ECBP more abundant ?

[FredBear]

Ever since Elijah Craig introduced the new bottle w/ batch stated I feel that my local stores have a steady stock of the barrel proof. I'm sure this is all secondary to the introduction of the NAS regular juice & new surplus of 12 year. I feel it's more of a prize now days to find a few of the old style bottles. Also, I like the B517 much more than the A117. I have a few bottles of the 136 & a few bottles of the 139.4 in my cabinet. (Prices have all been between $45-57)

 

Has everyone else been seeing alot more of the ECBP since the new release?

 

[KrispinD]

Ever since Elijah Craig introduced the new bottle w/ batch stated I feel that my local stores have a steady stock of the barrel proof. I'm sure this is all secondary to the introduction of the NAS regular juice & new surplus of 12 year. I feel it's more of a prize now days to find a few of the old style bottles. Also, I like the B517 much more than the A117. I have a few bottles of the 136 & a few bottles of the 139.4 in my cabinet. (Prices have all been between $45-57)
 
Has everyone else been seeing alot more of the ECBP since the new release?
 

I have, but not by a lot. Every store I've seen it at only got 3 bottles. I also prefer the B517 over A117 and even over 139.4.

[elmossle]

I think the latest batch, B517, had a much larger yield or they dumped more barrels because there does seem to be more of it. I know in the state of NC, there was over 500 cases available for ABC boards to order and pull from. Now at 3 bottles a case, that is a little over 1,500 bottles which isn't much for a large state. But if you multiple that out all over the distribution foot print, that leads to a healthy supply and run in this batch.

 

If they are going to make them all this good and this large with the price staying where it is here in NC ($54), then I am all for it for 12 year old juice!

[gmiller598]

Wasn't the reason they got rid of the 12 year statement supposedly so they could increase production of the barrel proof by allocating more 12 year barrels to it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[smokinjoe]

19 minutes ago, gmiller598 said:

Wasn't the reason they got rid of the 12 year statement supposedly so they could increase production of the barrel proof by allocating more 12 year barrels to it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No.  

Heaven Hill went to NAS on the EC so they could provide a more consistent and quality offering for the Small Batch label.  In that more 12 year for the BP was made available was just a nice byproduct of the decision, but never "the reason".

[gmiller598]

No.  
Heaven Hill went to NAS on the EC so they could provide a more consistent and quality offering for the Small Batch label.  In that more 12 year for the BP was made available was just a nice byproduct of the decision, but never "the reason".

I'm not sure I agree with more consistent and quality offering. It frankly allowed them to make more small batch to keep with demand while setting aside more barrels for barrel proof and eventually 18 with the increased production.

The NAS is quantity over quality while allowing some barrels to age longer for more higher end product in the long run.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[flahute]

17 minutes ago, gmiller598 said:

I'm not sure I agree with more consistent and quality offering. It frankly allowed them to make more small batch to keep with demand while setting aside more barrels for barrel proof and eventually 18 with the increased production.

The NAS is quantity over quality while allowing some barrels to age longer for more higher end product in the long run.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Incorrect.

 

Fact is, with a 12 year age statement on the label, and a shortage of 12 year barrels overall, they were being forced to use any and all 12 year old barrel they had including some that were not good. It was setting them up for a dip in quality. With NAS they still use a lot of 12 year old barrels but blend in high quality 8-11 year barrels as well. Though I loved the 12 year age stated, I've yet to see a decrease in quality with the NAS.

[smokinjoe]

1 minute ago, gmiller598 said:

I'm not sure I agree with more consistent and quality offering. It frankly allowed them to make more small batch to keep with demand while setting aside more barrels for barrel proof and eventually 18 with the increased production.

The NAS is quantity over quality while allowing some barrels to age longer for more higher end product in the long run.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You asked:

"Wasn't the reason they got rid of the 12 year statement supposedly so they could increase production of the barrel proof by allocating more 12 year barrels to it?"

 

The answer is, no.

 

Your presumption that the move was made to allow other iterations to maintain their age is a mistaken narrative that is proposed on these boards and others from time to time.  HH is very clear in explaining their decision to go NAS on EC.  Foremost in going NAS on the EC is their desire to offer a more consistent and quality offering in the face of dwindling aged stocks.  Period.

 

Everything else is ancillary.

[BottledInBond]

33 minutes ago, flahute said:

Incorrect.

 

Fact is, with a 12 year age statement on the label, and a shortage of 12 year barrels overall, they were being forced to use any and all 12 year old barrel they had including some that were not good. It was setting them up for a dip in quality. With NAS they still use a lot of 12 year old barrels but blend in high quality 8-11 year barrels as well. Though I loved the 12 year age stated, I've yet to see a decrease in quality with the NAS.

This is a fairly condescending reply. And your answer isn't really a definitive fact the way you want to portray it. If they chose to bottle EC12 with lower quality barrels to meet current demand, that was their choice. They weren't forced to do anything. They could've easily stuck with the quality they wanted, and had shelves go empty of EC12, just like Weller 12 has gone.  But they wanted to keep their sales up. Again, that was their choice, nobody forced them to produce enough Elijah Craig to keep it on all shelves at all times with younger juice. The motive to go NAS with EC might not have been to specifically hold barrels for ECBP/18, but it certainly was profit driven, and consumers weren't reaching out to HH asking them to do it for better consistency. I'd be willing to bet nobody ever once contacted HH asking them to go NAS

 

[flahute]

1 hour ago, BottledInBond said:

This is a fairly condescending reply. And your answer isn't really a definitive fact the way you want to portray it. If they chose to bottle EC12 with lower quality barrels to meet current demand, that was their choice. They weren't forced to do anything. They could've easily stuck with the quality they wanted, and had shelves go empty of EC12, just like Weller 12 has gone.  But they wanted to keep their sales up. Again, that was their choice, nobody forced them to produce enough Elijah Craig to keep it on all shelves at all times with younger juice. The motive to go NAS with EC might not have been to specifically hold barrels for ECBP/18, but it certainly was profit driven, and consumers weren't reaching out to HH asking them to do it for better consistency. I'd be willing to bet nobody ever once contacted HH asking them to go NAS

 

Not condescending. Just fact. You are also incorrect.

It is a definitive fact. It comes straight from people inside Heaven Hill who had access to the decision making process. 

There were 12 year old barrels that were just not good being thrown into the mix because they had no choice. Meanwhile, there's lots of great 8-11 year barrels out there they could use. So they did.

Do you really want them to have EC go like Weller 12? Weller 12 is a niche product for BT, not one of their flagship brands. Better to do what it takes to keep EC on the shelves AND tasting good rather than going allocated.

Then, as a side effect, there's more ECBP available.

 

So......I have actual info from people inside Heaven Hill. You have a lot of presumptions and assumptions that are based on what? 

[musekatcher]

4 hours ago, flahute said:

Not condescending. Just fact. You are also incorrect.

It is a definitive fact. It comes straight from people inside Heaven Hill who had access to the decision making process. 

There were 12 year old barrels that were just not good being thrown into the mix because they had no choice. Meanwhile, there's lots of great 8-11 year barrels out there they could use. So they did.

Do you really want them to have EC go like Weller 12? Weller 12 is a niche product for BT, not one of their flagship brands. Better to do what it takes to keep EC on the shelves AND tasting good rather than going allocated.

Then, as a side effect, there's more ECBP available.

 

So......I have actual info from people inside Heaven Hill. You have a lot of presumptions and assumptions that are based on what? 

 

The defense claiming an AS forced them to use inferior 12 yo barrels isn't a strong one - they never have to use any inferior barrels, anytime, AS or NAS.  The only reason to do so, is to hit a quantity.  They could just reduce the quantity proportionally with the appropriate 12 yo barrels, and push the bad 12 yo barrels to a lesser brand?  What am I missing?  I'd rather have seen less EC with an AS personally.  Its not like there aren't other HH brands to enjoy when its not around.

 

Back to the OP, I've not seen a lot of the ECBP in my area.  I am curious, and on the hunt to bring some home. 

[Thig]

 
Back to the OP, I've not seen a lot of the ECBP in my area.  I am curious, and on the hunt to bring some home. 

I agree, it is still as rare in middle Georgia as a unicorn.

[gmiller598]

http://www.mensjournal.com/food-drink/drinks/another-bourbon-to-drop-its-age-statement-20160128

 

"Heaven Hill released a statement, explaining that it's part of a larger plan to meet demand for an often hard to find product. "This will allow us to continue to make Elijah Craig Small Batch available and not have to limit its accessibility to consumers or have outages at the shelf," said communications manager Josh Hafer, in an official release."

 

"Small Batch, to be fair, is the "bottom" tier for the Craig brand. The company is making this change in hopes of having more stock available for the remaining two products: a 12-year barrel-proof bottle, and an 18-year-old single barrel that they’ve brought back after discontinuing it three years ago."

 

It was done to increase availability and increase stock of higher end products. This article says those statements come from an official company release. To be fair I have not seen the original release but it seem pretty easily a law of supply versus demand. They wanted more supply and the way to do it was to start mixing in younger barrels. Combined with increased production, we should be seeing the increase in Barrel Proof now due to the change last year and more over the next few years as the increase in production will eventually allot more 12 year barrels.

 

Found the original press release. it is here:

https://www.heavenhill.com/detail/252

 

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by gmiller598
found original press release.

[BottledInBond]

7 hours ago, flahute said:

Not condescending. Just fact. You are also incorrect.

It is a definitive fact. It comes straight from people inside Heaven Hill who had access to the decision making process. 

There were 12 year old barrels that were just not good being thrown into the mix because they had no choice. Meanwhile, there's lots of great 8-11 year barrels out there they could use. So they did.

Do you really want them to have EC go like Weller 12? Weller 12 is a niche product for BT, not one of their flagship brands. Better to do what it takes to keep EC on the shelves AND tasting good rather than going allocated.

Then, as a side effect, there's more ECBP available.

 

So......I have actual info from people inside Heaven Hill. You have a lot of presumptions and assumptions that are based on what? 

Get off your high horse. The fact is they want to keep selling lots of it and by going younger they get to keep doing that. I like HH very well in general, but in the past if I wanted to drink something younger from HH I drank McKenna or EWSB, etc. so it's not like I didn't have options if I didn't like what was going into EC12.

 

Do you think you're the only one who can read a press release or talk to employees of a liquor company? Do you want to claim that everything stated in a press release is 100% truthful and forthcoming? Good luck 

 

they are a for-profit business making profit decisions. Here is a fact for you since you don't seem to understand the difference between facts and opinions and public relations spin: EC NAS increased their profits above and beyond just meeting the exiting demand. By bottling younger juice they wait less years to recoup their investment of producing that juice, including paying less taxes, while a higher percent of their 12+ year barrels are going into bottles they charge way more for. Those are facts, and they aren't about protecting me the poor consumer from having to suffer through an oakier bottle of EC12, they are about HH motives.

[kevinbrink]

My experience with EC NAS is that it is similar enough in profile to the 12 and honestly the Family sized EC12 I have open right now is a little over oaked compared to my recollection of past bottles, I have three more in the bunker so further testing will be done at some point in the future. I have a hard time criticizing HH as I find them to be one of the more consumer friendly brands out there, the value to dollar you get from most of their bourbons is really astounding.  

[flahute]

5 hours ago, BottledInBond said:

Get off your high horse. The fact is they want to keep selling lots of it and by going younger they get to keep doing that. I like HH very well in general, but in the past if I wanted to drink something younger from HH I drank McKenna or EWSB, etc. so it's not like I didn't have options if I didn't like what was going into EC12.

 

Do you think you're the only one who can read a press release or talk to employees of a liquor company? Do you want to claim that everything stated in a press release is 100% truthful and forthcoming? Good luck 

 

they are a for-profit business making profit decisions. Here is a fact for you since you don't seem to understand the difference between facts and opinions and public relations spin: EC NAS increased their profits above and beyond just meeting the exiting demand. By bottling younger juice they wait less years to recoup their investment of producing that juice, including paying less taxes, while a higher percent of their 12+ year barrels are going into bottles they charge way more for. Those are facts, and they aren't about protecting me the poor consumer from having to suffer through an oakier bottle of EC12, they are about HH motives.

Whoa there, chill. I think you inferred a tone in my posts that isn't there. It happens easily with written word on the internet and happens to all of us.

 

To your points: if bringing relevant information to the discussion, especially information that is not generally public, constitutes being on a high horse, then yes - I suppose I'm on a high horse and I will stay there.

 

While true that you had options with younger HH products, EC is their flagship brand at the mid shelf so the prospect of it experiencing rolling blackouts if they insisted on keeping the age statement was not desirable to them.

 

Do I think I'm the only one who can talk to a liquor company employee? Well of course not! But I did talk to someone involved in the decision making process. And it was a discussion in a private setting so this person was not making a statement with a PR angle meant for a public setting. As for your question regarding the press release, I never said anything about that. I'm only referring to a private conversation.

 

Of course Heaven Hill is a for profit business making profit related decisions! If they weren't they wouldn't be around for long and we wouldn't be here talking about their whiskey. You then go on to state that I don't understand the difference between facts and public relation spin. I'd like to see you support that claim. Again, I made no reference to the press releases.

I'm well aware of how barrel taxation works and that bottling younger whiskey shortens the investment timeline.

 

So, circling back around here. There was a shortage of 12 year barrels. They were having to use less than desirable barrels to meet demand. They could have continued and watched quality drop which would harm the reputation of the brand. With the brand reputation tarnished, they could have then watched it go into rolling blackouts. Again, this is not how you treat a flagship brand. So they drop the age statement and create a quality blend that still tastes great. Were they doing this to protect the poor customer from oakier EC12? Of course not! They were doing it to protect the brand. Was this an HH motive? Of course it was! They are protecting the viability of the brand in the way they see fit. They could have chosen different ways to do this that would have had their own unique advantages and disadvantages. There's no perfect solution. They chose to protect the EC brand with a side effect of more ECBP being available. Do they make more money off that ECBP? You bet. I don't see anyone complaining about more availability though.

[BottledInBond]

32 minutes ago, flahute said:

Whoa there, chill. I think you inferred a tone in my posts that isn't there. It happens easily with written word on the internet and happens to all of us.

 

To your points: if bringing relevant information to the discussion, especially information that is not generally public, constitutes being on a high horse, then yes - I suppose I'm on a high horse and I will stay there.

 

While true that you had options with younger HH products, EC is their flagship brand at the mid shelf so the prospect of it experiencing rolling blackouts if they insisted on keeping the age statement was not desirable to them.

 

Do I think I'm the only one who can talk to a liquor company employee? Well of course not! But I did talk to someone involved in the decision making process. And it was a discussion in a private setting so this person was not making a statement with a PR angle meant for a public setting. As for your question regarding the press release, I never said anything about that. I'm only referring to a private conversation.

 

Of course Heaven Hill is a for profit business making profit related decisions! If they weren't they wouldn't be around for long and we wouldn't be here talking about their whiskey. You then go on to state that I don't understand the difference between facts and public relation spin. I'd like to see you support that claim. Again, I made no reference to the press releases.

I'm well aware of how barrel taxation works and that bottling younger whiskey shortens the investment timeline.

 

So, circling back around here. There was a shortage of 12 year barrels. They were having to use less than desirable barrels to meet demand. They could have continued and watched quality drop which would harm the reputation of the brand. With the brand reputation tarnished, they could have then watched it go into rolling blackouts. Again, this is not how you treat a flagship brand. So they drop the age statement and create a quality blend that still tastes great. Were they doing this to protect the poor customer from oakier EC12? Of course not! They were doing it to protect the brand. Was this an HH motive? Of course it was! They are protecting the viability of the brand in the way they see fit. They could have chosen different ways to do this that would have had their own unique advantages and disadvantages. There's no perfect solution. They chose to protect the EC brand with a side effect of more ECBP being available. Do they make more money off that ECBP? You bet. I don't see anyone complaining about more availability though.

I'm not trying to start some sort of clash about this topic, I just think it would be nice if you wouldn't start posts by telling everyone they are "incorrect" and then claim your understanding of a situation to be the facts and the only view anyone could have. I'll stop here rather than posting further debate on the EC topic. Everyone here is entitled to ask questions or put out there opinions without being told they are wrong by one person. Especially when there is more to it and they aren't all 100% facts like this situation.

[flahute]

25 minutes ago, BottledInBond said:

I'm not trying to start some sort of clash about this topic, I just think it would be nice if you wouldn't start posts by telling everyone they are "incorrect" and then claim your understanding of a situation to be the facts and the only view anyone could have. I'll stop here rather than posting further debate on the EC topic. Everyone here is entitled to ask questions or put out there opinions without being told they are wrong by one person. Especially when there is more to it and they aren't all 100% facts like this situation.

Well I guess I could have used softer language. Doesn't change what is and isn't correct though.

Indeed, everyone is free to ask questions and state opinions. If they are wrong though, are we supposed to let it go in the name of being nice? Does it require more than one person with said knowledge for it to be official?

You keep inferring that I don't have all the facts but you haven't refuted anything with factual information that you've obtained. You have assumptions about profit motives that you are stating to be more factually correct than what I've been told by someone who is very close to the situation.

[Charlutz]

One fact that hasn't been mentioned is what annual sales (volume and dollars) are for EC and ECBP. If one doesn't trust press releases or anecdotal statements, one can usually look to profit motive. My guess (I have no inside knowledge) is that the volume and dollars sold of EC so far outstrips ECBP, EC18 and the rest of the limiteds that it makes perfect sense that the decision to drop the age statement was directly tied to selling more ECNAS. I am trying to draw a conclusion and am not stating fact. 

[Clueby]

I think his whole point was that the press release by the company actually supported what he was saying....that the move to NAS EC allowed more ECBP. According to the press release that is also a "fact" that having more ECBP was also a factor in their decision making. It was not the ONLY one but it was clearly something the company took into consideration.

"By making the age adjustment to Elijah Craig Small Batch, it will allow a marked increase in allocations of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof".

[BottledInBond]

32 minutes ago, flahute said:

Whoa there, chill. I think you inferred a tone in my posts that isn't there. It happens easily with written word on the internet and happens to all of us.

 

To your points: if bringing relevant information to the discussion, especially information that is not generally public, constitutes being on a high horse, then yes - I suppose I'm on a high horse and I will stay there.

 

While true that you had options with younger HH products, EC is their flagship brand at the mid shelf so the prospect of it experiencing rolling blackouts if they insisted on keeping the age statement was not desirable to them.

 

Do I think I'm the only one who can talk to a liquor company employee? Well of course not! But I did talk to someone involved in the decision making process. And it was a discussion in a private setting so this person was not making a statement with a PR angle meant for a public setting. As for your question regarding the press release, I never said anything about that. I'm only referring to a private conversation.

 

Of course Heaven Hill is a for profit business making profit related decisions! If they weren't they wouldn't be around for long and we wouldn't be here talking about their whiskey. You then go on to state that I don't understand the difference between facts and public relation spin. I'd like to see you support that claim. Again, I made no reference to the press releases.

I'm well aware of how barrel taxation works and that bottling younger whiskey shortens the investment timeline.

 

So, circling back around here. There was a shortage of 12 year barrels. They were having to use less than desirable barrels to meet demand. They could have continued and watched quality drop which would harm the reputation of the brand. With the brand reputation tarnished, they could have then watched it go into rolling blackouts. Again, this is not how you treat a flagship brand. So they drop the age statement and create a quality blend that still tastes great. Were they doing this to protect the poor customer from oakier EC12? Of course not! They were doing it to protect the brand. Was this an HH motive? Of course it was! They are protecting the viability of the brand in the way they see fit. They could have chosen different ways to do this that would have had their own unique advantages and disadvantages. There's no perfect solution. They chose to protect the EC brand with a side effect of more ECBP being available. Do they make more money off that ECBP? You bet. I don't see anyone complaining about more availability though.

I'm not trying to start some sort of clash about this topic, I just think it would be nice if you wouldn't start posts by telling everyone they are "incorrect" and then claim your understanding of a situation to be the facts and the only view anyone could have. I'll stop here rather than posting further debate on the EC topic. Everyone here is entitled to ask questions or put out there opinions without being told they are wrong by one person. Especially when there is more to it and they aren't all 100% facts like this situation.

[smokinjoe]

A lot  of this is very clear if you just look at the first 3 words from the comment that was challenged.  

 

"Wasn't the reason..."

 

Since then, the goal posts keep getting moved in attempts of support or defense of this erroneous statement.  

 

 

 

 

[BottledInBond]

3 hours ago, flahute said:

Well I guess I could have used softer language. Doesn't change what is and isn't correct though.

Indeed, everyone is free to ask questions and state opinions. If they are wrong though, are we supposed to let it go in the name of being nice? Does it require more than one person with said knowledge for it to be official?

You keep inferring that I don't have all the facts but you haven't refuted anything with factual information that you've obtained. You have assumptions about profit motives that you are stating to be more factually correct than what I've been told by someone who is very close to the situation.

You still want to play the "I know more than everyone else" card, huh? Cool, nice attitude. 

 

The person who make the comment that you first shot down as clearly being I correct made a comment about the motive on the NAS move for EC being involved with availability for 12 year barrels for ECBP and EC18. Heaven Hill in there own press releases aknowledges that this is part of the overall scenario:

 

Overall, Heaven Hill does intend to retain age-stated Bourbons within the Elijah Craig brand franchise. By making the age adjustment to Elijah Craig Small Batch, it will allow a marked increase in allocations of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof which will continue to carry a 12-year-old age statement and, over time, increase availability of Elijah Craig 18-Year-Old Single Barrel that was just re-released this past fall after a 3 year hiatus.  

 

so so please explain to me why someone who makes a comment that would suggest that part of the motive of the NAS move was about supporting the ECBP and EC18 labels?

 

How about just don't be a jerk and continue holding yourself out as the only one who can be right?

 

your earlier comments only pointed to the supposed better consistency of profile crap as the reason. Only when I pointed out the obvious profit motives did you aknowledge that this would also be part of their motives. 

 

You up think you're the ultimate determination of correct or incorrect? Get over yourself. Frankly I'm shocked that anyone wants to so vehemently defend a NAS move, especially when this community in general is critical of the losses of age statements universally. Can you honestly say that all of thes NAS moves are for the better for the consumer?

 

I've been drinking whiskey for a long time, and I know for sure that older whiskey is not also always better. But I also know that in my opinion, AA10 star is not close to what AA10 year was, and the current Wedlers are nowhere near what they were when they were 7 year age stated, etc. 

 

I also know that just because some HH employee told you that the EC NAS move was to improve profile consistency to protect their flagship brand does not make you the only correct person in this discussion. Apparently you're unwilling to admit that. Sad

[Richnimrod]

Boys, Boys, Boys!   Puhleeze!      Can't we all just get along!

[flahute]

5 minutes ago, BottledInBond said:

You still want to play the "I know more than everyone else" card, huh? Cool, nice attitude. 

 

The person who make the comment that you first shot down as clearly being I correct made a comment about the motive on the NAS move for EC being involved with availability for 12 year barrels for ECBP and EC18. Heaven Hill in there own press releases aknowledges that this is part of the overall scenario:

 

Overall, Heaven Hill does intend to retain age-stated Bourbons within the Elijah Craig brand franchise. By making the age adjustment to Elijah Craig Small Batch, it will allow a marked increase in allocations of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof which will continue to carry a 12-year-old age statement and, over time, increase availability of Elijah Craig 18-Year-Old Single Barrel that was just re-released this past fall after a 3 year hiatus.  

 

so so please explain to me why someone who makes a comment that would suggest that part of the motive of the NAS move was about supporting the ECBP and EC18 labels?

 

How about just don't be a jerk and continue holding yourself out as the only one who can be right?

 

your earlier comments only pointed to the supposed better consistency of profile crap as the reason. Only when I pointed out the obvious profit motives did you aknowledge that this would also be part of their motives. 

 

You up think you're the ultimate determination of correct or incorrect? Get over yourself. Frankly I'm shocked that anyone wants to so vehemently defend a NAS move, especially when this community in general is critical of the losses of age statements universally. Can you honestly say that all of thes NAS moves are for the better for the consumer?

 

I've been drinking whiskey for a long time, and I know for sure that older whiskey is not also always better. But I also know that in my opinion, AA10 star is not close to what AA10 year was, and the current Wedlers are nowhere near what they were when they were 7 year age stated, etc. 

 

I also know that just because some HH employee told you that the EC NAS move was to improve profile consistency to protect their flagship brand does not make you the only correct person in this discussion. Apparently you're unwilling to admit that. Sad

I've been very measured in all of my responses so far. You are the one calling me names and making assumptions about what I think or what I know.

 

Soooo.....I'm the jerk here?