Booker’s price hike push back

[kevinbrink]

4 minutes ago, Mako254 said:

 

Agree about ECBP and they out enough out that one can be had with some looking. 

 

Stagg jr on the other hand, I’ve yet to have a batch I like. 

I'll say this about Stagg Jr., it is very close to CEHT BP which is in the same price range as Booker's, I've said it before but I'm fairly certain that if you lined up 2 of the recent batches of Stagg Jr and 2 CEHT BP and had them blind you wouldn't be able to pick out which two were each brand.  That being said I still prefer Booker's and appreciate that unlike so many BT brands they give you tons of info about what is in the bottle.  As far as I'm concerned Stagg Jr. and CEHT BP have an age statement of 4 years since they are  straight. Plenty of people complain about the descending ages of Booker's releases but at least they are forthright, they could have done away with the age statement completely and said they were "Around 7 years old".

[Bob_Loblaw]

3 hours ago, Mako254 said:

 

Agree about ECBP and they out enough out that one can be had with some looking. 

 

Stagg jr on the other hand, I’ve yet to have a batch I like. 

And here I thought I was the only one who did not care for Stagg Jr.  but have only tried one bottle.  I plan to give it another chance especially if it really is that close to EHBP which I have enjoyed.  May have to try them blind as KevinBrink suggests. 

 

Bookers I have had several times and like even less.  It was a easy pass even before the initial price hike.  Just not for me.

 

ECBP . . . now your talking! 

[lcpfratn]

Well, I like all three of them. Stagg Jr and Booker's are different obviously, but I'd rank them similarly in regards to how much I like them. Unfortunately, Booker's is no longer a comparable value, so Stagg Jr is currently a much better buy in my opinion.

ECBP is my top pick of the three, and worth the $65 plus tax that I can usually find it priced at. Of course I can also find it priced much higher, but I usually pass at the higher prices.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mosugoji64]

One of the Costcos around here recently put Bookers on clearance for the same price they were selling it before the price hike. I just laughed and kept walking. 

[The Black Tot]

Booker's is just under too much pressure these days. It's going out the door too young and for too much money.

 

Last week I was at a London bar, and I was hanging out with people who like to spend money. I looked at the whiskey menu and everything was expensive, so I just took the Booker's since at least I was going to get a reasonable proof for my (too much) money.

 

When I got the pour, I tasted it and the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. I said "whoah, can I see the bottle?" It was from 2012. 

 

It doesn't taste like that now. People can talk about how the new batches are worth $70 to them or whatever. But they aren't to me. 

 

It's just the boom/bubble effect. Stocks are strained. You can taste it.

 

In a few years it will again be my favorite Beam whiskey, at a fair price. 

 

If Beam tried $100 on, it would have been a disaster for them.

 

But no matter what the price, these days it's rushed. And if it doesn't taste like the Booker's of old, then I'm leaving it alone until it does again. And the same economic changes which will mean that it's no longer under demand pressure will also mean the price gets back in line. 

 

So...time is on our side.

[Kane]

1 hour ago, The Black Tot said:

 

It's just the boom/bubble effect.

 

In a few years it will again be my favorite Beam whiskey, at a fair price. 

 

And the same economic changes which will mean that it's no longer under demand pressure will also mean the price gets back in line. 

 

So...time is on our side.

 

[musekatcher]

2 hours ago, The Black Tot said:

But no matter what the price, these days it's rushed. And if it doesn't taste like the Booker's of old, then I'm leaving it alone until it does again. And the same economic changes which will mean that it's no longer under demand pressure will also mean the price gets back in line. 

 

 

And so goes a lot of bourbon brands, but not all.  At least it keeps things interesting.

[PiraSea]

I'm a bookers guy but I was able to find an ECBP in NC this week. One of only 3 in the county I've seen.  The ECBP has a little burn but letting a ice ball melt into it a little fixes that. Both the ECBP and Bookers have a similar caramel, vanilla flavor that stays with you a long time with a oily coating of your mouth. Its really good with a cigar which is how I drink the Bookers 2017-4. I don't know how consistent the ECBP is, but in the bookers I've only had 1 other recent release that really popped like the 2017-4. The rest weren't worthy of $73, Sip Awhile surely is worth it. The ECBP is only $54 compared, definitely better value.

 

In my neck of the woods we are bombarded with the Beam small batch product and get little Heaven Hill so I buy a good bit more Bookers than EC. I will buy more ECBP the next time I see it. 

[BDanner]

On 3/19/2018 at 6:54 PM, Bob_Loblaw said:

And here I thought I was the only one who did not care for Stagg Jr.  but have only tried one bottle.  I plan to give it another chance especially if it really is that close to EHBP which I have enjoyed.  May have to try them blind as KevinBrink suggests. 

 

Bookers I have had several times and like even less.  It was a easy pass even before the initial price hike.  Just not for me.

 

ECBP . . . now your talking! 

Same here. I just don't care for the Stagg Jr. I've tried different levels of dilution, but the bitter oak just overpowers it. That ECBP? Perfection.

[Cranecreek]

On 3/17/2018 at 9:57 PM, dad-proof said:

the Stagg Jr. is cheaper and the ECBP is 12 years vs. 6+ for Booker's.

Bookers has always been in that 6 to 8 year range and shows that barrel selection trumps age every time.  I still run into Bookers at $60 occasionally and will pick it up at that price but not above.

[The Black Tot]

On 6/7/2018 at 4:51 AM, Cranecreek said:

Bookers has always been in that 6 to 8 year range and shows that barrel selection trumps age every time.

Yes and no. The recent years have been mostly low sixes and have generally been some of the least exciting Booker's I've had.

[Cranecreek]

3 hours ago, The Black Tot said:

Yes and no. The recent years have been mostly low sixes and have generally been some of the least exciting Booker's I've had.

Just saying that Bookers releases have never been based on age but on barrel selection.  And so to compare the quality of a whiskey to another based on age alone is not a reliable method for choosing a whiskey from the shelf.  I have had outstanding bourbons that were 6 year and poor ones that were 12 years.  C2914-05 release has been my personal recent favorite and it was a little over 7 years.  A close second would be Bluegill Creek (2016-04) and it was 6 1/2 years.  I cannot recall the oldest Bookers ever produced but maybe someone may know that.  Also we have to keep in mind that these are batched products and not single barrels and that  " _years _ months "  is the youngest barrel  in the mix.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Cranecreek

[Saul_cooperstein]

I think the 25th was the oldest. 10+ years. Although the 30th coming out later this year is 16 years I believe. 

[Cranecreek]

3 hours ago, Saul_cooperstein said:

I think the 25th was the oldest. 10+ years. Although the 30th coming out later this year is 16 years I believe. 

Would you happen to know the oldest age ever released of the standard releases ?

[Saul_cooperstein]

 Unfortunately don’t. 

[The Black Tot]

7 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

Just saying that Bookers releases have never been based on age but on barrel selection. 

Let's quit wastin' time and get 'em out at 2yrs, then...

[Swamp55]

2 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

Would you happen to know the oldest age ever released of the standard releases ?

Although I can't vouch for the accuracy of the info, there is an interesting spreadsheet describing all of the Booker's releases here:

 

Booker's Batch Info

[Cranecreek]

21 minutes ago, Swamp55 said:

Although I can't vouch for the accuracy of the info, there is an interesting spreadsheet describing all of the Booker's releases here:

 

Booker's Batch Info

Way to go Swamp55 !  Your research was much better than mine and I thank you much.  I like collecting this type of information.

[JoeTerp]

And if that spreadsheet is right, saying they've always been a 6-8 year product isn't really true.  While there certainly were a few 6 years in there, the overwhelming majority has been 7+ years.  It's really only recently that 6 years has been the normal age rather than an outlier.  The last 16 releases have been < 7 years and the prior 11 were all > 7 years.  So it seems pretty clear that the age has been trending younger.  As for what that means for quality, someone would have to have a pretty big blind tasting to see which batches they prefer.

 

The Rye and the 25th are by far the oldest on that list though and those are universally regarded as some of the best whiskey Beam has ever produced.

[Cranecreek]

7 minutes ago, JoeTerp said:

And if that spreadsheet is right, saying they've always been a 6-8 year product isn't really true.  While there certainly were a few 6 years in there, the overwhelming majority has been 7+ years.  It's really only recently that 6 years has been the normal age rather than an outlier.  The last 16 releases have been < 7 years and the prior 11 were all > 7 years.  So it seems pretty clear that the age has been trending younger.  As for what that means for quality, someone would have to have a pretty big blind tasting to see which batches they prefer.

 

The Rye and the 25th are by far the oldest on that list though and those are universally regarded as some of the best whiskey Beam has ever produced.

If we are talking about standard releases and not the special ones than why is it not true ?  I take back the word "always"

Edited June 10, 2018 by Cranecreek

[Charlutz]

If we’re being literal, aside from the rye and the 25th, the ONLY batches that were not “6-8 years old” are the ones that were older than 8 years. I don’t think anyone’s complaining about the ones that are 8 years and a few months. 

[fishnbowljoe]

18 minutes ago, Cranecreek said:

If we are talking about standard releases and not the special ones than why is it not true ?  I take back the word "always"

For all practical purposes, aside from the 25th Anniversary bottling, and the upcoming 30th Anniversary bottling, there really isn't such a thing as a special release Booker's. It's all the same stuff. The only difference is a while back, they decided to name the batches instead of numbering them. 

 

Biba! Joe

[Cranecreek]

I give up. 

[smokinjoe]

13 minutes ago, Cranecreek said:

I give up. 

Heehee...Yeah, try asking for published MSRP and see how that goes...

 

[Paddy]

^^^^but that's a tough question Joe, as it changes from market to market.

 

Doesn't it?

 

P. S.  I know it doesn't, but it's something else we can argue about (as we all know that distributors charge different prices based on location and volume).