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

[El Vino]

I think danz' comment about nonlinearity is almost certainly correct. It also suggests the simplicity of the pricing model for bourbon is out the window, and probably has been for a while. Pappy and BTAC secondary market prices certainly reflect that. What volume of BT products you need to buy as a retailer in order to get the right to deal with craziness is a mystery to me, but I wonder if it is worth it? If, as I understand, a Four Roses retailer needs to participate in the private barrel program in order to get an allocation of the limited releases, the higher prices of the private barrels may make the profitability worse if they take longer to sell and ultimately push out the marginal participant. So, in time, the buyer may see a negative supply response or at least a negative change to the availability of the product. If the price change was lower than 30%, the response would probably not be dramatic. But I wonder if 30% is high enough to change market dynamics?

Edited January 19, 2015 by El Vino

[mosugoji64]

One thing I don't understand in threads of this sort is mention of the "good stuff" being gone and distilleries charging big bucks for lesser product. While their stocks of older product most certainly have dwindled, why does the attitude that what is available now is sub-par persist? Distilleries likely still have some very good stuff available for premium bottles and quality in general is very good right now. Disregarding a few specific bottlings, I think the quality is still there. It might be harder to get extra-aged whiskey, but that doesn't mean that what is available is crap. While it's sad that demand is outstripping supply in some places and it's harder for us to get some things, that doesn't mean what is left isn't good. FR barrel-proof private selections are a premium product and are subject to premium pricing. That's increasing across the board. To say that the quality has slipped and that they're charging more money for an inferior quality product is misguided.

[garbanzobean]

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.

I agree with flahute. I'm already paying $60 + tax. If the market gets up to gift shop prices ($72 or so when I was there), I won't be buying without trying. That is not to say the quality isn't still outstanding (last year's OESQ PS releases speak to the continued existence of honey barrels), but I just won't be buying as much.

Then again, Four Roses may be doing this specifically to reduce PS orders with an eye toward making what they've got last longer. Regardless of the PS orders, I'm close to the max of what I'm willing to pay for their standard lineup. I'll definitely be looking elsewhere if those increase beyond the $20/$30/$40 structure that I'm starting to see more frequently.

[Auracom]

I'll definitely be looking elsewhere if those increase beyond the $20/$30/$40 structure that I'm starting to see more frequently.

This to me is a much bigger concern. I really love YL and SB at their current pricepoints but it will be difficult to reconcile satisfaction if they creep higher as proposed. My mentality's a little confusing... but PS @ $65 is not as big a deal because to me, those were always super-premium to begin with and have always been underpriced.

[El Vino]

This whole issue is why I started the thread on bunker strategy. I've been into wine for a long time and bought a bunch of French and California wine in the 1980's and 1990's. I cellared a good deal of what i bought. If I had to buy these bottles now, I'd be out of the market. If the whiskey industry follows a similar path, it makes sense to get a bunker going.

On the issue of the quality of the stock at distilleries, I have to believe that every years' production yields a fairly predictable proportion of honey barrels. As technology and facilities improve, that percentage probably goes up. So I don't think the quality of what is being produced is being degraded, just that the quantity of older stock is being depleted. At some point, that changes, but not for a while.

[suntour]

Thanks for making my perhaps misguided thread entertaining and thought provoking everyone.

I perhaps came off as overly critical or cynical and didnt mean to imply that I was overly disappointed with this development. Hell itd be silly for them to keep selling such a fine product at the same price all these new NDP NAS are appearing at. I do wonder about what created such an environment where there were so many good decade plus barrels and now the well is drying up. And though ive seen a spate of 8 year olds, many ~10 year barrels still abound and whos to say the 8 year barrels are any less good.

Honestly a great $65 bottle readily available is much better than a $50 you cant obtain. I just want to get them all and $65x10 seems daunting. Thats on me.

[fishnbowljoe]

It's not just the private selections that are being affected. I think what is occuring is somewhat across the board in many instances. We're just starting to feel it more right now with private selections, and special releases such as the BTAC, Pappy, FRLE's, PHC, etc….

During the bourbon glut, prices were pretty much at rock bottom, and bourbon that was marketed and sold as a 2-4 years old product, could very well have been anywhere from 5-10 yrs old, plus. No one knows for sure, but there was sure a lot of good juice out there that tasted too good to be so young. We're now having to pay the piper, so to speak. Aged stocks of bourbon have been, and are being depleted at a rather rapid pace thanks to the current bourbon boon. (yeah, a little tongue in cheek there :skep:) Sometimes the law of supply and demand just kinda sucks. Things probably won't get better any time soon, if ever. Sadly, it is what it is, and IMHO, we just have to muddle through things as best as we can. Granted, it may hurt a bit, but what else are you gonna do?

[smokinjoe]

As I was saying...

Very interesting discussion, and one that nearly everyone has the correct answer for what they think of the potentially increased pricing at Four Roses, and what each of our future buying patterns will be, as a result of it. Just like bourbon itself, make up your own mind. It's your money. I just have to disagree with a couple of points that have been raised. First, 4 Roses quality is not lower than previously seen. I think we have enough data points and recent reviews of the whiskey here on SB to indicate that the barrels available for selection are as fine as ever. I personally can attest to some of those barrels. Saying they're lower in quality simply because some selections happen to be of an age that you personally don't think is old enough is doing a disservice to Four Roses and the selectors of the barrel.

Secondly, I can't for the life of me see how a company's attempt to raise pricing on a non-essential luxury good in an extremely tight market like bourbon is currently, can become a discussion on that manufacturers character. It's booze for Pete's Sake. Accusations of "Fleecing", "sense of self importance", "rip people off", and implications of poor "values" and "conduct" over this? Really? Seems a bit of an overreaction, IMO.

Cheers!

Edited January 20, 2015 by smokinjoe

[Paddy]

Welcome back ornery Joe (if you ever were gone)!

I've been passing on the recent offerings, all priced in the mid to high 60's. It does help make it a little easier when you already have a bunker full.

I did find one on a closeout/clearance at Kroger (discussed that somewhere on here last week). For the record, I DID NOT pass that mid $40's little opportunity up. :grin:

Bunker be damned...

[TunnelTiger]

Bunker be damned...

That's the attitude. Now I'm thinking about buying a third case!

[danz]

As I was saying...

Very interesting discussion, and one that nearly everyone has the correct answer for what they think of the potentially increased pricing at Four Roses, and what each of our future buying patterns will be, as a result of it. Just like bourbon itself, make up your own mind. It's your money. I just have to disagree with a couple of points that have been raised. First, 4 Roses quality is not lower than previously seen. I think we have enough data points and recent reviews of the whiskey here on SB to indicate that the barrels available for selection are as fine as ever. I personally can attest to some of those barrels. Saying they're lower in quality simply because some selections happen to be of an age that you personally don't think is old enough is doing a disservice to Four Roses and the selectors of the barrel.

Secondly, I can't for the life of me see how a company's attempt to raise pricing on a non-essential luxury good in an extremely tight market like bourbon is currently, can become a discussion on that manufacturers character. It's booze for Pete's Sake. Accusations of "Fleecing", "sense of self importance", "rip people off", and implications of poor "values" and "conduct" over this? Really? Seems a bit of an overreaction, IMO.

Cheers!

Good points. Sounds like a resounding lack of interest in the premise.

[smokinjoe]

Welcome back ornery Joe (if you ever were gone)!

Thanks Paddy, but I prefer truculent...

[Paddy]

Thanks Paddy, but I prefer truculent...

:slappin:

Good one Joe! Didn't know we could use words that big down here south of the Mason/Dixon!

Glad to have your truculent a&$ back on the board to teach us a thing or three~

[smokinjoe]

In reflecting over the discussions in this thread, I have concluded that the legacy distilleries are probably right in hating age statements, and should continue to move away from them whenever possible. And, we enthusiasts probably put too much emphasis on them, and should simply let the whiskey speak for itself from the glass. 4 Roses' ability to continue delivering world-class whiskey over a fairly broad age range of each of it's 10 recipes is testament to the fact that indeed the quality of macro-distillery produced bourbon lies in more than just an age.

[garbanzobean]

In reflecting over the discussions in this thread, I have concluded that the legacy distilleries are probably right in hating age statements, and should continue to move away from them whenever possible. And, we enthusiasts probably put too much emphasis on them, and should simply let the whiskey speak for itself from the glass. 4 Roses' ability to continue delivering world-class whiskey over a fairly broad age range of each of it's 10 recipes is testament to the fact that indeed the quality of macro-distillery produced bourbon lies in more than just an age.

Especially as long as JR is around, I want age statements on the YL, SmB, and SB about as much as I want a price increase on all three. As far as the PS series goes, I can't say I make purchasing decisions based on age, because the best one I've currently had is <10 yrs old. If I got all ageist I'd probably be passing up some great stuff. A $10-$20 price hike per bottle is a lot more likely to make me reconsider buying a PS bottle than an 8 vs 11 yr age statement, for example.

I understand why some distilleries don't care about age statements, but I certainly understand why folks get upset when distilleries remove them. Bourbon beats all other brown liquors when it comes to offering a tasty, consistent product at a fair price. Nobody likes having their brand messed with.

[393foureyedfox]

i like age statements, but I also would grab an 8 year over an 11 year, even if prices were the same. Its the perception of what the age implies that we are talking about. One 11 year bottle may be better than an 8 even to me, but as a whole, Ive enjoyed more 8 year-ish stuff than 10+ year stuff, so thats the age I target.....even though I know on an individual barrel basis, age may not mean much after all.

[Frodo]

Here's another thing. An 8yr WT or Beam product is not the same as a HH 8yr. Not equivalent maturity by a long stretch IMHO.

[TunnelTiger]

I'm going guess that as the age statements leave the bottom to mid-shelf items they will show up on new labels at higher price points. Marketing depts. have to make a living too.

[smokinjoe]

Especially as long as JR is around, I want age statements on the YL, SmB, and SB about as much as I want a price increase on all three. As far as the PS series goes, I can't say I make purchasing decisions based on age, because the best one I've currently had is <10 yrs old. If I got all ageist I'd probably be passing up some great stuff. A $10-$20 price hike per bottle is a lot more likely to make me reconsider buying a PS bottle than an 8 vs 11 yr age statement, for example.

I understand why some distilleries don't care about age statements, but I certainly understand why folks get upset when distilleries remove them. Bourbon beats all other brown liquors when it comes to offering a tasty, consistent product at a fair price. Nobody likes having their brand messed with.

[danz]

Agree with this too, G. There is no doubt that the rickhouses at Four Roses contain whiskey with a probable lesser average age than they did a couple of years ago. They are no less immune from the booming demand in bourbon than any other distillery. But those stating that a lower age indicates lower quality on the Four Roses PS brands are exhibiting very simplistic thinking, and seem to lack an understanding of age as an element in a whiskey. The reviews from many points (you, me, and hundreds of others on these boards and other media) indicate that the whiskey is superb at any of the ages that we have seen so far. And heck, probably would at even lower ages, based on 4R's and JR's track record. I can buy a position that "I won't pay over X, for a bourbon under Y years old." Fair. I don't agree with it, but I'm OK with it. But, to make a statement of fact that the quality is less because of a lesser age in the face of overwhelming opinions to the contrary, while also doubling down with an accusation that the business practices of Four Roses are unethical and lacking in integrity because the false premise of lower quality is being used as a reason for their attempt at "fleecing...ripping people off...dodgy business practices", is an undeserved and unfair low blow to that distillery.

Joe, I am not responding at length to any more of this. There was and is more to what I said. I let it go. I don't understand why you are bringing it up again. I have seen practices that fit those descriptions. Because you and others on this group don't want to hear about it, I am not discussing it further.

[garbanzobean]

Joe, I am not responding at length to any more of this. There was and is more to what I said. I let it go. I don't understand why you are bringing it up again. I have seen practices that fit those descriptions. Because you and others on this group don't want to hear about it, I am not discussing it further.

Personally, I'm glad you brought it up. I think a very real function of SB is to hold all distilleries accountable to its consumers. The reason I joined this website is that I spent a year googling tons of questions about bourbon, and this was nearly always the resource that provided the best answers.

FR is certainly an industry darling right now (and a favorite of mine), so its good to reexamine their quality and value on occasion. I don't think we should take it personally if they jack their prices up, but then they need to not take it personally if we stop buying their products in the obscene quantities many of us currently are. I would expect that the current management and ownership take pride in their reputation with the community, and maybe seeing a few threads like this will give them something to counterbalance the arguments their bean counters and other talking heads are quite possibly putting forth in regard to it being a seller's market.

[GaryT]

Ultimately, what reason you associate to any moves by a distillery - we all have the same vote: our wallet. Frankly doesn't matter if you think you're being fleeced, or just don't think the product is worth the money to you personally. Start or stop buying, and the market will work itself out. Hell, if we all had the same opinion, these threads would be pretty damned boring Just as long as everyone agrees their opinion is the right one, we'll all do fine

[squire]

I believe my opinion is correct or I wouldn't have offered it. This isn't to say it won't change though, or that I can't be persuaded I was wrong.

[smokinjoe]

Joe, I am not responding at length to any more of this. There was and is more to what I said. I let it go. I don't understand why you are bringing it up again. I have seen practices that fit those descriptions. Because you and others on this group don't want to hear about it, I am not discussing it further.

I'm ready to let it go, too. I'll just end with this: Indeed, SB has a real function in holding all distilleries accountable to its customers. We also have a real function of not crossing the line while doing so.

[Quantum]

i like age statements, but I also would grab an 8 year over an 11 year, even if prices were the same. Its the perception of what the age implies that we are talking about. One 11 year bottle may be better than an 8 even to me, but as a whole, Ive enjoyed more 8 year-ish stuff than 10+ year stuff, so thats the age I target.....even though I know on an individual barrel basis, age may not mean much after all.

I will raise a glass of HH6BIB to this.

I will always take as much information on a label as I can get, which is one of the things I like about the Four Roses private selections. I don't have a favorite recipe, age, or warehouse location, but I do appreciate being able to see what those are for each bottle that I do or don't like. I generally like bourbon in the 8-9 year range, but my current favorite FR is 11+. I dislike paying more, but the idea of 8 year old bourbon does not scare me a bit.

Also, this is a signature worthy statement if I have every seen one.

I believe my opinion is correct or I wouldn't have offered it. This isn't to say it won't change though, or that I can't be persuaded I was wrong.