The trend to move from 750ml bottles to 700ml bottles

[rzelinka]

I would submit we should prepare to see many of our favorite bourbons, whiskeys move towards a 700ml bottle versus the 750ml bottle. I see this happening more and more these days. Woodford Reserve and Jack Daniels have done so with their higher end or aged offerings. At the same time, if bottles find their way to the European market, they have to be no more than 700ml. Now if the price comes down with it, so be it, but I don't expect to see this.

 

This trend happens with other things too. Potato Chips, and Cereal brands have been doing this for years. Reducing the size of the offering but keeping the price the same. Just a sign of the times I suppose.

[markandrex]

“Shrinkflation “  - getting less for more.

 

Not having to have a variable/two bottling lines makes sense.   I understand it, I just don’t like it.

[fosmith]

If they would hang a 50ml 'airplane bottle' from the neck of a 700ml bottle, I would be perfectly happy with that.  

[fishnbowljoe]

As y‘all know, most domestic bottles are 750 ml, and most export bottles are 700 ml. About the only thing that is consistent between the two bottle sizes is the distillate that goes in them. A change in bottle size means a different label, changes to the bottling line, and different packaging. IIRC, part of the thought going in to a possible change over to 700 ml bottles is savings of time and money. One bottle, one label, one box.

 

 

[Richnimrod]

56 minutes ago, fishnbowljoe said:

As y‘all know, most domestic bottles are 750 ml, and most export bottles are 700 ml. About the only thing that is consistent between the two bottle sizes is the distillate that goes in them. A change in bottle size means a different label, changes to the bottling line, and different packaging. IIRC, part of the thought going in to a possible change over to 700 ml bottles is savings of time and money. One bottle, one label, one box.

 

Yup!   Makes perfect sense.   When bottling a brand that is marketed in the US as well as abroad, a distiller/NDP, etc. would realize a significant saving over time when using 'universal' materials; bottles, labels, tooling on the bottling line, over-pack (cartons, etc.).    I don't blame our Bourbon producers for making this transition.   

I also, can't imagine that they haven't noted they'll be selling a somewhat smaller quantity; but, will almost certainly NOT adjust the price downward to compensate consumers for this difference.   Why? ...When many consumers won't even notice, and those that do won't really have a choice, if their brand isn't available in 750's any longer.   ...Other than going for the "family sized" jugs, if their brand offers that option.

I'm actually a little bit surprised that this hasn't happened sooner.   OTH, with the 'tariff' issue possibly having some impact on export decisions, there may be a reason to delay such a transition for a time.   ???Who can say?

[fishnbowljoe]

46 minutes ago, Richnimrod said:

I also, can't imagine that they haven't noted they'll be selling a somewhat smaller quantity; but, will almost certainly NOT adjust the price downward to compensate consumers for this difference.   Why? ...When many consumers won't even notice, and those that do won't really have a choice, if their brand isn't available in 750's any longer.   ...

I wish I could find the old article where I read about the possible conversion to 700 ml bottles. Another thing that was discussed was that while there wouldn’t be a reduction in price, there could be at least some cost savings to consumers in the future. Less price adjustments for at least a little while. Six of one, half dozen of another.  

[smokinjoe]

This is a nonissue for me.  It will just wash through the markets in a matter of a few months.  It’s a little less than a 7% reduction in volume, which on a $25 dollar of whiskey, would equate to an ~$1.70 reduction in pricing if played straight up.  If I currently go to 15 nearby package stores, I’ll see that much, or more, variance between pricing on the same item from each store.  For me personally, the differential has to be much more pronounced to impact my decision making.  
And, since there is the 3 tier system in alcoholic beverages, who is to say that the producer would be the sole beneficiary of the “shrinkflation” potential.  

[flahute]

8 hours ago, fosmith said:

If they would hang a 50ml 'airplane bottle' from the neck of a 700ml bottle, I would be perfectly happy with that.  

This!

[Richnimrod]

I'm not too upset about the small 'cash penalty', if the distilleries "bend us over" on this deal.   It's the lack of lubrication that irritates.....

[GeeTen]

9 hours ago, Richnimrod said:

I'm not too upset about the small 'cash penalty', if the distilleries "bend us over" on this deal.   It's the lack of lubrication that irritates.....

 

Amen, brother!  

 

 

Edited May 12 by GeeTen

[PaulO]

I think the standard bottle size should be one liter.  If alternative smaller sizes are available, that's ok too.

 

Changing from 750ml to 700ml just seems like chiseling the consumer.  (Chiseling was a practice of shaving a little off the bottom of standardized weights, in order to cheat each customer just a small amount, barely noticeable at the time.)

It's all a matter of economies of scale.  Minus 50ml (a good pour) from a one bottle might not seem like much, but consider how that works out per case, pallet, truck load, etc ...  Now we're talking real volume.

 

When I see a 700ml bottle on a shelf, I feel irritated, and don't want to buy it.   

[flahute]

14 hours ago, PaulO said:

Changing from 750ml to 700ml just seems like chiseling the consumer.  (Chiseling was a practice of shaving a little off the bottom of standardized weights, in order to cheat each customer just a small amount, barely noticeable at the time.)

 

There's a scene in White Christmas where a a dishonest hotel owner is referred to as a chiseling rat. Now I know what it means. Thank you!

[Kepler]

On 5/12/2025 at 10:09 AM, PaulO said:

...

It's all a matter of economies of scale.  Minus 50ml (a good pour) from a one bottle might not seem like much, but consider how that works out per case, pallet, truck load, etc ...  Now we're talking real volume.

...

 

^^This.

This is also how companies' finance managers look at it.  They don't look at it as only a dollar or two per individual bottle, like some of the comments above.  They look at the volume numbers that they are moving.  If you multiply $1.50 savings by 100 thousand bottles that they move of a particular SKU, the company saves $150,000.00.  That's a middle manager's salary in the company that can be eliminated.  Just one example.

This is how these things work.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 03:22 PM by Kepler

[LW25]

On 5/12/2025 at 10:09 AM, PaulO said:

I think the standard bottle size should be one liter.  If alternative smaller sizes are available, that's ok too.

 

Changing from 750ml to 700ml just seems like chiseling the consumer.  (Chiseling was a practice of shaving a little off the bottom of standardized weights, in order to cheat each customer just a small amount, barely noticeable at the time.)

It's all a matter of economies of scale.  Minus 50ml (a good pour) from a one bottle might not seem like much, but consider how that works out per case, pallet, truck load, etc ...  Now we're talking real volume.

 

When I see a 700ml bottle on a shelf, I feel irritated, and don't want to buy it.   

 

I've wondered for years how we settled on 750 mL as the standard offering size when 1L  is just sitting there, a nice pretty round number.  And why is my handle of WT101 in a 1.75L and not a 2L?  

Edited Tuesday at 04:24 PM by LW25

[Kepler]

2 minutes ago, LW25 said:

 

I've wondered for years how we settled on 750 mL as the standard offering size when 1L  is just sitting there, a nice pretty round number.  And why is my handle of WT101 in a 1.75L and not a 2L?  

 

When moving from the old measurements based on gallons, the standard whiskey bottle was a fifth of a gallon.  Hence the term a "Fifth of whiskey."

750 mL was the metric volume that closely matched 20% of a gallon of liquid.    

 

Similarly 1.75L is very close to the old "Half gallon" jug of whiskey.
 

[PaulO]

On 5/13/2025 at 1:33 AM, flahute said:

There's a scene in White Christmas where a a dishonest hotel owner is referred to as a chiseling rat. Now I know what it means. Thank you!

There's a scene in The Gangs Of New York, Di Caprio's character totally looses his cool and beats up a dude that called hin "a chiseler".

[smokinjoe]

I was pondering this last night, and I began to wonder if I am underplaying the possible significance of this change in bottle size.  So, I thunk some more, and decided to do the dangerous…apply my math skills…. Started off with the basics.  Took off my shoes to make sure I had 10 toes to go along with my 10 fingers, as I expect the math to get deep for me.

 

Here we go:

A 750 ml bottle is equivalent to 25.36 oz

A 700 ml bottle is equivalent to 23.7 oz

 

If a standard pour is 1.5 oz:

750 yields just under 17 full pours

700 yields 15.8 pours (roughly, 1 less pour per bottle in comparison)

 

To get 1 more pour out of my 700 ml bottle, I’d need to reduce my pour size down to 1.395oz, from 1.5 oz (1.395 X 17 = 23.715 oz)

 

So, I’m seeing a reduction of ~0.1 oz per pour, which equals 2.96 ml, which is also equal to .6 tsp.

 

So if I reduce my pours by ~1/2 tsp, I’m getting the same number of drinks from a bottle.  Of course, my pour sizes are all over the place…So, I may get like, 8 pours per bottle…

A visual is included below to show the actual difference.  From left to right:

0.1 oz pour

1.5 oz pour

1.395 oz pour

 

Therefore, I have concluded, that for myself only, I confirm my earlier opinion.

 

My head hurts.  I need a big pour…

 

 

[fishnbowljoe]

“I know you said you understood what I said. But what you understood might not have been what I meant. Therefore, what I said might not have been understood the way I meant it.”