Knob Creek 2001

[Old Dusty]

8 minutes ago, musekatcher said:

That would be my default assumption, but something tells me they have some reason for pricing it way up there, besides the age?  What if they saved the best barrels for the 2001, and used the culls along with some 9 year for the single barrel?

Their reason for pricing it so high is current market conditions. Nothing more. Remember just a couple of years ago Booker's 25th was $100. And I can tell you from experience that the barrels rolled out for the single barrel program have been as old as 12 yrs. The 2001 is vintage dated meaning they used barrels about 15 yrs Old for those bottlings. There was no culling of 15 yr barrels shunted into the single barrel program that I've heard of. Totally different production years. 

[musekatcher]

20 minutes ago, Old Dusty said:

Their reason for pricing it so high is current market conditions. Nothing more. Remember just a couple of years ago Booker's 25th was $100. And I can tell you from experience that the barrels rolled out for the single barrel program have been as old as 12 yrs. The 2001 is vintage dated meaning they used barrels about 15 yrs Old for those bottlings. There was no culling of 15 yr barrels shunted into the single barrel program that I've heard of. Totally different production years. 

 

Wow, so they are basing their pricing strategy on the age? 15 year @ $130 versus 9 year @ $36 for the same strength?   I don't see how market conditions favor one over the other?  There's got to be more to it, surely?  Maybe that 2001 batch turned out exceptional?  Now I'm curious...

[mosugoji64]

3 minutes ago, musekatcher said:

 

Wow, so they are basing their pricing strategy on the age? 15 year @ $130 versus 9 year @ $36 for the same strength?   I don't see how market conditions favor one over the other?  There's got to be more to it, surely?  Maybe that 2001 batch turned out exceptional?  Now I'm curious...

 

Chuck Cowdery has discussed pricing of whiskey in articles before and laid out sound information showing that cost has little to do with whiskey prices. It's almost entirely based on what the market will bear. I don't have links handy. Distillers are doing more probing into what the market will bear now that whiskey is a hot commodity once more.

[flahute]

44 minutes ago, musekatcher said:

 

Wow, so they are basing their pricing strategy on the age? 15 year @ $130 versus 9 year @ $36 for the same strength?   I don't see how market conditions favor one over the other?  There's got to be more to it, surely?  Maybe that 2001 batch turned out exceptional?  Now I'm curious...

Not sure how widely you've been reading the forums, but we've discussed in other threads what is happening at Beam in general. Basically, about a year ago they decided to implement a premiumization mandate. KC2001 is one of the results of that. Booker's Rye for $300 is another.

 

I remember about two years ago (maybe three even) talking to a guy I know at Beam. He told me that Beam had a lot of 12,13, and 14 year old KC barrels that they didn't know what to do with. Standard KCSiB is 9 year age stated as you know and since demand hadn't hit Beam yet they had all these unused barrels age past the 9 year mark. So they sat there because they were off profile or 'too old'. I told him they needed to release those into the single barrel program at the higher age and that people would pay for it. He told me he'd already been trying that to no avail. We know now that in the years since that they would randomly release some of these older barrels into the program but it was luck of the draw. You couldn't request old barrels only (unless maybe you had a special connection). I've seen them out there as old as 14 years and in slightly higher numbers, at 11 and 12 years. Some of them are great if you like a profile with more oak. Not everyone does.

 

I think the mistake they made was to batch them and downproof them. Single barrels at full barrel proof could have been a version of BTAC for them. Or at least a blend at full barrel proof. In fact, what this likely tells you is that a number of the barrels were not up to snuff and that they needed to cover their flaws by blending them. Or, they were fine but that they got greedy by trying to stretch out supply so they downproofed it. It hasn't exactly flown off shelves. It likely would have at 136.7 proof.

[Old Dusty]

1 hour ago, musekatcher said:

 

Wow, so they are basing their pricing strategy on the age? 15 year @ $130 versus 9 year @ $36 for the same strength?   I don't see how market conditions favor one over the other?  There's got to be more to it, surely?  Maybe that 2001 batch turned out exceptional?  Now I'm curious...

Not just on age but the "rarity" and "limited" aspects that they can market to you. Plus it's in a cool wood crate so it has to be worth more right?  Look, if you want 15 year old Knob Creek, then it's the only option. But I've tasted two of the three 2001 batches and plenty of KC Store pick single barrels. I like the 120's much more than the 2001.  At 120 proof and not too much younger and a third of the price the Single barrels are absolutely no brainers to me. 

[netboog]

I came across some in WI that were marked down to $89 and still didn't even think twice about grabbing one. 

[Old Dusty]

5 minutes ago, flahute said:

 

I think the mistake they made was to batch them and downproof them. Single barrels at full barrel proof could have been a version of BTAC for them. Or at least a blend at full barrel proof. In fact, what this likely tells you is that a number of the barrels were not up to snuff and that they needed to cover their flaws by blending them. Or, they were fine but that they got greedy by trying to stretch out supply so they downproofed it. It hasn't exactly flown off shelves. It likely would have at 136.7 proof.

I totally agree. At the very least they should have set the proof at 120 to match the Single Barrel program.  They are gathering dust all over the place around here. And in the current climate you know that's bad. 

[Paddy]

......and, what they don't want you to remember (when plunking down for the 2001) is that all the standard KCSB bottles contain the contents of the 'honey barrels' of the KC profile distillate.  Those that have the fewest flaws go to the SB, while the remaining barrels (in the given profile range) are batched and blended down for the standard 100 proofer.

 

I recall mentioning earlier (but worth repeating), a friend of mine just selected a barrel that ended up being 12 years old, and 123 proof.  Obviously, it didn't take too much alteration to proof it down 3 points, bottle it, and then bring it home to the masses at 120 proof!   

   

[musekatcher]

Lots of good insite and information.  I went back and read the whole thread.  It would seam this premiumization could back fire, if its interpreted as a naked attempt to exploit the current conditions.  At any rate, I'm now curious about over-aged or over-oaked bourbon - but $100+ is out of my territory. 

 

[Theiano]

2 hours ago, flahute said:

I think the mistake they made was to batch them and downproof them. Single barrels at full barrel proof could have been a version of BTAC for them. Or at least a blend at full barrel proof.

 

That's a great point! It would have been quite a smart strategy to release aged, full proof versions of Baker's, Bookers, Knob Creek and Basil Hayden as their premium BTAC equivalents. They could have had 12-15 y.o. age or something like that and they would have likely gotten $120+ for all of them. Of course they probably don't have a supply on hand, and perhaps they are too afraid of the boom ending before they can age their stocks enough to begin the roll out.

 

[bgphilt]

6 hours ago, musekatcher said:

 

Wow, so they are basing their pricing strategy on the age? 15 year @ $130 versus 9 year @ $36 for the same strength?   I don't see how market conditions favor one over the other?  There's got to be more to it, surely?  Maybe that 2001 batch turned out exceptional?  Now I'm curious...

 

Market pricing notwithstanding, we have to remember that the difference between a 9 YO barrel and a 14 YO barrel is significant in terms of loss (4%/year)/ 

[birdie]

I thought this release was 3 batches, 1, 2, 3, each with a different flavor profile, now I am seeing batch 4 and 5 appearing, are they different again or just some of the 1/2/3 they had left over.

[JoeTerp]

1 hour ago, birdie said:

I thought this release was 3 batches, 1, 2, 3, each with a different flavor profile, now I am seeing batch 4 and 5 appearing, are they different again or just some of the 1/2/3 they had left over.

They're new 

[Old Dusty]

35 minutes ago, JoeTerp said:

They're new 

And very limited, get them while you can. [sarcasm alert]

[Gerry M]

I've tried batch#2 and wasn't impressed. In the Boston area these are collecting major dust but retailers are still trying to get $125-$130 a bottle. NH is sitting on a TON of it and it's not moving at all. If a Batch #4 & #5 are coming out the distributors are going to have a tough time trying to push these through unless they either threaten or offer a big incentive to take any.

[Old Dusty]

38 minutes ago, Gerry M said:

I've tried batch#2 and wasn't impressed. In the Boston area these are collecting major dust but retailers are still trying to get $125-$130 a bottle. NH is sitting on a TON of it and it's not moving at all. If a Batch #4 & #5 are coming out the distributors are going to have a tough time trying to push these through unless they either threaten or offer a big incentive to take any.

It makes no sense when both price and taste are absolutely killed by their own KC single barrels- especially the private selections. Higher proof, 1/3 of the cost and as good or better flavor. Definition of a no brainer. 

[meadeweber]

3 hours ago, Old Dusty said:

It makes no sense when both price and taste are absolutely killed by their own KC single barrels- especially the private selections. Higher proof, 1/3 of the cost and as good or better flavor. Definition of a no brainer. 

BUT, the 2001 is a Limited Edition!

[Richnimrod]

38 minutes ago, meadeweber said:

BUT, the 2001 is a Limited Edition!

OH!   Well then, that's different, right?   GOTTA go for it if it's a Unicorn!  

[tanstaafl2]

19 hours ago, meadeweber said:

BUT, the 2001 is a Limited Edition!

 

Apparently not as limited as it should have been...

[JoeTerp]

2 hours ago, tanstaafl2 said:

 

Apparently not as limited as it should have been...

What makes a limited edition?  The first three batches were around 36K bottles. If 4 & 5 are similar that's 60K. 

[flahute]

12 minutes ago, JoeTerp said:

What makes a limited edition?  The first three batches were around 36K bottles. If 4 & 5 are similar that's 60K. 

Total BTAC bottle count for 2016 was 41,526 split across the 5 labels. The 4RLE's are usually in the 11,000 to 13,000 bottle range.

 

By comparison, 36K for three batches (with not much distinction between them) doesn't seem that limited.

[BourbonGuy]

Hey, Suntory paid $13.62 BILLION for Beam.  I guess they figure Knob Creek 2001 for over $100 and raising the price of Bookers (which they seemed to have backed off on) is the new strategy. 

 

Zaizen didn't go over too well in Kentucky.    Beam rejected the concept, much to the Japanese frustration.  They got to make their money back somehow. 

[fishnbowljoe]

1 hour ago, BourbonGuy said:

Zaizen didn't go over too well in Kentucky.    Beam rejected the concept, much to the Japanese frustration.  They got to make their money back somehow. 

 

Not familiar with Zaizen. By chance did you mean Kaizen? I've been involved with a couple of Kaizen projects where I work.

[BourbonGuy]

3 hours ago, fishnbowljoe said:

 

Not familiar with Zaizen. By chance did you mean Kaizen? I've been involved with a couple of Kaizen projects where I work.

100% right.  I did mean Kaizen!  But the Jim Beam staff seem pretty happy with the way things are now.

[Paddy]

^^^^I've never worked in an environment where resistance to ownerships efforts to seek continuous improvement (kaizen) were successful.