ECBP more abundant ?

[fishnbowljoe]

FWIW, the press release in the link above is a year and a half old. Still relevant? Maybe. Maybe not. And before this escalates any further......   (Sincere apologies to y'all that I haven't had the pleasure to meet yet. ) 

 

I have to post my two cents here. Over the past ten years or so, it's been my privilege to be involved in many things in the bourbon world because of SB. First and foremost in all this is getting to meet and become friends with so many members here. To be honest, some of the things I've been able to do here have been on my own, and some have been because of my status here on SB. Yes I'm a moderator, but in the grand scheme of things, (and to paraphrase a bit) that sometimes doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I'm really not trying to pick sides here, but I finally got to meet flahute/Steve at our most recent get together this past April. I've always felt a high regard for his knowledge and posts, and basically just what he brings to the table here over all. I was extremely happy to finally meet him in person and to chat with him some. I would have liked to chat with him more, but from the brief conversations we did have, I quickly realized he pretty much knows what he's talking about. Even though I try to think of myself as one in the know, there are things I gleaned from him that made me realize I didn't know quite as much as I thought I did. Humbling to say the least, but it didn't matter to Steve at all. We were both just SB members getting to know each other, sharing a pour and having a good time. And that folks is what it's all about. Don't get a big head though Steve. At least a couple of other members here, whether knowingly or not, have also put me in my place a time or two.  And FWIW, y'all rank way behind my wonderful wife who has done so countless times over the past 35 + years. 

 

Also, one member of SB (whom I as well as a few others have met before) is also in the hierarchy at HH. Maybe he'll see this thread and post something to clarify this matter. To be honest though, I'm not sure he will since he hasn't been on here in a while.

 

Cheers! Joe

[BottledInBond]

5 minutes ago, flahute said:

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?

You're the one calling everyone except yourself incorrect. What names did I call you? And I'm not making assumptions about what you think is correct. I am referencing your statements you consider fact

[kwshannon]

Regarding ECBP availability, I have not seen it here in Iowa on shelves in the last 4-5 years until this year, and specifically B517.   

[DCFan]

17 minutes ago, flahute said:

 

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

 

No the Nats bullpen is. 

[flahute]

5 minutes ago, DCFan said:

 

No the Nats bullpen is. 

Don't let Harry know. He may not have enough OGD on hand. 

[fishnbowljoe]

14 minutes ago, kwshannon said:

Regarding ECBP availability, I have not seen it here in Iowa on shelves in the last 4-5 years until this year, and specifically B517.   

 

Chicago and Binny's aside, I've yet to see any at all here in Northern Illinois Kerry.

 

Joe

[DCFan]

4 minutes ago, flahute said:

Don't let Harry know. He may not have enough OGD on hand. 

 

The Nats win so his liver is safe.

[kwshannon]

1 hour ago, fishnbowljoe said:

 

Chicago and Binny's aside, I've yet to see any at all here in Northern Illinois Kerry.

 

Joe

 

Let me know if you want me to save you a bottle of B517.  I know one store has at least 6, and another had about 6.  All were around $60.

[Clueby]

1 hour ago, fishnbowljoe said:

FWIW, the press release in the link above is a year and a half old. Still relevant? Maybe. Maybe not. And before this escalates any further......   (Sincere apologies to y'all that I haven't had the pleasure to meet yet. ) 

 

I have to post my two cents here. Over the past ten years or so, it's been my privilege to be involved in many things in the bourbon world because of SB. First and foremost in all this is getting to meet and become friends with so many members here. To be honest, some of the things I've been able to do here have been on my own, and some have been because of my status here on SB. Yes I'm a moderator, but in the grand scheme of things, (and to paraphrase a bit) that sometimes doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I'm really not trying to pick sides here, but I finally got to meet flahute/Steve at our most recent get together this past April. I've always felt a high regard for his knowledge and posts, and basically just what he brings to the table here over all. I was extremely happy to finally meet him in person and to chat with him some. I would have liked to chat with him more, but from the brief conversations we did have, I quickly realized he pretty much knows what he's talking about. Even though I try to think of myself as one in the know, there are things I gleaned from him that made me realize I didn't know quite as much as I thought I did. Humbling to say the least, but it didn't matter to Steve at all. We were both just SB members getting to know each other, sharing a pour and having a good time. And that folks is what it's all about. Don't get a big head though Steve. At least a couple of other members here, whether knowingly or not, have also put me in my place a time or two.  And FWIW, y'all rank way behind my wonderful wife who has done so countless times over the past 35 + years. 

 

Also, one member of SB (whom I as well as a few others have met before) is also in the hierarchy at HH. Maybe he'll see this thread and post something to clarify this matter. To be honest though, I'm not sure he will since he hasn't been on here in a while.

 

Cheers! Joe

Thanks for that post. Reminds me that I'm pretty much a noob compared to many here. Just hate to see squabbling on here. I guess it shows how passionate many are about this hobby we share.

[musekatcher]

15 minutes ago, Clueby said:

Thanks for that post. Reminds me that I'm pretty much a noob compared to many here. Just hate to see squabbling on here. I guess it shows how passionate many are about this hobby we share.

 

I think the jousting is in good fun and productive, maybe a little tense at times, but so is [insert competitive sport, music, hobby, art critique, etc here].  When logging a contest or dissension, I try to make it less provocative and less confrontational, but realize its hard to avoid in print form.  I'd rather endure a little squabbling, than to waste time with disingenuous platitudes and forced unilateral agreement. 

[flahute]

3 hours 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

Let's go back to the beginning when the questions was asked (not by you): "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 inference here is that this was the primary reason. As has been stated numerous times, the answer is no, but it is a beneficial side effect. I've said this many times in past posts.

 

You claim I'm playing the "I know more than everyone else" card. Uh...., no. I'm just relaying info straight from the source that's relevant to the discussion. There's no attitude here, just relevant info. That you choose to diminish it is your choice.

 

You then reference HH's press release, which upthread you said should not always be trusted but now use to defend your point. Yes, they did mention it, but it's not the primary reason. It's not the reason they decided to drop the age statement. They knew they were going to take a big PR hit with this, especially since they had said they had no intentions of dropping the age statement. Mentioning wider availability of ECBP is a nice way to soften the blow since it's impossible to very to hard to find in many markets.

 

You mention someone making a comment about the motive partly being to support ECBP and EC18. As shown above, the original question was asking if it was the primary motive.

 

You then infer that I'm a jerk. Am I holding myself out as the only one who can be right? No. But I am the only one (so far) who has information straight from the source (ground zero of the entire decision making process).

 

You then infer that I only now just came around to their profit motives since you mentioned it. This is an example of assuming what I know or am thinking. (Of course I know they are interested in making a profit and that this decision allows them continued profit opportunities).

 

You then assume that I think I'm the ultimate determiner of correct or incorrect. No. I've already covered that above. Until someone comes forward with better information straight from the source, you only have assumptions. If you get better info, I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. You then claim that I'm vehemently defending the move to NAS. I am not. I am on record here many times objecting to the removal of the age statement to EC. Look in the archives and you'll see. I even stocked up ahead of time because HH gave me time to do so with their announcement. I'm not defending it, but I understand why they had to do it. It's the sign of the times. I'd rather have high quality EC NAS always available than have EC12 go the way Weller 12. EC NAS is currently good enough that I don't have the need to dip into my EC12 stock. 

You ask if I think the NAS moves are for the better of the customer. Loaded question. I don't. BUT? If keeping the age statement means allocation and flippers buying up all their are so they can sell them at a profit on the secondary market, I'll take going NAS so it's on shelf. I'll trust the distillers to maintain quality. If they fail, I'll move on to other products. Simple as that. Better that than having to hustle for an allocated product.

 

You've been drinking whiskey for a long time. I respect that. I understand your position on AA10 star and the Wellers. EC NAS, however, still tastes great. Time will tell of course if they can keep it up. (And I've said this here many times before). 

 

You then infer again that I think I'm the only correct person in the discussion because a HH employee told me something. (You even end with a Donald Trump "sad". Well played).

Again, as stated above, I have info from ground zero in the decision making process. This is better info than any other assumption in this thread. You can doubt it, that's fine. But all you have are your own cynical assumptions about HH's motives. You're entitled to those opinions, but I prefer actual info from a person who has shot straight with me in the past. Your choice. My choice. 

 

 

 

[Golferpimp1]

And let's all exit stage left on this discussion...I just wasted 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back reading through the arguing.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[flahute]

16 minutes ago, Golferpimp1 said:

And let's all exit stage left on this discussion...I just wasted 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back reading through the arguing.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 

Enjoy some ECBP and it'll all be good. You won't even remember those 10 minutes.

[Paddy]

Steve summed it up pretty well.  HH threw us (bourbon geeks) what the marketing boys call 'a bone' when they noted that ECBP and EC18 production will be increased (with the loss of the age statement).  However, EC 12 (now NAS) probably makes 95% of the profit in the line as a whole. 

 

The bottom line is that HH made a business decision to keep Elijah Craig on the shelf, vs the much derided rolling blackouts (yes, I'm speaking of Buffalo Trace).  As Steve noted above thread, since the loss of the age statement we've been pleasantly surprised in that the profile does not seem to have been compromised, yet.  

 

That doesn't mean that I like the decision, but it's just a fact... increased allotments of ECBP and/or EC18 didn't have a damn thing to do with it.  Someday, when the current bourbon river has run its course, we'll be flush again in EC12.  Unfortunately, we'll also be paying a premium for it similarly to what's happened with EC18 over the past several years. 

 

Now, can somebody pour me another drink?

 

 

[BottledInBond]

Seeing as it isn't beneficial to anyone to continue debating the merits of the ECNAS situation, I will return to the original purpose of this thread. ECBP does appear to be more available in my area now, for the last two batches at least. It is priced a little high some places (I've seen it as high as $100) but I am pretty confident I could go grab some right now off the shelf if I felt like it. A couple years ago, I never saw it on shelves.

 

Not the original specific topic of this thread but I still rarely see EC18 on a shelf. Which is fine for me as I'm not interested in it at twice the price of ECBP anyway

 

 

[Phil T]

I have read many times that ECBP is continually flush in some areas. I have found it only twice in a store. The 1st release was in a store in southern Indiana. They didn't have it on the shelf but I asked about it and they brought out a bottle from the back. The 2nd time was at my local. They had just gotten 6 bottles  (2 different proofs), but not on the shelf yet. They were in a box on the floor.

 

 I have the complete vertical (minus the GS releases), but have had to buy from the secondary market to keep it complete. If I am patient, I am paying C+S, which I can live with.

[Bbstout]

How long does everyone think that the 12 year age statement will last now that they have put it on the side of the bottle with the bottle redesign? Looks to me to be on track with moving the big 12 on the front to a sentence on the back to no mention. 

[Phil T]

5 minutes ago, Bbstout said:

How long does everyone think that the 12 year age statement will last now that they have put it on the side of the bottle with the bottle redesign? Looks to me to be on track with moving the big 12 on the front to a sentence on the back to no mention. 

It started out on the back label. So see, it is making a move to the front

[musekatcher]

10 hours ago, Paddy said:

Unfortunately, we'll also be paying a premium for it similarly to what's happened with EC18 over the past several years.

 

There's a secret method for not paying a premium. 

[JTaylor]

I've not seen the B517 yet, but I've been assured it is coming soon...

[apspeedbump]

On 7/3/2017 at 8:04 PM, kwshannon said:

Regarding ECBP availability, I have not seen it here in Iowa on shelves in the last 4-5 years until this year, and specifically B517.   

 

Not sure where in Iowa you are, but in Des Moines, I got a Batch 12 from somewhere, and I know of 3 stores that got A117, but only 1-3 bottles each.  One of those got really lucky with B517 because the owner mentioned he was offered 13 bottles to sell this time.

Edited July 5, 2017 by apspeedbump

[Theiano]

 

Rarely is a decision made for only one reason or by one person alone, there are always pros and cons to everything and in my life I generally weigh them up before making any major decisions. In good business practice it is downright necessary. I didn't drink a whole lot of EC12, although I thought it was decent, and I haven't even tried the EC NAS but I do love the barrel proof version. I love it so much that if eliminating the age statement on the regular ensures there is more barrel proof available I for one am in favor of it, even if that wasn't the primary motivation!

In general I find that heaven hill is more transparent about the way they do business, they took a fairly measured approach to the way they handled the removal of the age statement I thought, at least they didn't leave a big 12 on the front and say old No. 12 or aged 12 seasons or something like that.

[EarthQuake]

Speaking as someone who works in marketing/PR for a living, we would never come out and state "We're dropping the age statement so we can produce more, lower quality whiskey and make more money.", even if this was the primary reason for the decision. We would also coach our employees so they would never say anything remotely like this, even in private, for obvious reasons. Corporations understand how damaging this sort of thing can be, and how easy it is for leaked information to spread on the internet. The various press releases are well written and put a positive spin on the choice, as is expected. As a general rule, press releases are written to convey the message that the company wants the public to see, the message which makes the company look as good as possible. Press releases typically should not taken at face value as they are specifically designed to cultivate a certain perception, a perception which may not be entirely accurate, but nonetheless, when it comes to marketing perception is reality.

 

Additionally, there are no "facts" presented in this thread, only speculation. Assuming flahute has a trusted source at HH, he's repeating hearsay that may be incorrect due to various reasons (the person talking to him have could been dishonest - perhaps unintentionally so, the person talking to him may not be privy to all the relevant information, etc). The only way to know any of this for a "fact" is to be the person who made the decision or have been in the meeting that concluded in the decision being made. Everything short of that is speculation. Speculation is not necessarily incorrect though, so it's possible that everything flahute has said is 100% correct, but it's condescending and disrespectful to pretend like one person's speculation is a concrete fact and everyone else's speculation is invalid when there is no clear evidence to prove this is the case. Even if flahute's source is the head of HH who made the call, it's still speculation, as it's an unsubstantiated rumor at this point and the source could have had various motivations to convey this information. Again, rumors are not necessarily incorrect - but let's call a spade a spade here. Let's say HH's head comes out and states in no uncertain terms that a certain narrative is correct, it is still a statement rather than a fact. For something to become a fact it has to be independently verified, something which is virtually impossible to do when it comes to situations like this.

 

It is my opinion that dropping the age statement was done primarily so the company can produce more whiskey and make more money. Being able to use better, younger barrels, as well as saving more stock for ECBP and EC18 seem like nice side effects of this choice. No, I have absolutely no evidence that this is the case nor do I purport it to be a fact.

Edited July 5, 2017 by EarthQuake

[kevinbrink]

Back on topic from me, I actually have seen less in my area, past releases were pretty available and I was able to buy bottles at multiple stores or at least see them. A117 I have seen in the wild just once.  Maybe everyone's additional bottles got pulled out of Northern New Jersey.

[Theiano]

2 hours ago, EarthQuake said:

It is my opinion that dropping the age statement was done primarily so the company can produce more whiskey and make more money. Being able to use better, younger barrels, as well as saving more stock for ECBP and EC18 seem like nice side effects of this choice. No, I have absolutely no evidence that this is the case nor do I purport it to be a fact.

 

This is a great perspective, from a marketing person. At the end of the day, it wasn't the decision makers job to frame the message and release the statement, that was marketing's job.

Different people from the same decision making team may have differing motivations, and all may be correct. If a business/marketing person says to the distiller/producer person "can you increase the production by using some younger barrels, and still maintain the quality of the product?" the answer will likely be yes, (albeit within some limits). The distiller/producer is motivated by increasing production and maintaining quality, and the business person might be more motivated by profits or market share.

 

FWIW I haven't seen an increase in supply lately either although I guess we have to wait 6 years to notice any increase in EC18!