Booker’s price hike push back

[0895]

15 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 curious if you tried the "sip awhile" batch?  

People seemed to respond to it very positively around here.

 

Unfortunately I never got to try any of the older bookers (2012, etc), so I don't know what I'm missing.  None of the newer batches have done much for me.

[JoeTerp]

8 hours 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"

I mean it is true.  But saying that they've always been 6-8 years is implying that they haven't been getting younger.  And if you look at it it's just not true.  The batches have been younger recently.  I haven't had enough batches to make any sort of statement on relative quality.

[The Black Tot]

7 hours ago, 0895 said:

 

Just curious if you tried the "sip awhile" batch?  

People seemed to respond to it very positively around here.

I didn't try sip awhile.

 

I bought a few of Toogie's Invitation, which was pretty good. Nothing like that 2012 though!

 

I got burned by a few and then decided to sit it out for a while.

 

There are worse problems than having to get through a bottle of "just OK" Booker's, but I'm already trying to stick to a program of drinking down my bunker clunkers and I don't have storage space for just OK whiskey (but as always, I will MAKE space for excellent whiskey!)

 

I stood by for a while and let the old "It's OK that it's younger, we'll just pick the barrels more carefully!" rhetoric have a chance. It's not working out for my tastebuds. 

 

I was surprised only lcpfratn reacted to my 2yrs comment. People don't seem to have a problem with the contradictory concept that "Flavor is not tied to age, except of course if we all agree it's too young." Many of these same people then get excited when they see a store pick Knob Creek that's special because it's been allowed to get to 13-14yrs!

 

It has become hip to argue that producers are doing us a favor by giving us less age for more money.

 

I know some uncommon barrels are excellent at 6yrs - but not at the volumes required to supply entire brands.

 

My opinion is that less than 7yrs is too young for Booker's. And almost any one above 8 has been excellent. And the 25th Anniversary was 10 and it has been king of the hill.

 

There's a pattern there.  So...barrel selection, schmarrel selection.

[lcpfratn]

I didn't try sip awhile.
 
I bought a few of Toogie's Invitation, which was pretty good. Nothing like that 2012 though!
 
I got burned by a few and then decided to sit it out for a while.
 
There are worse problems than having to get through a bottle of "just OK" Booker's, but I'm already trying to stick to a program of drinking down my bunker clunkers and I don't have storage space for just OK whiskey (but as always, I will MAKE space for excellent whiskey!)
 
I stood by for a while and let the old "It's OK that it's younger, we'll just pick the barrels more carefully!" rhetoric have a chance. It's not working out for my tastebuds. 
 
I was surprised only lcpfratn reacted to my 2yrs comment. People don't seem to have a problem with the contradictory concept that "Flavor is not tied to age, except of course if we all agree it's too young." Many of these same people then get excited when they see a store pick Knob Creek that's special because it's been allowed to get to 13-14yrs!
 
It has become hip to argue that producers are doing us a favor by giving us less age for more money.
 
I know some uncommon barrels are excellent at 6yrs - but not at the volumes required to supply entire brands.
 
My opinion is that less than 7yrs is too young for Booker's. And almost any one above 8 has been excellent. And the 25th Anniversary was 10 and it has been king of the hill.
 
There's a pattern there.  So...barrel selection, schmarrel selection.

Paul, I always enjoy your sarcasm, even though sometimes other readers fail to pick up on it or appreciate it. Cheers!

[kevinbrink]

10 hours ago, The Black Tot said:

I didn't try sip awhile.

 

I bought a few of Toogie's Invitation, which was pretty good. Nothing like that 2012 though!

 

I got burned by a few and then decided to sit it out for a while.

 

There are worse problems than having to get through a bottle of "just OK" Booker's, but I'm already trying to stick to a program of drinking down my bunker clunkers and I don't have storage space for just OK whiskey (but as always, I will MAKE space for excellent whiskey!)

 

I stood by for a while and let the old "It's OK that it's younger, we'll just pick the barrels more carefully!" rhetoric have a chance. It's not working out for my tastebuds. 

 

I was surprised only lcpfratn reacted to my 2yrs comment. People don't seem to have a problem with the contradictory concept that "Flavor is not tied to age, except of course if we all agree it's too young." Many of these same people then get excited when they see a store pick Knob Creek that's special because it's been allowed to get to 13-14yrs!

 

It has become hip to argue that producers are doing us a favor by giving us less age for more money.

 

I know some uncommon barrels are excellent at 6yrs - but not at the volumes required to supply entire brands.

 

My opinion is that less than 7yrs is too young for Booker's. And almost any one above 8 has been excellent. And the 25th Anniversary was 10 and it has been king of the hill.

 

There's a pattern there.  So...barrel selection, schmarrel selection.

My understanding has always been that they are batches of various ages not all barrels from the same distillation date but the date on the bottle follows regulations and represents the youngest in the mix. If logic prevails I would guess that means that while there is still some older whiskey in the blend there could be far less of it which would be even more of an impact on the flavor than the difference between 6-7 years. That being said right now I have two open Booker's Noe Hard Times (2016-6 6 yrs 10 months 127.8 proof) and C01-A-18 (6yr 7mo 124.9 Proof) which is from about 10 years ago and I would probably personally choose the more recent of the two. The oldest (age wise) I have at the moment is 7yr 4mo so maybe I will have to open that for science. 

[flahute]

1 hour ago, kevinbrink said:

My understanding has always been that they are batches of various ages not all barrels from the same distillation date but the date on the bottle follows regulations and represents the youngest in the mix. If logic prevails I would guess that means that while there is still some older whiskey in the blend there could be far less of it which would be even more of an impact on the flavor than the difference between 6-7 years. That being said right now I have two open Booker's Noe Hard Times (2016-6 6 yrs 10 months 127.8 proof) and C01-A-18 (6yr 7mo 124.9 Proof) which is from about 10 years ago and I would probably personally choose the more recent of the two. The oldest (age wise) I have at the moment is 7yr 4mo so maybe I will have to open that for science. 

We love science here so get on that and let us know how it goes!

[kevinbrink]

50 minutes ago, flahute said:

We love science here so get on that and let us know how it goes!

Anything for science!

[KyleCBreese]

Bringing back an old thread...

 

For the first time, I saw an empty shelf of Booker’s and I know it’s because people wanted to buy a “nice bottle in the $100 range.” I’ve been asked multiple times about gifts in the $100 range and struggled to think of something at that price point and usually point them to something in the $50-$60 range like a Russell’s or a CEHT.

 

I think that $80-$100 range is where people are looking for gifts and Booker’s has filled that slot, especially with the wooden box presentation. 

[0895]

23 minutes ago, KyleCBreese said:

Bringing back an old thread...

 

For the first time, I saw an empty shelf of Booker’s and I know it’s because people wanted to buy a “nice bottle in the $100 range.” I’ve been asked multiple times about gifts in the $100 range and struggled to think of something at that price point and usually point them to something in the $50-$60 range like a Russell’s or a CEHT.

 

I think that $80-$100 range is where people are looking for gifts and Booker’s has filled that slot, especially with the wooden box presentation. 

I usually just recommend something from the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection.

At $99.99 it fits perfectly into that $100 gift spot, and there’s a lot of variety to suit your recipient’s favorite type of whiskey/proof.  The bottles look nice as well and sometimes come already gift-wrapped in tissue paper for convenience.

 

You’re probably correct about the Bookers filling that niche though.

[Mule Skinner]

The other day, I bought my first Bookers since the big hike.  Had one on the shelf, but have been wanting another, so I bought myself a Christmas present.  

[The Black Tot]

Still nope. 

 

In a few years there will be a lot of 7yr old bourbon.

[Bbstout]

19 minutes ago, The Black Tot said:

Still nope. 

 

In a few years there will be a lot of 7yr old bourbon.

Can't wait untill I can buy it for $40 again.

[The Black Tot]

5 minutes ago, Bbstout said:

Can't wait untill I can buy it for $40 again.

 

I'm back in at $60 and below. $50 and I buy by the 6 case.

[Paddy]

^^^^Ive been getting tempted, as the current pricing in the motherland is 69.99 and holding steady.

 

When you compare it to all the other BS mystery distillate all over the shelves, it’s looking better and better...

[The Black Tot]

7 minutes ago, Paddy said:

^^^^Ive been getting tempted, as the current pricing in the motherland is 69.99 and holding steady.

 

When you compare it to all the other BS mystery distillate all over the shelves, it’s looking better and better...

 

The bunker, man! EYES ON THE BUNKER!

[KyleCBreese]

I saw the retailers cost from the distributor and it’s $75 now. I don’t foresee the price ever dropping. 

[The Black Tot]

Spirits are the blue line. Note that sometimes in history, consumption has gone up, and sometimes it's gone down. Sometimes it went down after it had a 20yr boom even steeper than the one we're apparently in now.

 

History provides us with lots of reasons to never say never.

[Marekv8]

That chart makes it easy to find the years I was in high school.