BottledInBond Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 So after buying my first bottle of the Weller Antique 107 today, I had a little frustration. Should we still be referring to it as OWA? The new label does not call it Old Weller Antique anymore. Just Weller antique 107. I know, I know it's blasphemous to suggest no longer using OWA, but it no longer accurately abbreviated the name of the product. What say ye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b1gcountry Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 If we are changing it, I recommend "MIA" because that is a better descriptionSent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueby Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I think I suggested WA107 in a thread about the new labels. Yeah I wish I could FIND it no matter what you call it. I'm guilty of hoarding (or do we only call it bunkering here?) the stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardsandBourbon Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I've only found two bottles locally. Both are in my cabinet now. Still haven't seen any W12. I think WA107 would be the way to refer to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0895 Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I think it would depend on which bottle you're referring to as well. If I'm drinking OWA, I'm gonna say: "OWA" If I'm drinking the new bottle, I'll probably say "WA107" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0895 Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 4 hours ago, b1gcountry said: If we are changing it, I recommend "MIA" You sir, are hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlutz Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I think we should leave it as OWA. The bourbon is still the same unless and until BT says they took the 'old' off for a specific reason. One of the principal reasons for the standardization of acronyms is so that the forum is easily and effectively searchable. I don't think a bottle redesign is enough of a change to split up the search terms. It is unlike EC12 and ECNAS, e.g., where the change in acronym signifies an actual change in the bourbon. My two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garbanzobean Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 42 minutes ago, Charlutz said: I think we should leave it as OWA. The bourbon is still the same unless and until BT says they took the 'old' off for a specific reason. One of the principal reasons for the standardization of acronyms is so that the forum is easily and effectively searchable. I don't think a bottle redesign is enough of a change to split up the search terms. It is unlike EC12 and ECNAS, e.g., where the change in acronym signifies an actual change in the bourbon. My two cents. I agree with Charlie. Bourbon acronyms need not be up to the minute accurate. Unless we decide that it is actually an entirely new product replacing OWA, it makes sense to leave it for historical continuity. That said, if someone decides we need to change it, the only acronym even worth considering is New Weller Antique = NWA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amg Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, garbanzobean said: I agree with Charlie. Bourbon acronyms need not be up to the minute accurate. Unless we decide that it is actually an entirely new product replacing OWA, it makes sense to leave it for historical continuity. That said, if someone decides we need to change it, the only acronym even worth considering is New Weller Antique = NWA. Ha, I love it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlutz Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Nice, Eric! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 (O)WA 107 -- for those of us with OCD -- I'm guessing, about half of us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richnimrod Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 If we're voting, I cast my ballot for sticking with OWA. ...If for no other reason than trace-ability backwards through the old threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncredulousNosco Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I just thought I'd be the arsehole that tells everyone that these labels are not acronyms anyway. They're, in most all cases, initialisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeTen Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 On 3/18/2017 at 4:35 PM, IncredulousNosco said: I just thought I'd be the arsehole that tells everyone that these labels are not acronyms anyway. They're, in most all cases, initialisms. OK - you WIN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTaylor Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) On 3/18/2017 at 2:08 PM, Richnimrod said: If we're voting, I cast my ballot for sticking with OWA. ...If for no other reason than trace-ability backwards through the old threads. I agree with Rich... IF the bourbon hasn't changed. If they had removed an age statement or made some other significant change then I'd say it needs to be noted, but this (AFAIK) is still the same OWA with a new bottle and label. Edited March 20, 2017 by JTaylor AFAIK - As far as I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garbanzobean Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 On 3/18/2017 at 4:35 PM, IncredulousNosco said: I just thought I'd be the arsehole that tells everyone that these labels are not acronyms anyway. They're, in most all cases, initialisms. You are right. And correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryT Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 What about something ala Prince ("the bourbon formally known as OWA", or TBFKAOWA)? With this being NAS, who can say if it is different from OWA. But - being the geeks that we are - if feedback starts to suggest that it IS different, I would be in favor of changing the name for the sake of clarity. I was looking for the reference list of abbreviations, and couldn't find the damn thing, in which case it may not matter as long as folks know what you're talking about (so - if you don't think there is a difference, keep calling it OWA; but if you want to specifically make sure everyone knows you're referring to the new stuff because you think it is different, call it something else like WA107). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 On 3/18/2017 at 8:30 AM, Charlutz said: I think we should leave it as OWA. The bourbon is still the same unless and until BT says they took the 'old' off for a specific reason. One of the principal reasons for the standardization of acronyms is so that the forum is easily and effectively searchable. I don't think a bottle redesign is enough of a change to split up the search terms. It is unlike EC12 and ECNAS, e.g., where the change in acronym signifies an actual change in the bourbon. My two cents. Of course there was a time not so long ago when OWA was in fact an aged stated 7yo bourbon. The abbreviation didn't change so I see no reason it should change now. You could always just call it "new" OWA as versus "old" OWA! And I suppose the interim was really NAS OWA. So perhaps the current one is really new NAS OWA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts