Old Forester 1897 BIB

[Thig]

Being released today in selected markets, doesn't a retail price of 49.99 seem a little high for a BIB? I would like to try it.

[drunk]

Hahahahahahaha. :falling: A NAS, limited edition, but ultimately just standard, repackaged bourbon? $50 is a steal!

Sorry Thig, I'm not picking on you. Just tired of marketing BS.

[Thig]

Well it is a BIB so I guess you can count on at least 4 years.

[flahute]

I was pretty interested in this one until you mentioned the price. Wow......really? $50? Big pass unless I see a bunch of mind blowing reviews.

[PaulO]

I'm a big fan of OF Signature. I hope it doesn't go away/ change/ get marked up unreasonably. I would like to try the new BIB. I don't want to bad enough to pay $50. I've tried OF BIB from DSP 354 from the late 1980s early 1990s. It was easy drinking bourbon, no rough edges, not real complicated. So in the past year or two we've seen brand extensions of OF: 90 proof single barrel, 1870, now 1897 BIB.

[amg]

I think these "whiskey row" releases are one-off experiments. Don't think there's much risk of this replacing the Signature.

[Richnimrod]

Arrrrrggggghhhhh! Signature being REPLACED with a $50 alternative???!!!

My Whiskyrexia Nervosa is itching terribly. I . . . MUST . . . Bunker . . . OF Signature; . . . Many Cases . . . NOW!!!!

H E L P ......

[TunnelTiger]

I'm a BIB fanatic (well I'm a 4R fanatic too) but there is no way I'm giving them $50 for this.

[shoshani]

Arrrrrggggghhhhh! Signature being REPLACED with a $50 alternative???!!!

My Whiskyrexia Nervosa is itching terribly. I . . . MUST . . . Bunker . . . OF Signature; . . . Many Cases . . . NOW!!!!

H E L P ......

I don't think it's being replaced, this is just a small line extension. Although it's interesting that this one is bonded, whereas Signature no longer is. (Either way, the whisky will be a minimum of four years old, but in non-bonded form they can tip in older juice should they ever want or need to.)

[tanstaafl2]

The Bottled-in-Bond Act was in 1897 so I suspect this is just another minor reformulation to provide a bourbon to meet a theme. If they can get $50 for it then more power to them! After the 1870, created presumably to recognize the date that Old Forrester first started bottling bourbon, proved to be little different than the standard issue I think I will be able to forego this one!

Or at least I hope so...

I am at least curious to see what other dates they have in mind to recognize! 1910 seems a likely possibility.

Edited June 5, 2015 by tanstaafl2

[mbroo5880i]

According to the Breaking Bourbon Blog, this offering is part of Old Forester's Whiskey Row Collection.

Release #1 - 1870:Original Batch to reflect BF founder's original batching process

Release #2 - 1897:Bottled-in-Bond to reflect the Bottled-in-Bond Act

Release #3 - 1910: Double Barreled

Release #4 - 1923: 125 Proof version of original BF recipe

I am not certain the significance of 1910. Is that when tax changes occurred? BF's offering was originally going to be called 1917. I know alcohol consumption was restricted by the US Government during WWI (1917) although Prohibition by Amendment didn't come until 1920. Was 1910 or 1917 significant due to medicinal uses? Also, I am not certain the significance of 1923.

I might be interested in a bottle of the 125 proof if the price stays around $50. The others not so much.

[mark fleetwood]

According to the Breaking Bourbon Blog, this offering is part of Old Forester's Whiskey Row Collection.

Release #1 - 1870:Original Batch to reflect BF founder's original batching process

Release #2 - 1897:Bottled-in-Bond to reflect the Bottled-in-Bond Act

Release #3 - 1910: Double Barreled

Release #4 - 1923: 125 Proof version of original BF recipe

I am not certain the significance of 1910. Is that when tax changes occurred? BF's offering was originally going to be called 1917. I know alcohol consumption was restricted by the US Government during WWI (1917) although Prohibition by Amendment didn't come until 1920. Was 1910 or 1917 significant due to medicinal uses? Also, I am not certain the significance of 1923.

I might be interested in a bottle of the 125 proof if the price stays around $50. The others not so much.

Agreed. Underwhelming.

[Coop776]

The 1870 is quite a step up from their standard offerings, at least to me.

[amg]

The EH Taylor line proved you can charge high prices for NAS bonded whiskey, I suppose. I wish this were priced lower, though.

[PaulO]

How about they release a 1977 whiskey glut commemorative: older than the standard OF, a great bargain price, bottle with the dimples on the sides.

[amg]

How about they release a 1977 whiskey glut commemorative: older than the standard OF, a great bargain price, bottle with the dimples on the sides.

[tanstaafl2]

According to the Breaking Bourbon Blog, this offering is part of Old Forester's Whiskey Row Collection.

Release #1 - 1870:Original Batch to reflect BF founder's original batching process

Release #2 - 1897:Bottled-in-Bond to reflect the Bottled-in-Bond Act

Release #3 - 1910: Double Barreled

Release #4 - 1923: 125 Proof version of original BF recipe

I am not certain the significance of 1910. Is that when tax changes occurred? BF's offering was originally going to be called 1917. I know alcohol consumption was restricted by the US Government during WWI (1917) although Prohibition by Amendment didn't come until 1920. Was 1910 or 1917 significant due to medicinal uses? Also, I am not certain the significance of 1923.

I might be interested in a bottle of the 125 proof if the price stays around $50. The others not so much.

1910 was when OF created their "Small Batch" bourbon on Whiskey Row or so they claim so maybe that is why. 1923 is less clear. That same website notes that 1924 is when they moved to their current address on Howard Street so maybe 1823 is the last year of production on Whiskey Row since it is the Whiskey Row collection?

[mbroo5880i]

1910 was when OF created their "Small Batch" bourbon on Whiskey Row or so they claim so maybe that is why. 1923 is less clear. That same website notes that 1924 is when they moved to their current address on Howard Street so maybe 1823 is the last year of production on Whiskey Row since it is the Whiskey Row collection?

Thank you for the link! I can't speak to the bourbon because I haven't tried any of them but the market strategy is nice. The Barrel Proof is the most interesting but I can't say that I will or won't ever buy one of the others. It will depend on the price and my mood when I see them. If nothing else, it has made me think about the regular OF line again.

[Xevious]

So how many have tried the 1870 or 1897? Being a fan of both the 86 and 100 proof Old Forester, these intrigued me. But there is no chance of me buying a bottle at these prices. Is there a significant difference from their standard bottles, or is it all marketing? I remember seeing OF Birthday Bourbon sitting on shelves for less than this.

[MOwhisky4me]

Old Forester has been my favorite "daily pour" bourbon for years. I enjoy both the 86 and 100 proof offerings and have had the pleasure of savoring a few bottles of Birthday Bourbon over the years as well.

I currently have a bottle of OF Sig and a bottle of the 1870 open and have done a few side by side comparisons... To my tastes the 1870 is a better bourbon. It has a quality that simply pulls all the separate flavors (butterscotch, cinnamon, oak, etc) together a little closer. It's hard to describe, but I find it very enjoyable. It also has a bit less heat at the start and a longer finish.

I also have a bottle of the 1890 that I haven't cracked open yet, but I will and I'll report back on it as well.

Are they worth double the price of OF Sig? Depends on how much of an Old Forester fan you are I guess. I wanted a bottle of each to go along with the store select Single Barrel I picked up this past summer. Probably won't buck up for a second bottle of the 1870 because even though I think it's better than the Signature, it's not double the money better.

[Richnimrod]

So how many have tried the 1870 or 1897? But there is no chance of me buying a bottle at these prices. Is there a significant difference from their standard bottles, or is it all marketing?

Answers.... Question 1) I have; both.

Question 2) Yes (not in a good way), and YES!!!

Response to statement...You're making a well-thought-out decision by not paying these prices.

All just My Opinions, of course. PM me for more details, if you wish.