unexpected (WT) jackpot (dusty #2!)

[polyamnesia]

looking for a quick 6 pack, i found this instead.

i thought the bottle looked a bit different...it was the bright red and that old no. 8 designation (not on the new bottles i don't think).

Wild Turkey 101 with a gold foil (post-tax stamp) imprint of 12/20/94....almost 13 years to the DAY! i say, what a lucky number...

now, i was thrilled, esp. at $18.99. decide against the beer...

took it home and compared labels. yep. it's older. don't think i ever had WT until the late 1990's or early 2000...

but then, OH NO! the cork broke. i was careful, but it was dry. looking at the level before i opened it, it does look like some evaporated.

then, the bottom half just slid into the bottle. YIKES! is it tainted?
but appears not.....quickly funneled it into another WT(RR101) bottle...got the cork out...found another WT bottle top and redecanted. whew...(also cool that the top is different colored...dull gold, not the deep brownish/maroon).

but now the product...as expected, that WT nose/taste/finish. but better than i expected. obviously a batch that is from another era. spicy. sweet. and maybe i am just too hyped, but this is better than the RR101 i finished a few weeks ago...

now why does it say old no. 8? and why not anymore?

anyways, i still want some beer, but the wait until the weekend will be worth it. time to enjoy the upcoming week plus off, get the tree up and pour another WT. that OGD 114 i was planning on nabbing (on closeout in PA) will have to wait, too...

[craigthom]

The "Old No. 8 Brand" replaced the "Aged 8 Years" on the label. I guess they decided to abandon the deceit and just remove it from the label after a while.

[Old Lamplighter]

If I am not mistaken, the WT with the Old No. 8 label is 6yo Wild Turkey 101.....same as what they presently sell. I think the Old No. 8 label was finally dropped altogether to avoid confusion.

[TBoner]

Old No. 8 may be the same age as the current product, but I find the two flavor profiles distinct from one another. I did a side-by-side tasting a while back, and was impressed by how much more rounded and rich the No. 8 bottling was.

Now, when you start talking better than RR 101, I start to get a bit defensive. That there is one of my favorite pours, and hard to beat.

[polyamnesia]

...Now, when you start talking better than RR 101, I start to get a bit defensive. That there is one of my favorite pours, and hard to beat.

...i know, i know...like i said, i think the hyped excitement i felt...and then the RELIEF in that the old cork crumbling into the bottle (then filtering and funneling it twice!) did NOT taint it. that simply thrilled me even more when it tasted so so good! and yes, i admit, the old no. 8 WAS better than the current (and still my 'favorite') WT101.

yep, that RR101 was great. but i need another to compare...and i can't afford to pay the $40 asking price for the only one i know on a shelf right now!

anyways, i actually can't compare. each is a different experience. i liked the complexity of the RR101. but i love the straight ahead tingle of the regular 101.

if it's WT, i love it.

[DrinkyBanjo]

This is good news as I know where I can find a few bottles of Old No 8. I've left it as I heard that it is the same as the current release. I'll have to pick some up and try it.

[cowdery]

"Old No. 8" was a transitional label, used right after the 8-year age statement was removed. Yes, "deceit" is a fair word. They figured people would be less likely to notice the change if they still saw a big, red 8 on the label. To this day, people will tell you that Dickel No. 12 is 12-years-old.

Because it was only there for a small amount of time...maybe a year or two at the most...right after the age statement went away, the whiskey was probably still 8-years-old or, as time went on, still close to 8-years-old. It probably took a couple of years to get to the present point, where the 101 is almost universally 6-year-old whiskey. Remember, they're always working against a taste profile and they tried, as much as possible, to keep the taste profile from changing at all, and to the extent it did change, the change would be gradual over a long period of time.

Also, back then the proof of entry at WT was 107. Now it's 115. Not a huge difference, but a difference nevertheless.

So that WT 101 from 1994 is likely both older whiskey, by a year or two, and lower proof at entry, so it is different.

[DrinkyBanjo]

Well I don't know about you but I'm sold. Chuck, maybe you should give up the law/writing thing and go into sales.

"Old No. 8" was a transitional label, used right after the 8-year age statement was removed. Yes, "deceit" is a fair word. They figured people would be less likely to notice the change if they still saw a big, red 8 on the label. To this day, people will tell you that Dickel No. 12 is 12-years-old.

Because it was only there for a small amount of time...maybe a year or two at the most...right after the age statement went away, the whiskey was probably still 8-years-old or, as time went on, still close to 8-years-old. It probably took a couple of years to get to the present point, where the 101 is almost universally 6-year-old whiskey. Remember, they're always working against a taste profile and they tried, as much as possible, to keep the taste profile from changing at all, and to the extent it did change, the change would be gradual over a long period of time.

Also, back then the proof of entry at WT was 107. Now it's 115. Not a huge difference, but a difference nevertheless.

So that WT 101 from 1994 is likely both older whiskey, by a year or two, and lower proof at entry, so it is different.

[polyamnesia]

all i can say is, i hope i can find more. i DO need to do a side by side tasting with the current 101. it's great stuff anyways.

but i am simply loving this. it's simply everything i like in a great pour. i just need to try and make it last thru the holiday season...

thanks for extra info, too!

[cowdery]

He already said he liked it. After that, it's a layup.