Buffalo Trace - Experimental Collection

[NorCalBoozer]

can they sell alcohol at their store at the distillery? I don't know but i though distillers could do this.

I am not trying to say what they should've done, but rather maybe there could be some other alternatives for the future.

[Rancastle]

Yes, they can sell bottles at the distillery, with limits. Then its first come first serve. The way it was distributed they had some control, and were able to reward the distributors and retailers they consider their best. If the distributors and retailers do the same with their best costomers Buffalo Trace still achives its goal.

[cowdery]

As I understand the Kentucky law, the distillery has to obtain from the state a “souvenir retail liquor license.” Although the bottles to be sold in this way do not have to be physically conveyed through a wholesaler, such a transaction does have to take place on paper.

There is a limit of three liters per visitor per day unless the souvenirs are purchased by a group (e.g., a package tour that includes them as part of the tour price), in which case the per-visitor limit is one liter.

Although the law refers to merchandise sold under the souvenir retail liquor license as a “souvenir package,” that term is not defined and appears to be meaningless. In other words, it’s a normal production product sold as a souvenir.

In fact, the creation of a product exclusively for gift shop sales appears to be prohibited by the following provision: “No wholesaler may restrict the sale of souvenir packages to the souvenir retail liquor licensee exclusively, but shall make souvenir packages available to any Kentucky retail licensee licensed for the sale of distilled spirits by the package.” In other words, although Buffalo Trace could have restricted sale of the EC to Kentucky wholesalers, hence Kentucky retailers, only, it could not by law restrict its sale exclusively to the BT gift shop.

Would it have made any of those complaining happier if the EC had been available only in Kentucky, like Four Roses Single Barrel? I think Randy (Rancastle) has it right. They allocate it fairly to their distributors and hope for the best. That's really all they can do, except suggest how the distributors and, subsequently, the retailers might allocate it, but they can't control that. Some of the complainers seem to be saying, "if I can't have it, nobody should have it." Is that really what you want?

Here's another way they could have gone and let's see if you like this better. They could have priced it at $300 a bottle. That probably would have slowed sales somewhat and improved availability. Would that have made you guys happy?

[bluesbassdad]

Considering the currents of ill will that exist now in some quarters and the lack of profit potential from such a limited release, if I were BT I would never again make such a scarce product available for sale through existing channels.

How about this? Next time, they give it away. Or maybe raffle it in support of a bourbon related cause. Do it at a nationally known gathering where lots of bourbon fans are known to attend. Then open each bottle before handing it to the lucky buyer/winner.

I won't have a dog in this hunt, but I wish all my SB friends good luck at the soon-to-be-announced (???) Buffalo Trace EC drawing/auction.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[NorCalBoozer]

Here's another way they could have gone and let's see if you like this better. They could have priced it at $300 a bottle. That probably would have slowed sales somewhat and improved availability. Would that have made you guys happy?

or they could've packaged it in 50 ml bottles.

[TMH]

One thing seems certain, the EC wasn't meant for a general public release.

It seems a lot of excitement was created because of the experimental and limited nature of the bourbon. After I saw the labels and realized these were basically standard proof bourbons in different wood, I lost my interest because I misunderstood the nature of the release. I failed to understand these were simply left over bottles that were meant to be sold to top clients as a way of saying thank you for buying BT.

Knowing now what the EC really is has made me have no real interest in the bottles, not because I don't have a curiosity or think they'll taste interesting, but because I know there is a good chance these bourbons will eventually become future regular midshelf BT releases. I can wait and so can my wallet.

The real issue is the various state regulations and overall alcohol distribution system in the U.S. that act like barriers between consumers and producers, which I doubt will ever change. That's too bad because companies like BT would benefit from a different system and so would we.

[Grant]

Would it have made any of those complaining happier if the EC had been available only in Kentucky, like Four Roses Single Barrel? I think Randy (Rancastle) has it right. They allocate it fairly to their distributors and hope for the best. That's really all they can do, except suggest how the distributors and, subsequently, the retailers might allocate it, but they can't control that. Some of the complainers seem to be saying, "if I can't have it, nobody should have it." Is that really what you want?

Here's another way they could have gone and let's see if you like this better. They could have priced it at $300 a bottle. That probably would have slowed sales somewhat and improved availability. Would that have made you guys happy?

cowdery:

I'm one of the people that seems to fit into your group of complainers.

Only 1,200 375ml bottles.

How many distributors do they have?

How many retailers do these distributors have?

How many of these 375ml bottles would ever make it to a consumer that walked into a store?

So - what is the purpose of this experimental release? Certainly not to draw any marketing information regarding the quality of the contents of these bottles from the general public or even the informed Bourbon drinking public.

BTW - you said earlier in this thread :

"Now that the cat is entirely out of the bag on this, how many of you are looking forward to paying $45 for a 375 ml bottle of "experimental" whiskey?"

If $45 was too much then - then what's up with the $300 a bottle price question?

[barturtle]

I'm trying not to be one of the complainers, and though I tried-even though I originally said that I'd have to try it first-to obtain a bottle, I wouldn't say I put much effort into it. I contacted only one retailer, instead of using some of my better contacts to try to obtain some. I really didn't try too hard because it was a bit hard to justify spending that much money on that little bottle when I had never tried it first.

However having said that, and still not begrudging BT or any of the people who managed to get a bottle, I would like to know how BT decides who was on their "preferred retailer" list. I only really wonder this because the store that I did contact is a well known and popular retailer in Louisville, that carries a large selection of bourbon (including every BT and VW as well as all the KBD products and is the only place I know of in Louisville to get Rittenhouse), yet they told me that they didn't make it onto that list! How? Why?

Oh, Well! No hard feelings. If I had really wanted some I would have tried harder. Maybe, just maybe, there is some at a bar somewhere to try:rolleyes:

[Grant]

Maybe, just maybe, there is some at a bar somewhere to try:rolleyes:

If you find some in a bar anywhere - I'd make sure that you see them open the bottle!

Look out for counterfeits - easy to do with this label...

[cowdery]

I would like to know how BT decides who was on their "preferred retailer" list. I only really wonder this because the store that I did contact is a well known and popular retailer in Louisville, that carries a large selection of bourbon (including every BT and VW as well as all the KBD products and is the only place I know of in Louisville to get Rittenhouse), yet they told me that they didn't make it onto that list! How? Why?

I thought I made that clear. BT can allocate to its distributors but it's up to the distributors from there. I don't mean to be disingenuous--BT has influence with its distributors--but it's the distributor who decides which retailers to allocate to and the retailers who decide which consumers to allocate to.

My point is that BT, while surely hoping the release would be a blow-out success, certainly had no guarantees that it would be.

My further point is that the distributors and retailers, being reasonable business people, gave their best customers first dibs. Remember that "retail" means both on- and off-premise (i.e., bars as well as stores). "Best" means "biggest" as in "most money spent," and while all of us here probably think we spend a lot, probably not one of us is on the top 10 list at the place where he or she shops. I know I'm not.

Also, don't discount the possibility that the person you talked to at your leading Louisville retailer was lying.

All I'm saying is that if you want to blame BT for something, make sure it's something BT actually did.

[barturtle]

Also, don't discount the possibility that the person you talked to at your leading Louisville retailer was lying.

That thought did cross my mind...

[NorCalBoozer]

The real issue is the various state regulations and overall alcohol distribution system in the U.S. that act like barriers between consumers and producers, which I doubt will ever change. That's too bad because companies like BT would benefit from a different system and so would we.

Yup, Even if it's not BT fault, it reflects back on BT and I'm sure BT doesn't like it.

It's funny that people here are being labeled "complainers" when this product information was orginally released and hyped here.

[cowdery]

The one thing about alcohol regulation to keep in mind and always remember is that it has nothing to do with health, safety, protection of children, or anything else other than the collection of taxes.

[SBOmarc]

The one thing about alcohol regulation to keep in mind and always remember is that it has nothing to do with health, safety, protection of children, or anything else other than the collection of taxes.

That's a fact !

[Grant]

I thought I made that clear. BT can allocate to its distributors but it's up to the distributors from there. I don't mean to be disingenuous--BT has influence with its distributors--but it's the distributor who decides which retailers to allocate to and the retailers who decide which consumers to allocate to.

My point is that BT, while surely hoping the release would be a blow-out success, certainly had no guarantees that it would be.

My further point is that the distributors and retailers, being reasonable business people, gave their best customers first dibs. Remember that "retail" means both on- and off-premise (i.e., bars as well as stores). "Best" means "biggest" as in "most money spent," and while all of us here probably think we spend a lot, probably not one of us is on the top 10 list at the place where he or she shops. I know I'm not.

Also, don't discount the possibility that the person you talked to at your leading Louisville retailer was lying.

All I'm saying is that if you want to blame BT for something, make sure it's something BT actually did.

cowdery

Once again I ask - how would you consider a release of 1,200 375ml bottles that never make it to the general population - even be considered to be part of a 'blow-out' success?

BTW cowdery - How many of these bottles do you own?

[cowdery]

cowdery

Once again I ask - how would you consider a release of 1,200 375ml bottles that never make it to the general population - even be considered to be part of a 'blow-out' success?

They quickly sold everything they made, at presumably a nice profit, and reaped a lot of publicity. The tenor of some of the comments here aside, they left the public wanting more, laying the groundwork for future success on perhaps a grander scale. And they furthered their reputation as a leader and innovator in their industry.

I don't know what business you're in, but how is that not a 'blow-out' success?

[Grant]

They quickly sold everything they made, at presumably a nice profit, and reaped a lot of publicity. The tenor of some of the comments here aside, they left the public wanting more, laying the groundwork for future success on perhaps a grander scale. And they furthered their reputation as a leader and innovator in their industry.

I don't know what business you're in, but how is that not a 'blow-out' success?

Thanks for disregarding - and not responding to -the points of my previous entries in this thread when asking you point blank questions.

I don't know what your affiliation is with BT - but I find your comments from the start of this thread thru your last - to be from one extreme to the other - i.e. contradictions.

[bluesbassdad]

Grant (may I call you Grant?),

Deliberate sarcasm will not endear you to fellow members of StraightBourbon.com, whether Chuck Cowdery minds or not. This is an amiable community, and we all want to keep it that way.

If you believe you have been insulted, I suggest you use the Private Message feature to straighten things out. You may want to consider giving yourself a timeout for a day or so before you make things worse.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[Grant]

Grant (may I call you Grant?),

Deliberate sarcasm will not endear you to fellow members of StraightBourbon.com, whether Chuck Cowdery minds or not. This is an amiable community, and we all want to keep it that way.

If you believe you have been insulted, I suggest you use the Private Message feature to straighten things out. You may want to consider giving yourself a timeout for a day or so before you make things worse.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

Understood - I did not mean to offend anyone.

I was not being sarcastic. I do feel that anyone that posts into a thread should be willing to account for their previous vs current views.

[BSS]

I don't think the public wants more, they just want the chance to try it (It could be argued that it was "public", but we all know in reality that is not true") . Wanting more gives the impression that most have already had it and have some desire to have more because they were pleased with the previous product. I don't think you can say that is true with the EC. I haven't heard one person that was able to purchase some of it actually say they wanted more.

[MGillespie]

FYI...I have an interview with Harlen Wheatley of BT on the new episode of WhiskyCast talking about the experimental collection...

Mark

www.whiskycast.com

[Rughi]

You may want to consider giving yourself a timeout for a day or so before you make things worse.

After the drubbing that the good folks at BT have been taking, I think this thread may need a timeout. In retrospect, I regret having brought my enthusiasm for barrel-condition sampling into the discussion of their experimental releases.

Hey Buffalo Trace - I like you guys, a lot. I think the negativity in this thread comes from a perceived one-time let down of the high standard of good feelings people have for your consistently good products and the friendly, open way you do business. Keep on keepin' on....

Roger

[bluesbassdad]

Well said, Roger.

I hadn't yet come to grips with my growing feeling of unease, but you just about nailed it. I would go a step further and point out that the actions of others, after the product was out of BT's hands, are the sole source of any negative feelings I may have.

As you said, I think any discussion of such unintended consequences might better be put off for a while.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[bluesbassdad]

Well said, as was Roger's post, here, which I think contains a worthwhile suggestion.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[photogjunkie]

I guess if you wanted to try the stuff and wanted to pay to do it....

http://cgi.ebay.com/3-BUFFALO-TRACE-SINGLE-BARREL-EXPERIMENTAL-COLLECTION_W0QQitemZ6278174617QQcategoryZ13916QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I'll just look at the pictures of the bottles.