Future of Bottled in Bond?

[mbroo5880i]

I agree there aren't any loopholes.  I am not certain how much on-site inspection still occurs in "bonded" warehouses but the DSP is required to submit a monthly report on operations to the TTB.

Edited January 15, 2018 by mbroo5880i

[kaiserhog]

I think Bottled in Bond, provides a great standard of minimum quality for the bottom and medium shelf.

[TheNovaMan]

I don't see BIB going away as long as people keep buying it, and I think Beam coming out with a new one not too long ago is a good sign that it's still relevant in the current boom.

[cdcdguy]

Ok, so most agree BIB isn't going away. Would most agree they are an extremely good value?  I was shopping in Kentucky a few months ago buying mainly BIB and the average price per bottle was about 15 dollars and HH6 was 10!  How much longer can they be priced so low? Why are they priced so low? And do you see the price increasing faster than other bourbon in the future?

[flahute]

14 hours ago, cdcdguy said:

Ok, so most agree BIB isn't going away. Would most agree they are an extremely good value?  I was shopping in Kentucky a few months ago buying mainly BIB and the average price per bottle was about 15 dollars and HH6 was 10!  How much longer can they be priced so low? Why are they priced so low? And do you see the price increasing faster than other bourbon in the future?

Yes they are a good value. They are priced so low because they are legacy brands from a time before bourbon got popular and prices got out of hand. They have a loyal following among long time bourbon drinkers. I don't believe prices will increase much but they will limit production of it as they try to steer newcomers to higher priced boutique brands.

[Richnimrod]

8 hours ago, flahute said:

Yes they are a good value. They are priced so low because they are legacy brands from a time before bourbon got popular and prices got out of hand. They have a loyal following among long time bourbon drinkers. I don't believe prices will increase much but they will limit production of it as they try to steer newcomers to higher priced boutique brands.

^^^^ This (my own emphasis added) is my guess at the future, as well.    I think localized stock issues, and possibly even some states that currently receive some BIB brands might be left out at some future point.    The "new" (& more costly) BIB's will be well-supported; but, the legacy brands will be rather less so.   This is, of course, just my own WAG.

[Canarse]

I think the BIB designation is important, especially for craft distillers.  I have had some really bad craft whiskey.  It tastes like they aged it long enough so it was brown and they could call it bourbon.  With BIB at least I know it has been sitting for 4 years.  Frankly, I am surprised so many of these craft bourbons/whiskies have gotten good publicity.  Most I have tasted are not good.  I get that it's expensive to operate for 4 years or more with no revenue, but they knew that would be an issue when they started.

 

I also think BIB bourbons are important to make sure there is a sweet spot between barrel strength bourbons and low proof bourbons.  I'm not a big fan of most bourbons under 100 proof.  There are exceptions.  Especially in cocktails I find lower proof bourbons don't stand up to mixers, vermouth, etc.  I want to taste the whiskey in the drink!  BIB whiskey is nearly perfect for that IMO. 

[cdcdguy]

1 hour ago, Richnimrod said:

^^^^ This (my own emphasis added) is my guess at the future, as well.    I think localized stock issues, and possibly even some states that currently receive some BIB brands might be left out at some future point.    The "new" (& more costly) BIB's will be well-supported; but, the legacy brands will be rather less so.   This is, of course, just my own WAG.

Can you give an example what you think those " new" and more costly BIBs might be? To me, HM 10 is about twice the price of EWBIB. Are you talking much more, and who do you think would make "new"? The same producers that currently make the lower stuff?

[Harry in WashDC]

On 1/13/2018 at 11:42 PM, Surtur said:

 . . . To answer the original question, no I don’t think it will disappear. It has become a commodity like the term “small batch”. What bourbon was that a few years back that called itself “small batch single barrel bourbon”?

Russells Reserve did when the label was a strip of paper instead of a full label.  Proof was in the 110s.  IIRC, there were one or two others who did this for a short while.

[Richnimrod]

1 hour ago, cdcdguy said:

Can you give an example what you think those " new" and more costly BIBs might be? To me, HM 10 is about twice the price of EWBIB. Are you talking much more, and who do you think would make "new"? The same producers that currently make the lower stuff?

For sure 1792 BIB, as well as Jim Beam BIB (in my area at any rate), and any of the 'Craft Distillers' come immediately to mind.  

The case of HMcK is rather a different situation, it being a 10-year-old expression.   That one is a bargain.    Maybe one of THE BEST BUYS in Bourbon today... assuming you value the profile of a longer-aged Bourbon.

[flahute]

 

On 1/13/2018 at 8:42 PM, Surtur said:

What bourbon was that a few years back that called itself “small batch single barrel bourbon”?

 

4 hours ago, Harry in WashDC said:

Russells Reserve did when the label was a strip of paper instead of a full label.  Proof was in the 110s.  IIRC, there were one or two others who did this for a short while.

Harry got it right.

This was a label mistake that got past the proofreaders and they never fixed it until they changed label designs. This was always a single barrel at 110 proof.

[flahute]

5 hours ago, cdcdguy said:

Can you give an example what you think those " new" and more costly BIBs might be? To me, HM 10 is about twice the price of EWBIB. Are you talking much more, and who do you think would make "new"? The same producers that currently make the lower stuff?

 

3 hours ago, Richnimrod said:

For sure 1792 BIB, as well as Jim Beam BIB (in my area at any rate), and any of the 'Craft Distillers' come immediately to mind.  

The case of HMcK is rather a different situation, it being a 10-year-old expression.   That one is a bargain.    Maybe one of THE BEST BUYS in Bourbon today... assuming you value the profile of a longer-aged Bourbon.

Rich is correct that McKenna is a different situation. That label has been around for a while and is a great buy being 10 years of age.

 

Other newer BIB's that push the price barrier: Old Fo 1897 BIB and EH Taylor Small Batch, Single Barrel, and Rye are all BIB's.

[kevinbrink]

Well tread soil here over the years but I would say that McKenna is the best argument for BIB to be a marketing thing, comparatively Four Roses Single Barrel and Rock Hill Farms could be labeled BIB (they might need to add in some other info like DSP distilling and bottling) and choose not to. Any Single Barrel 100 proof 4 year plus Straight Bourbon technically meets the requirement for BIB but Single Barrel was previously a more powerful Marketing statement. McKenna has enough categorization on it's bottle for 4 bottles. 

[Theiano]

8 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

 Any Single Barrel 100 proof 4 year plus Straight Bourbon technically meets the requirement for BIB but Single Barrel was previously a more powerful Marketing statement. McKenna has enough categorization on it's bottle for 4 bottles. 

 

Your response got me thinking about something, which is probably very unlikely but prompted me to pose the following question here. Could a single barrel technically not be bottled in bond if it was a tanked distillate prior to barreling? (A follow on question, do distilleries generally immediately fill their barrels or do they blend different distillates for flavor profiles?)

 

So, take for example if a distillery is running multiple distillations at once and then putting them into a single large holding tank, then it uses that holding tank to fill lots of barrels at one time. Now if the holding tank was technically filled across two seasons (say over a week period that transitioned from June to July) then I presume they couldn't label the output bottled in bond, as it has to be from one distilling season.

A second aspect could be if they didn't frequently flush out the lines, then there could be some old distillate in there from a previous season etc.

 

Now I'm not saying that this situation is what is happening in the instance of say FRSiB, or RHF or even if it is likely to ever happen anywhere, I agree that Single barrel (even NAS) is a far more desirable label than BiB, I'm just interested in the topic, and if anyone knows about the process at the distilleries.

 

 

[fishnbowljoe]

22 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

Well tread soil here over the years but I would say that McKenna is the best argument for BIB to be a marketing thing, comparatively Four Roses Single Barrel and Rock Hill Farms could be labeled BIB (they might need to add in some other info like DSP distilling and bottling) and choose not to. Any Single Barrel 100 proof 4 year plus Straight Bourbon technically meets the requirement for BIB but Single Barrel was previously a more powerful Marketing statement. McKenna has enough categorization on it's bottle for 4 bottles. 

Nicely put Kevin. 

 

 

As for me personally, I could do without any marketing at all for BIB's. My niche is wheaters/Wellers and BIB's. As long as I can still find those at a fairly decent price, I'm a pretty happy camper for the most part. Too much marketing of BIB's might drive up the demand and then the price. As a wise person once said, "If you have to take my steak from me, fine. Just leave my beans alone." 

 

Biba! Joe

[kaiserhog]

1 hour ago, Theiano said:

 

Your response got me thinking about something, which is probably very unlikely but prompted me to pose the following question here. Could a single barrel technically not be bottled in bond if it was a tanked distillate prior to barreling? (A follow on question, do distilleries generally immediately fill their barrels or do they blend different distillates for flavor profiles?)

 

So, take for example if a distillery is running multiple distillations at once and then putting them into a single large holding tank, then it uses that holding tank to fill lots of barrels at one time. Now if the holding tank was technically filled across two seasons (say over a week period that transitioned from June to July) then I presume they couldn't label the output bottled in bond, as it has to be from one distilling season.

A second aspect could be if they didn't frequently flush out the lines, then there could be some old distillate in there from a previous season etc.

 

Now I'm not saying that this situation is what is happening in the instance of say FRSiB, or RHF or even if it is likely to ever happen anywhere, I agree that Single barrel (even NAS) is a far more desirable label than BiB, I'm just interested in the topic, and if anyone knows about the process at the distilleries.

 

 

I think you are correct.  To be bottled in bond, the spirit must be the product of one distilling season.  Any whiskey that came from a different season would qualiy as straight whiskey but not bottled in bond.  Also, a bottled in bond can come from multiple barrels if they are from the same season, meet all the labeling requirements and bottled at 100 proof.

[DCFan]

18 hours ago, flahute said:

... but they will limit production of it as they try to steer newcomers to higher priced boutique brands.

Limiting production is based on what?

[fishnbowljoe]

10 minutes ago, DCFan said:

Limiting production is based on what?

 $$$$$$$$ 

 

Biba! Joe

[DCFan]

1 minute ago, fishnbowljoe said:

 $$$$$$$$ 

 

Biba! Joe

Yeah I know money drives everything but I was curious if he had actual production numbers, past and present to back that assertion up. And I'd be curious to know if the amount of bourbon being stored in the government warehouses is up, down, the same??

[kevinbrink]

32 minutes ago, kaiserhog said:

I think you are correct.  To be bottled in bond, the spirit must be the product of one distilling season.  Any whiskey that came from a different season would qualiy as straight whiskey but not bottled in bond.  Also, a bottled in bond can come from multiple barrels if they are from the same season, meet all the labeling requirements and bottled at 100 proof.

Right in ven diagram of 100 proof whiskey one would assume all Single Barrels are Bottled in Bond, however not all Bottled in Bond would be single barrel, though there is always the possibility of shenanigans I suppose.  Glendronach certainly stretched, to put it nicely, the truth on what a single cask was in the scotch world. 

[cdcdguy]

31 minutes ago, DCFan said:

Yeah I know money drives everything but I was curious if he had actual production numbers, past and present to back that assertion up. And I'd be curious to know if the amount of bourbon being stored in the government warehouses is up, down, the same??

I too would like to know if more or less is being stored in government warehouses. And why is HHBIB6 only available in Kentucky now? They used to sell it in Indiana. Just guessing it's such a low profit maker, or possibly a loss so they restrict to the home state. I mean stored 6 years in a bonded warehouse and it's like 10 to 15 dollars? How much profit could you make?

[flahute]

1 hour ago, DCFan said:

Limiting production is based on what?

It's based on the continually decreased availability and distribution area decreases of just about all of the old favorite cheap BIB's.

Less of it on the shelves.

States they were formerly distributed in no longer get it.

Some brands just flat out discontinued.

[fishnbowljoe]

51 minutes ago, DCFan said:

Yeah I know money drives everything but I was curious if he had actual production numbers, past and present to back that assertion up. And I'd be curious to know if the amount of bourbon being stored in the government warehouses is up, down, the same??

 

19 minutes ago, cdcdguy said:

I too would like to know if more or less is being stored in government warehouses. And why is HHBIB6 only available in Kentucky now? They used to sell it in Indiana. Just guessing it's such a low profit maker, or possibly a loss so they restrict to the home state. I mean stored 6 years in a bonded warehouse and it's like 10 to 15 dollars? How much profit could you make?

 

It's my understanding that there really isn't such a thing as an actual bonded government warehouse anymore. Everything is now being kept track of by computer AFAIK. 

 

Joe

[Theiano]

 

57 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

Right in ven diagram of 100 proof whiskey one would assume all Single Barrels are Bottled in Bond, however not all Bottled in Bond would be single barrel, though there is always the possibility of shenanigans I suppose.  Glendronach certainly stretched, to put it nicely, the truth on what a single cask was in the scotch world. 

I wasn't aware of the Glendronach shenanigans, thanks for bringing that to our attention. I found this link relating to it after looking it up:

https://myannoyingopinions.com/2014/02/14/glendronach-confusion-single-cask/

 

I would expect there can be any number of similar shenanigans carried out with bourbon products, a lot of times they don't even follow the TTB labeling rules, so who knows about when it comes to what's in the bottle.

[Canarse]

13 hours ago, Theiano said:

 

Your response got me thinking about something, which is probably very unlikely but prompted me to pose the following question here. Could a single barrel technically not be bottled in bond if it was a tanked distillate prior to barreling? (A follow on question, do distilleries generally immediately fill their barrels or do they blend different distillates for flavor profiles?)

 

So, take for example if a distillery is running multiple distillations at once and then putting them into a single large holding tank, then it uses that holding tank to fill lots of barrels at one time. Now if the holding tank was technically filled across two seasons (say over a week period that transitioned from June to July) then I presume they couldn't label the output bottled in bond, as it has to be from one distilling season.

A second aspect could be if they didn't frequently flush out the lines, then there could be some old distillate in there from a previous season etc.

 

Now I'm not saying that this situation is what is happening in the instance of say FRSiB, or RHF or even if it is likely to ever happen anywhere, I agree that Single barrel (even NAS) is a far more desirable label than BiB, I'm just interested in the topic, and if anyone knows about the process at the distilleries.

 

 

What is a distilling season?  Maybe I'm late to the party and this has been discussed?  Is it only a month as you suggest?  Seems silly to be so short.