Weller 107 package and age change

[ChuckMick]

Hey all,


I was just in the Liquor Barn/Outlet in Louisville and saw a new label and package change for the Weller 107 750ml. It is now in a 12yr type bottle and has removed the age statement. I can't tell you how disappointed I was to see a bourbon that I really loved seem to go the route of ever decreasing age. I can only imagine how hard it is to forecast demand seven years hence. I'll have to say that I do like the new label and bottle but without an age statement the contents are ... well suspect. On a positive note they have kept it 107 proof.


ChuckMick

[Rughi]

Aargh!
That really brings out the Mozilla in me, on two counts.

As it stands the Antique is the only BT wheater besides the Larue that isn't an underproofer. To me, wheaters need some time in the wood and less watering to allow their gentler flavors and often premature finish to have some oomph. I think seven years is just barely enough, if it is enough, and when BT waters their wheaters below proof they taste thin and lifeless to me; I don't want any 12yo or SR.

Maybe BT is abandoning overlap with the VW lines. Wherever VW 10/107 is available it isn't really roughing it to not have a Weller 7/107. Maybe VW will reintroduce their 7/107 from years ago (I never saw one, but I read they existed).

And, maybe I'll buy a couple of Larue's and kiss the BT wheaters goodbye till the next year's Larue. Just doing my part to help reduce demand, you know.

Roger

[Rughi]

...who will you now turn to(distiller) , more often, for your future purchases?

Four Roses, without a doubt.

BT lived high and eventually used up their market advantage of massive amounts of well-aged juice that they could sell at a nice price and/or nice format. Except for the BTAC's and the promise of the new Taylor concept they haven't responded with anything except fewer options and less quality for more money. Hey, low price will keep some people happy and high quality will keep many others happy, but chip away at both ends and you may find your support eroding on all sides.

I firmly believe that right now Four Roses offers the best access to the juice in their warehouses. They know their juice is highly allocated, so they barely compete on the low end, but deliver 100% of what I expect mid and upper end products to deliver.

Roger

[ggilbertva]

Well, that's disappointing. OWA is one of my favorite value wheaters and to see the age statement drop is too bad. I agree with Roger with respect to wheaters needing some extra age to pack in some flavor. Guess I'm gonna have to stock up on the OWA while I can still find the age stated bottles.

[Dump Bucket]

the current OWA 7/107 is the thinnest I have ever had with this label... it will be a 5 yr bourbon within 18 months...

[p_elliott]

This WAS one of the best buys in the bourbon world, Jeff keeps calling them right BT screwed us again.

[PaulO]

This news really disappoints me. What's the point of having a good brand name with a following only to put out someting inferior? I would rather have the same product we are used to, even if it is not allways available. Other than the new package SR seems the same as before, and still has the 7 year old statement. So why throw OWA under the bus? And another thing, what's the point of starting new projects when the stuff that's up and running (for years) suffers.

[BourbonDave]

I'm only about a year back into bourbon, but reading everyone's posts I've learned alot. I can say I do like OWA and WLW12. Many of the distillers are abandoning age statements BT, BF, WT and FR. I guess we can vote with our pocketbooks and purchase the stuff that we feel has the best value, age, proof, etc.

I do spend a large portion of my bourbon budget buying BT products, but their current practices concern me. Mozilla has brought this up in other posts. Where can we go for the bourbons that have age statements and higher proofs? I'm open to suggestions but I think this is rapidly (and sadly) becoming a thing of the past.

[Rughi]

the current OWA 7/107 is the thinnest I have ever had with this label...

I'm trying to do some simple math in my head, and your comment coincides with the time when the juice would be transitioning from Bernheim to BT. Granted, the Bernheim juice might have benefitted from extra-aging as part of the tail end of the glut, but having the least satisfying "7yo" product being the first of the new era is alarming in itself.

I've liked the Weller less for the last few years, but thought it was just the low point between the previous era when Bernheim barrels would be pepped up with some older barrels or SW barrels, and that when the new era with BT juice came through the pipeline in full force it would be like the cavalry coming to save the day. I had really looked forward to the BT juice era, but I'm coming to think it's more on par with Bernheim, plus or minus.

I'm really starting to wonder if the way to get good wheater juice in this new era is to do one of BT's barrel purchases, just to ensure you get to choose a good barrel as opposed to a vatting of "the thinnest ever" 7yo with juice that's even younger.

I really, really, never thought I'd be speculating on how to make sure I got a good BT product; Just two years ago it would have been a given. I hope I'm very, very, wrong.

Roger

[angelshare]

We're surprised we can still get EC 12 at a very similar price as 2-3 years ago. We heard rumblings about HH dropping that age statement last year. Diamond in the rough bourbons are getting scarcer all the time. Decent pours on the cheap are disappearing. Right now, a couple of lower end brands that are worth just a little more than you pay for them are about all enthusiasts on a budget can get in VA. AAA 10 year got pulled out of VA and replaced by ten star - thanks, BT. EW 1783 dropped its 10 year age statement not long after (although, to be fair, the flavor profile hasn't suffered terribly...yet).

Even the "get what you pay for" high end brands are stretching it. The cost of BTAC products in VA has risen almost 50% in the last three years (mid-forties to now high 60's). There comes a point where price exceeds quality, even if the quality is very high.

That said, one thing BT still has right is ER 10 SB - mid shelf price with a super-premium profile. If anyone at BT is reading this, please, don't screw with that one.

Not too long ago, Chuck suggested that a whiskey glut might happen sooner than we think. Chuck, how close are we??

[ggilbertva]

I'm conflicted over this recent change and those that have happend in previous years. A number of good folks on this board have stated that they believe this is the golden era of bourbon and that there are many good bourbons on the shelves. While I won't necessarily argue that point as one's view of bourbon and respective selection is somewhat subjective, I've had more disappointments over the last couple of years than gratification of a new product. For instance, we've discussed numerous times (in addition to whining) about the removal of OCPR, OC 12, Weller Cent RR101 and ER101, in addition to the transition to NAS like EW 1783, Old Fitz 1849, AAA 10 (now KY only), etc. While I appreciate limited release offerings like BTAC and PHC, they are getting price prohibitive while the items being removed from the shelves were for the most part good value bourbons.

I know I've talked ad naseum about dusty hunting as have others but the reality is, the price point is very attractive and getting good glut whiskey for significantly less than current shelf bourbon is very appealing as well as economically attractive. Don't get me wrong, I like many current stuff and have bunkered my fair share but the latest news about OWA just stinks and I'm pretty unhappy with BT for making this change. My happiness may return if the proposed Old Taylor is a great bourbon but at what price? Speaking for myself, I don't spend the money on bourbon that I used to. Just today my wife was asking me about Christmas and what I wanted. Each previous year it was BTAC. This year I'll have to skip it if I can't purchase it someplace for less than VA. It's cost prohibitive at this point and I can't justify spending north of $70 for a 750ml bourbon when I can go into MD or DC and get a handle of 1982 WT 101 8 year for half that.

Ok, I'm done.

[Rughi]

After stewing over this awhile today I went out and picked up as recent a bottling as I could at an Antique, at a high volume store. The bottle was stamped 08. I'm comparing it to a bottle I've had open for awhile that's stamped 06.

It wasn't thin,in fact it had a pleasant body, but it was hot at first and just a bit bitter. Frankly, this bottle seems a bit more promising than the bottles I've bought in the last couple few years, although still not up to '90s bottlings. I think this would be really good after a few more years in the wood. In fact, this bottle's robust character makes me wonder anew if BT's juice might pull off better than the Bernheim the 12/90 bottling, which I've always thought of as heartbreakingly overwatered, even latter day SW bottlings.

Maybe there's not as much cause for alarm as several of us have voiced today, but I'm still monitoring the Antique for profile drift. Mixing in some young barrels might add a fresh character, but the temptation to blend young barrels solely to stretch a batch will be there.

Roger

[p_elliott]

Not too long ago, Chuck suggested that a whiskey glut might happen sooner than we think. Chuck, how close are we??

There as Close to as soon as they p%%s off all the bourbon drinkers and they start drinking something else.

[cowdery]

You might think there were more styles produced when there were more distilleries, it's a logical assumption, but the old-timers tell me that was not the case. Everybody was basically making the same product. Some made it better than others, but they tell me there was less variety, not more. You also had the phenomenon, when the bottom fell out, of the "race to the bottom," as many distilleries tried to cut costs, often with terrible consequences for the product.

[gillmang]

I think they may be thinking of product categories, like 80 proof bourbon, say, 86 proof, Bonded, and age statements (6, 8, 12).

But as to the taste itself - if that is what they meant - I'd have to disagree. My taste memory goes back to about 1975, or late 60's if we factor that the whiskey I started to drink then was made in the late 60's. I recall Old Yellowstone with its thick rich buttery taste (to use words applied by a taster writing either here or on the other board recently). The chocolatey Benchmark when made by Seagram. The fruity rich ND OG and the lighter winy OT of ND, which I can still taste because I still find it regularly on store shelves in various states. Caramel-rich Old Fitz. The Cognac-like Maker's of the 70's. The heavy-bodied Ezra Brooks when made by Medley. Of these, i.e., the heavier older style but each different, only Heaven Hill really comes close today I'd say, them and one or two brands from Buffalo Trace. The older ages too of WT.

I would agree with them through in one area: rye whiskey. There is much more choice now.

Gary