New Wild Turkey Master's Keep, bottled at 86.8 proof

[squire]

I'd be willing to bet that the distilling/bottleing team are not getting along with the marketing team lately.

Everybody gets a check signed by Campari.

[Ishad]

Personally, I'm looking forward to the WT 101 and WTRB I have at home already... Oh, and the unopened Tradition that I have as well that cost $99.

i'll keep enjoying my 101 rye until the new rye lands, but at $50 I'm hoping it will be good ncf rye, especially with how expensive Willet ryes are, and no access to smooth ambler.

[bourbonfoot]

Wow, talk about bad luck, you have to feel sorry for those folks at Wild Turkey. First their Bourbon gets dumped in with the Rye and they have to sell off a whole whopping lot of it as a mistake and now this. All the barrels of Master's Keep came in light on proof, I mean every last tinkling one of those 100,000 barrels which is odd because in the hundred years or so Old Crow matured whisky in those same warehouses this never happened. I swear, WT must be snake bit or something.

Guys, seriously? 86.8 is a standard industry dilution point and the corporate employee dribbling out these tidbits of information is reading directly from a talking points sheet approved by the marketing division back at company headquarters.

Ding ding ding... at this point it feels like WT is no better than most NDPs at misleading its customers.

[garbanzobean]

Ding ding ding... at this point it feels like WT is no better than most NDPs at misleading its customers.

Meh. Heaven Hill and Buffalo Trace do a lot of similar crap. Why, for instance, do most of Heaven Hill's 90 million brands not all say 'product of heaven hill' or something similar? The ones I've seen usually have something like "Elijah Craig Distilling Co." or "Henry McKenna Distillery" or other such nonsense. Anyone with a minor interest in the subject can figure the brand situation out + look up DSPs, but a bad lie disguised as a marketing tactic is still a lie. Wild Turkey's B.S. is just a different flavor, albeit one that does seem to be in the same B.S. ballpark as the Diageo's "Oh hey y'all we just found these here warehouses full of whiskey." This is another situation in which I will give Four Roses props. Their branding and marketing are pretty inoffensive. The only time FR has ever pegged my BS meter is with the tour story of how the distillery got its name. But the point is, they all do a bit of it. We should consider calling them out for any "marketing" that gets shoveled onto their packaging.

My opinion is that good bourbon packaged in attractive/well-designed but not extravagant bottles pretty much sells itself these days. Instead of making up garbage stories like Wild Turkey seems to enjoy doing as of late, they should perhaps consider some positive marketing with buzzwords like "age statement," "non chill filtered," and "barrel proof."

[squire]

Fully agree with Eric, anyone who won't treat me as an adult doesn't get my trade.

[tanstaafl2]

Well, the article (link posted below, Thanx, meadeweber!) says it's NOT chill-filtered. That's a plus.

It's rather hard to believe the barrels lost that much proof (19%+-). Then again, from the lips of Eddie Russel, I've heard that the Turkey has had issues with low-proof results of aging. Now are those lips telling the God's-honest-truth? Who can say? It may be a consistent marketing fib to allay the issues of us folx who dislike water added to their Bourbon & lower proofs. Then again, it may be an actual issue they're facing at WT.

I'd be slow to pull the trigger at $150 for the low-proof of this, even at 17-years. After confirming the value through a taste at some point, I may alter that stance.

I recall the same general info from Eddie and will give him the benefit of the doubt that he had barrels with a flavor profile he liked that tended toward low proof but I don't recall him saying it was that low. I am a bit dubious about the possibility that this is real barrel proof for reasons already mentioned but I think it possible that they did not have to add a lot of water. Reminds me of the RR 110 proof. They will cut the barrel(s?) that the GBS sampled/picked to 110 even if the proof is barely above that. Seems annoying but not much we can do as far as I know.

[The Black Tot]

Well, the $250 RR17 announcement saves me the effort of looking for that release, anyway. I'll leave these two to the facebookers.

[The Black Tot]

Much higher than this and they'll have to consider renaming themselves Willett Turkey.

[bourbonfoot]

Meh. Heaven Hill and Buffalo Trace do a lot of similar crap. Why, for instance, do most of Heaven Hill's 90 million brands not all say 'product of heaven hill' or something similar? The ones I've seen usually have something like "Elijah Craig Distilling Co." or "Henry McKenna Distillery" or other such nonsense. Anyone with a minor interest in the subject can figure the brand situation out + look up DSPs, but a bad lie disguised as a marketing tactic is still a lie. Wild Turkey's B.S. is just a different flavor, albeit one that does seem to be in the same B.S. ballpark as the Diageo's "Oh hey y'all we just found these here warehouses full of whiskey." This is another situation in which I will give Four Roses props. Their branding and marketing are pretty inoffensive. The only time FR has ever pegged my BS meter is with the tour story of how the distillery got its name. But the point is, they all do a bit of it. We should consider calling them out for any "marketing" that gets shoveled onto their packaging.

My opinion is that good bourbon packaged in attractive/well-designed but not extravagant bottles pretty much sells itself these days. Instead of making up garbage stories like Wild Turkey seems to enjoy doing as of late, they should perhaps consider some positive marketing with buzzwords like "age statement," "non chill filtered," and "barrel proof."

I think it's a bit different. There's a difference (albeit sometimes small) among branding, marketing and lying. I look at each distilleries' different labels as branding or marketing. And you're right they all do it. What Beam does with Mila Kunis is obviously some cheeky marketing. I think what Wild Turkey is doing is a bit worse bc of the seeming intention to mislead.

The only example I can think is one from a couple years back. Remember when a few of us got our hands on some EWSB that was 12 years old? There was some discussion of whether it was a mistake or actual 12 year product. Well HH cleared it up after an email and we all moved on. If HH had found this stuff, put out a grand story about special EW that had stood the test of time, and charged us an extra $130, then we'd have WT over the last 5 years. I'm just too cynical these days to even give them the slightest benefit of the doubt.

[smokinjoe]

It's hard to read the various labels on the bottle pic, but does it state "Barrel Proof" on them?

[bourbonfoot]

It doesn't seem like it based on the TTB. That information is based on the GoBourbon post.

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=14352001000297

[TunnelTiger]

Much higher than this and they'll have to consider renaming themselves Willett Turkey.

[KyleCBreese]

Any reason that the label only says "Bottled by Wild Turkey" and not "Distilled and Bottled by Wild Turkey"?

[fricky]

According to gobourbon.com, the whiskey entered the barrel at 107 proof. After about 17 years, when it was dumped, the proof was 89 and after filtration, the proof was 86.8. They also stated that it was not chill filtered.

[Josh]

That has to be a mistake. I find it really far fetched that they put it in at 107°. Maybe they meant to say 117.

[suntour]

I've wondered this before and seen similar labelings on certain bottles of WT101 and Rare Breed. Seems strange, doesn't it.

[squire]

Years ago Wild Turkey did barrel their new make at 107 proof but don't recall when the shift over to 110 proof happened, 15 years sounds close though.

Actually the boost to 107 was up from 105 and the reason given for that change was to make sure all their barrels when mature were over the 101 mark.

[Josh]

I thought it was from 110 to 117, but I seem to screw that up every WT entry proof comes up, so I'll shut my trap for once.

Still, the more information comes out about this thing, the more I scratch my head.

[squire]

I think it is higher now Josh, 115 or 117, something like that. Still lower than the biggest producers but not the same stuff that commanded top shelf years ago.

[tanstaafl2]

My recollection during the GBS WT barrel pick was that Eddie Russell said that the barrel entry proof went up between the 2004 barrels and 2005 barrels we sampled. Unfortunately I do not recall and did not write down what the barrel entry proof was before and after this change but about 107 seems right for the older barrels. In the intervening 10 years or so they had all gone up in proof but not by very much. One was barely over 110 pf.

[VAGentleman]

First review is in, from Fred Minnick. He likes it

http://fredminnick.com/bourbon-review-wild-turkey-masters-keep-17-year-old/

[petrel800]

First review is in, from Fred Minnick. He likes it

http://fredminnick.com/bourbon-review-wild-turkey-masters-keep-17-year-old/

I know its one man's opinion and everyone has their own scoring mechanisms for "rating" bourbon, but am I the only one that sees disappointment when I see a 90 on something this expensive. Any more I put little stock in these "ratings," however, for all spirits and wine, they're everywhere. To me a $150 product should be nailing down 95+s constantly in reviews for it to raise my eyebrow. Considering that most of these 100 point scales really only use about a 25 point range, 90 seems quite pedestrian anymore.

Guess I'm a bit off topic and it really doesn't matter because my faith in these reviews has tanked so much, but I can't help but scoff at the 90 score anymore, especially when the bottle is 150 bucks.

[garbanzobean]

First review is in, from Fred Minnick. He likes it

http://fredminnick.com/bourbon-review-wild-turkey-masters-keep-17-year-old/

Interesting. Fred's review is a little confusing to me. If something is really bottled at its barrel proof, why do you need to go on about how there's something to be said for bottling at it's perfect proof? Also, your only complaint is the color?

No offense to Fred if you're reading this--I'm a regular reader of your blog and enjoy your WA articles--but this review is confusing. One thing is well established though: good lord that bottle design is gorgeous.

[garbanzobean]

I do wonder if this one will sell better than DA. Boy is that a shelf turd.

[dcbt]

I know its one man's opinion and everyone has their own scoring mechanisms for "rating" bourbon, but am I the only one that sees disappointment when I see a 90 on something this expensive. Any more I put little stock in these "ratings," however, for all spirits and wine, they're everywhere. To me a $150 product should be nailing down 95+s constantly in reviews for it to raise my eyebrow. Considering that most of these 100 point scales really only use about a 25 point range, 90 seems quite pedestrian anymore.

I'd take it a step further; I can't remember ever seeing a review lower than 85% of the maximum in the scale. I wish these reviewers would use a curve. It's hard to glean much info when everything is good-to-great. Having said that, my interest and purchasing decision rarely relies on reviews. It's mostly just a pet peeve of mine, though.