Possible insights from Heaven Hill in the near term?

[callmeox]

If that's in my Bourbon, I'm going back to Vodka.

As for my two cents, I'm fine with them removing the age statement as long as they keep the profile. Now if they bring back the age statement a few years down the road as a limited fall release, then we have another issue.

Never fear. You just misunderstood the FEF schtick on what he thinks is a woody bourbon.

Comedy gold in some circles.

[mark fleetwood]

This is bourbongedden.

[squire]

Originally, it was.

[JDSmith619]

I figured it cant hurt to throw a few in the bunker. Although, I never thought I'd have to bunker EC12.

Its definitely one of my favorite pours, not only for the price point but I think the age and profile are right in my sweet spot.

[jackthedog]

I may have to grab a bottle or two before the age statement goes away completely.

[garbanzobean]

So Facebook found out about this today. Based on the reaction so far, I think more brands are going to start moving their age statements to the back of the bottle soon. Because it makes people go on completely ridiculous spending sprees. Hell, I'd just switch the labels around every two years or so.

[dSculptor]

Now ....tell me again the reasoning behind moving the age statement to the back?

[smokinjoe]

Now ....tell me again the reasoning behind moving the age statement to the back?

[dSculptor]

I haven't heard anything. But, your question is rhetorical, obviously. What do you think it is?

Edited April 23, 2015 by dSculptor

[Josh]

Could you be more specific?

[smokinjoe]

:horseshit::horseshit::horseshit::horseshit::horseshit:.......

[signde]

official word from heaven hill via fred minnick

http://fredminnick.com/heaven-hill-drops-one-age-statement-moves-another-to-the-back/

[dSculptor]

Well.... Once it goes to the back you really don't pay any attention to it any more (the AS) they'll move it to the back then eventually get rid of it, no more obligation to putting something aside for 12 yrs.. Personally, I like the fact they state it as 12 yrs... I'll pay for that, because I know I like an older bourbon to begin with. I like to know what I'm buying and consuming, the more info... the better for me to make choices. JMHO

(edit: I just read that report ahead of me, after I posted this one ,and ...diddo.. thanks for that link!)

I understand business is business, but I still think it sucks..

Edited April 23, 2015 by dSculptor

[Josh]

You know they can drop the age statement any time they want, right? There's no requirement that they move it to the back before dropping it. The label change is meaningless.

[dSculptor]

You know they can drop the age statement any time they want, right? There's no requirement that they move it to the back before dropping it. The label change is meaningless.

[Josh]

They liked the design better. More consistent across the range, which is what they said. It's still 12 y/o. Unless there's evidence of something else going on, it's just a slippery slope argument.

[garbanzobean]

Ironically, excessive bunkering of EC12 could potentially lead to shortages, which could lead to HH dropping the age statement. We're our own worst enemies sometimes. Says the guy who is about to place a large online order for PS FR OESQ due to fear that he will never drink another bourbon more suited to his tastes . . .

[Spade]

They liked the design better. More consistent across the range, which is what they said. It's still 12 y/o. Unless there's evidence of something else going on, it's just a slippery slope argument.

While I'd prefer to be optimistic, I'm not sure I can be in this case. I think it would be pretty naive to take their statement about preferring the new design at face value.

They're deemphasizing the age statement for a reason. I can't say for certain exactly what that reason is, but I am confident that one possible reason is because they eventually plan to drop it. Stated differently, I don't think this guarantees they drop the age statement, but it sure does increase the probability of that happening.

If that is the route they go, I think it's a shortsighted move. I know I've already started spending a smaller proportion of my "brown spirits funds" on Bourbon and rye as the relative value and transparency have decreased in the last few years.

[squire]

Moving the age statement for cosmetic reasons hardly seems plausible. Repositioning the brand as a NAS range in different proofs seems more likely.

[typoerror]

actually its quite plausible. making the label production process more efficient could save them a lot of money per year.

[squire]

I considered that typo and it would make sense if EC was following the Scotch model of using the same label across the line (the difference being age statements) but that's not what's happening here. EC expressions use different color labels and in the case of older ones different sizes as well. Since each label is unique I don't see how removing a 12 makes that specific label any cheaper to produce.

[garbanzobean]

I considered that typo and it would make sense if EC was following the Scotch model of using the same label across the line (the difference being age statements) but that's not what's happening here. EC expressions use different color labels and in the case of older ones different sizes as well. Since each label is unique I don't see how removing a 12 makes that specific label any cheaper to produce.

So Fred Minnick's article states they are redoing the 18 and 23 year releases to mirror the barrel proof and 12 year, and those new designs will be launched this year. I'm not sure why, as I like the labels of the older releases better. At any rate, I am giving Heaven Hill the benefit of the doubt. For now, anyway. Now if they remove the age statement from Henry McKenna 10 bib . . . we are going to have issues.

[squire]

I read that as image building which makes sense. Perhaps I'm having a senior moment here (great catch all excuse) by failing to get why that necessitates removing the 12 from regular EC. Surely the 18 & 23 will retain age statements and all labels will show the different proofs.

[flahute]

Any time you take an age statement that has a prominent presence on the front of the label (in this case, a large red number that leads you to always reference the whiskey with the numeral 12 as part of the nomenclature) and you put it in very small print on the back, you are setting yourself up to remove it easily at some time in the future if you need to. All you need is enough time to pass until the majority starts calling it Elijah Craig Small Batch. I'm not saying I think that's their plan, but they did admit to forecasted supply problems so it's plausible they are setting themselves up to do this more easily if they have to. I doubt they even want to, but they don't know what the future holds any more than we do.

[typoerror]

I considered that typo and it would make sense if EC was following the Scotch model of using the same label across the line (the difference being age statements) but that's not what's happening here. EC expressions use different color labels and in the case of older ones different sizes as well. Since each label is unique I don't see how removing a 12 makes that specific label any cheaper to produce.

excellent points