't help myself.

[danz]

I tend to agree with this. I will buy less of it at $65 than I would at $45, but I am not going to feel like I am being "fleeced".

How about at $70 or $80? And what is the change in cost basis that justifies this type of rapid increase and pricing relative to Booker's and Elijah Craig Barrel Proof? Or for that matter, some of the younger cask strength Scotches? I have been a huge fan and made a fairly lengthy trip to visit them last summer, but honestly they are not so special that I am willing to put up with an unlimited sense of self-importance from them.

[393foureyedfox]

just my two cents here, and I will use one of my favorites for the logic....HH6BIB.

HH6BIB is about $11 here. It's 6 years age stated, and 100 proof. So, I figure that those barrels when dumped were probably within a few proof points of 125. So they cut it with water to get it down to 100 proof, maybe adding 20% total volume to the batch before bottling, which means any given barrel nets 20% more bottles than if they just sold it as a 6 year barrel proof. If they decided to sell it as 6 year barrel proof, they would need to charge 20% more than $11 to make the same amount of profit per barrel, which would make that 6 year barrel proof bottle cost $13.20, which no whiskey drinker with more than one brain cell would pass up. At what point does it become "fleecing"? Granted, you are talking 8-12 year old stuff, but it doesnt cost a distillery 4 times as much to make a 12 year product as it does a 6 year. Plus, with barrel proof products, less bottles and shipping is needed to transport the bottles of any given barrel. How much is too much? I, for one, dont think $45 is too much to spend for an 8 year barrel proof (right about where I like them), but $65?.........$80? I think the $45 Bookers I enjoy is fair. I think the 8 year OS I just bought for $45 is fair. I think the recent $90 WFE's are out of line.

[mbroo5880i]

Unfortunately, I think it is only a matter of time until we see significant increases in Booker's, ECBP, etc. I agree that as long as I can get ECBP for less than $50, there is no way I will pay $80 for FR, even barrel selects. Just not going to happen. I have said this before. If the price becomes too prohibitive for bourbon, I will happily opt for lower mid-shelf options and spend more $$ on beer and rum. I don't think I will ever get priced out of the bourbon market, but I can see possibly being priced out of upper mid-shelf options, primarily because I won't find them worth the price.

[393foureyedfox]

the fact that SAOS can buy whiskey from someone else, select the best of it and bottle it at barrel proof and sell it to me for $45 tells me that there is no reason the original producer can not do so as well and make even more money than an NDP doing it. Logically though, once the distillers raise their prices, NDPs will have to as well. I just tried an OS for the first time, and Im going to go back and get the rest of the bottles from that barrel.

$5 more a bottle is $60 more a case, and theyre talking like prices will be beyond $5. it adds up

[squire]

Quite true Fox though I'm afraid they aren't thinking in terms of how much it's worth, rather how much are the customers willing to pay.

[mosugoji64]

As others have pointed out, the cost of the whiskey has little to do with the price of the whiskey. We're living in a time when the perceived value of American whiskey is much higher. Even a few years ago I paid WAY more for a bottle of 3yr WFE rye than a bottle of 3yr Benchmark costs now. I'm sure the cost of the whiskies isn't that much different. As long as people are willing to pay more the prices will continue to rise.

[Quantum]

How about at $70 or $80? And what is the change in cost basis that justifies this type of rapid increase and pricing relative to Booker's and Elijah Craig Barrel Proof? Or for that matter, some of the younger cask strength Scotches? I have been a huge fan and made a fairly lengthy trip to visit them last summer, but honestly they are not so special that I am willing to put up with an unlimited sense of self-importance from them.

I buy less bourbon at $80 than I do $70, and less at $70 than I do at $60. If a Four Roses private selection is the best bourbon I can find in a given price range, I will buy some. If it's not, then I wont. I don't really consider their sense of self importance, just how it compares to other choices at that price point.

I would say that a rapid increase in demand, along with a limited supply, would be what is driving price increases. I would love to see ECBP raise prices, because then I might be able to find some. The supply is not enough to meet demand at the current price, so I do not even have option to buy it.

I will always take the option to buy something at a high price, instead of staring at a low price tag on an empty shelf.

[flahute]

Booker's is already $65-70 here in WA State. 4R Private Selection bottles are $65 at Total Wine and $79 at BevMo. It's getting out of hand and is making me look elsewhere. I surprisingly found an OBSK 12yr old at Whole Foods for $52 so I bought three. I'm looking for Booker's out of state now. Luckily, I bought a lot of what I like in the past year in anticipation of price increases so I have a lot of daily drinkers on hand.

[MauiSon]

I want to add to the conversation, but it's just too depressing to see Four Roses heading toward nose-bleed elevation.

BTW, Booker's is age-stated, right?

[GaryT]

I want to add to the conversation, but it's just too depressing to see Four Roses heading toward nose-bleed elevation.

BTW, Booker's is age-stated, right?

Correct (brain flatulence on my part!) Each batch states the youngest age, and the range is 6-8 yrs, so to me - having FRSB typically closer to 10 yrs old (but historically cheaper, at least around these parts) illustrates what a great bargain it was before. Similar to ECBP - when it first came out at $35, that was insanely undervalued (and I loved every minute of it ) Even at nearly double that - it would be a very fair price, but since we were introduced to it at $35 - it feels wrong. FRSB wasn't that far undervalued, but it also isn't doubling in price either.

I think Quantum nailed it - supply and demand. We've heard sources at Four Roses talk about the future of the barrel select SB program being on borrowed time (maybe a couple more years before they would have to turn it off for a spell). Curbing demand might stretch that out a bit. And just to clarify - we talk about what something is "worth" versus what people are willing to pay. There isn't a difference; worth/value is defined by what someone is willing to trade for it. And for my money, barrel proof 9-10 yrs FR is damn fine whiskey, and while I'll buy less of it at $65 - that doesn't seem like an absurd price.

[danz]

I buy less bourbon at $80 than I do $70, and less at $70 than I do at $60. If a Four Roses private selection is the best bourbon I can find in a given price range, I will buy some. If it's not, then I wont. I don't really consider their sense of self importance, just how it compares to other choices at that price point.

I would say that a rapid increase in demand, along with a limited supply, would be what is driving price increases. I would love to see ECBP raise prices, because then I might be able to find some. The supply is not enough to meet demand at the current price, so I do not even have option to buy it.

I will always take the option to buy something at a high price, instead of staring at a low price tag on an empty shelf.

That's a reasonable approach. It sounds like your demand, or willingness to pay, decreases fairly linearly with their increasing price. For me, there is more of a "cliff": above a certain price I won't buy any because the price sends a message that the seller is trying to rip people off to varying degrees, for lack of better terms. It also sounds like you may be more indifferent to how sellers generally conduct themselves and what their values are.

Many people have the view, reflected throughout this board and other whiskey forums, that there is no such thing as intrinsic or fundamental value for any goods or services and the only determinant of price can be people's willingness to pay for something: "it's worth whatever you will pay" or "How much does the car repair cost? - How much money do you have?" That's a very widespread view, but I don't think it is correct, and the long term success of value investors like Warren Buffet support the conclusion. One major contributor to financial boom and bust cycles is mass adoption of the view that there is, essentially, no such thing as fundamental value and that market price quotations are the only measure of value - followed by widespread refusal to continue paying escalating prices that are not founded on fundamental value.

Remember, last year's suggested prices for ECBP, Bookers, Stagg Jr. and barrel select Four Roses were set during a "boom" in whisky pricing and the distillers were not engaging in charity, but trying to make money for themselves. Four Roses barrel select, in particular, has gone from about $55 in local markets to about $65 - $80, which is a one year increase of about 18% to 45%. By analogy, if Coca Cola (another largely commodity product) announced tomorrow that they were raising prices 45% because there is no such thing as fundamental value and "we're just going to charge as much as you are stupid enough to pay", I wouldn't be buying any more Coca Cola products, among other reasons, because that type of price increase would say something about their values. Based on discussions I have had with local sales representatives, it seems like that mindset is at work here. These effects matter because the distilleries employ many people who deserve better than to have their livelihoods interfered with by a few crass individuals in the marketing department who suddenly find themselves darlings of the media.

One result of this strategy by Four Roses is that I have spent some serious time considering Booker's and Scotch alternatives, and the no-whiskey alternative. At $65-$80 for Four Roses barrel selections, those alternatives seem like better, and less pretentious, buys and at the high end of the range, the conclusion is complete.

[compliance]

I couldn't agree with you more danz. In fact, I feel like I explain that concept of value to my wife all the time! Usually when she buys pre-cut vegetables or some of the more outlandish soaps and cosmetics. Hopefully she never thinks to turn that around on me and my whiskey! I wouldn't put the blame for Bevmo's price on Four Roses though, Bevmo has been out of their damn minds. There's pretty much nothing I will buy there now that they're pricing most of their bourbon 20% high.

[Auracom]

Binny's latest picks of FR PS in-store @ $59.99. I took advantage of a 10% discount yesterday on all spirits and walked out with 5 bottles. $60ish after tax is still well within my price-point on these. I won't be priced out of any of the recipes until $75... if they ever get there I'll have to get really selective on the combination of recipe, age, and proof. But I really do love FR and it will take some gouging to get me off the wagon.

FYI, only one of the 5 recipes at Binny's right now is under 10 years of age. Still spec'd really well, imo.

[Quantum]

That's a reasonable approach. It sounds like your demand, or willingness to pay, decreases fairly linearly with their increasing price. For me, there is more of a "cliff": above a certain price I won't buy any because the price sends a message that the seller is trying to rip people off to varying degrees, for lack of better terms. It also sounds like you may be more indifferent to how sellers generally conduct themselves and what their values are.

I am not indifferent, I just understand they are a business trying to make a profit. A higher price does not automatically mean that the seller is trying to rip anyone off. If they cannot meet current demand at the current prices, it would be a poor business decision not to increase prices. The low prices could also have a negative impact on me as a customer, if their inability to meet demand means I never even see a bottle on the shelf.

Many people have the view, reflected throughout this board and other whiskey forums, that there is no such thing as intrinsic or fundamental value for any goods or services and the only determinant of price can be people's willingness to pay for something: "it's worth whatever you will pay" or "How much does the car repair cost?

I do believe that goods and services have a degree of intrinsic or fundamental value, but you cannot completely ignore supply and demand. I have always believed Four Roses barrel select was worth more than $55, but I have purchased several bottles for as little as $50. It sold for $50 because there was low demand. People realized it was undervalued at $50, and demand increased to a level that Four Roses does not have the supply to meet. If they do not increase prices, they will run out of product. Now you are saying it is unfair to Four Roses to increase their prices? Was if unfair for me to buy a bottle at $50, when I really valued it at $60? Do you think that I should call and apologize for ripping them off?

[mbroo5880i]

Isn't that part of the problem? Pricing is relative. Relative to WFE and other NDP products, which are overpriced, FRBS and ECBP are underpriced. Of course, those products (WFE) are overpriced to begin with. How do you determine fair value in an irrational market?

Edited January 19, 2015 by mbroo5880i

[El Vino]

It's Economics 101. A demand curve is the slope of the line that results from the changes in quantity at different price points. A vertical, or inelastic demand curve says that you will sell all quantity regardless of price. An elastic demand curve (horizontal line) means that quantity sold is directly correlated to price. I doubt that the demand for FR Private Barrels is so inelastic that higher price won't result in less demand. That means a lower return on investment for distributors and liquor stores. Will those stores be willing to carry them with a lower ROI?

[danz]

I am not indifferent, I just understand they are a business trying to make a profit. A higher price does not automatically mean that the seller is trying to rip anyone off. If they cannot meet current demand at the current prices, it would be a poor business decision not to increase prices. The low prices could also have a negative impact on me as a customer, if their inability to meet demand means I never even see a bottle on the shelf.

I am saying it indicates they are not starting their pricing proposition on the basis of the product's quality, but rather on the basis of whatever they think they can get away with. The amount of price increase is what raises the concern that they are knowingly passing off good whiskey for excessive prices on people's mistaken belief that it is the same extraordinary quality product it has been in the past few years, before the older stocks disappeared. Knowingly taking advantage of people's mistakes like that fits in the category of dodgy practices in my view.

I do believe that goods and services have a degree of intrinsic or fundamental value, but you cannot completely ignore supply and demand. I have always believed Four Roses barrel select was worth more than $55, but I have purchased several bottles for as little as $50. It sold for $50 because there was low demand. People realized it was undervalued at $50, and demand increased to a level that Four Roses does not have the supply to meet. If they do not increase prices, they will run out of product. Now you are saying it is unfair to Four Roses to increase their prices? Was if unfair for me to buy a bottle at $50, when I really valued it at $60? Do you think that I should call and apologize for ripping them off?

That's an interesting reading of what I said.

I know they have sales reps reading these pages. Among other things, I was curious what other people think about these points, including a view other than simply cheering on every price increase. You may have found some barrel selections that were worth much more than the new $65 price, possibly including the 17 or so year old varieties. I have not been lucky enough to find those and it sounds like they are long gone. Four Roses thought the prices on those were fair at the time. Now we are talking about whiskey that seems far more likely to fit in the same quality family as many other products.

El Vino: What you are describing is indeed Econ 101. More advanced models recognize demand curves that are not strictly linear.

[El Vino]

Absolutely! The thread has generated a bunch of comments from our community of consumers. Yet, I wonder if the product will be as avidly embraced by retailers if their returns go down.

[flahute]

If Private Selection Barrels at $80 becomes the norm, I am not a buyer unless I can try it first. Given that I've never been able to try one of these before buying, that tells you the likelihood of me continuing to be a customer at that price. As I've mentioned before, BevMo is already at that price with their PS bottles. I have yet to buy one from them since they increased to that price and don't intend to any time soon, if ever. If a 4R sales rep is reading this post, the important take away for you is that I have 15+ PS bottles in my cabinet because I enjoy them so much. If $80 becomes the norm, I won't be replacing any of them.

[mbroo5880i]

The model of supply-demand assumes that competition and availability are perfect. I am not certain today's bourbon market with the excesses of demand relative to supply is perfect.

Stores continue to carry WFE which arguably is even more overpriced than FR products and presumably with a lower ROI than in the past. What is their motivation? I think the problem with supply and demand with respect to bourbon is that its availability is not just reliant on producers-consumers but also distributors and other market forces. Today's market reminds me of the concept of irrational exuberance. The willingness to overpay for something without fully understanding its intrinsic value.

[Patrick_OKC]

All the references to supply and demand, or Econ 101, and even negative references to "getting away" with extraordinary pricing, aren't they just reflections of scarce resources? Supply and demand refers to limited resources, and pricing is just the mechanism to correlate scarcity of resources with demand for same. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with setting prices that will regulate the demand. To "overpay" for bourbon in today's market is not a meaningful accusation.

Pat