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

[garbanzobean]

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.

That's what I like about Serge's whiskyfun. He absolutely rates however he wants. If he thinks something is a 38, then it gets a 38. That said, I read scotch reviews and am starting to read more brandy reviews if I can find them because those are some really diverse spirits. With bourbon from a major distillery, I already know it stands about an 85% chance of at least being good. But is it good enough to justify the price, and is it to my tastes? Those questions can only be answered the old fashioned way, though I admit to reading tons of review blogs anyway. More information is usually better than less . . .

[suntour]

Furthering what Squire said, is barrel proof even claimed on the bottle? Not that that's a legal term, but still.

[Josh]

I've seen Lew Bryson give some products sub 80 point reviews in WA.

Personally I think all numerical ratings are pointless.

[amg]

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

I think a lot of people will buy this based on age alone.

[squire]

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

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

Bloggers repeating what other bloggers said who were themselves repeating what they think somebody else said.

[tanstaafl2]

Bloggers repeating what other bloggers said who were themselves repeating what they think somebody else said.

Not all are that way but some do little more than parrot the notes provided by the producer which has little to no value to me.

Edited May 22, 2015 by tanstaafl2

[Josh]

Bloggers repeating what other bloggers said who were themselves repeating what they think somebody else said.

I'm pretty sure Fred received a sample of it and read the press release from Bourbon Review along with whatever materials Wild Turkey sent along with the sample, so his information is not hearsay.

[Paddy]

Eric,

I'd guess that the flippers will want it for the bottle design alone. Be damned, whether or not the liquor is any good...

It is a purty bottle!:grin:

[typoerror]

it's a damn nice looking bottle but if its not scoring 95+ from most everyone, it's not getting my $100+...

[squire]

I'm pretty sure Fred received a sample of it and read the press release from Bourbon Review along with whatever materials Wild Turkey sent along with the sample, so his information is not hearsay.

Josh his tasting notes are first person but his reliance on information provided by others is not and a link to a different blog which repeats information from another source is most certainly heresay.

The message being spread around is this new brand is barrel proof because Eddie said so. Well, what exactly has Eddie said either on record or in the presence of others who can report in the first person? All I can determine so far is Eddie reported he had at least 100,000 barrels at his disposal and some of them were 89 proof when dumped. From this we cannot logically deduce that all 100,000 barrels were dumped, or that all (each and every one) of them were 89 proof, or that just a few were, or that all the whisky used for this brand was dumped from lower (in the case of WT much lower) than average proof barrels.

So, yes, blindly repeating without question what somebody said about what they think somebody else meant is classic heresay.

[Josh]

You're wrong Squire. The source of the information on The Bourbon Review website (The Bourbon Review is an actual magazine) is Eddie. So yes, they're on the record.

[squire]

Wrong about exactly what Josh? I'm confident my definition of heresay is correct but that is really not the topic here.

What I believe is relevant is what Eddie has said, or, by omission what he has not said, about this new expression from Wild Turkey. From what I've been able to glean is Eddie says he has at least 100,000 barrels of aged stock and that some of those barrels when dumped were 89 proof. If there's more that I overlooked I certainly don't mind being corrected.

[BigRich]

Wrong about exactly what Josh? I'm confident my definition of heresay is correct but that is really not the topic here.

What I believe is relevant is what Eddie has said, or, by omission what he has not said, about this new expression from Wild Turkey. From what I've been able to glean is Eddie says he has at least 100,000 barrels of aged stock and that some of those barrels when dumped were 89 proof. If there's more that I overlooked I certainly don't mind being corrected.

[garbanzobean]

That's what confused me about Minnick's review. In one place he said it was barrel proof, and in the other he strongly implies it has been cut down to drinking proof. Which is it?

[squire]

Pussyfooting? Hardly, I wouldn't know how. Nor do I lightly call anyone a liar unless they have proven themselves so to be.

So Richard, are you saying Eddie explicitly stated all the barrels that make up this lot were less than 90 proof?

[Richnimrod]

Excuse the thread drift....

I've never seen one with feet!

[Josh]

A lot of things were said at that tasting.

[GaryT]

I was trying to video much of the tour in April, but not sure I got this complete part (I'll try to go back and listen; the audio wasn't great in several parts). I don't recall if he said that all of the barrels were under 90 proof, but pretty sure he said that the vatting of what was ultimately dumped came in under 90 proof - and that the proof was as high as he could get it with the barrels he had.

Perhaps there is some tolerance limits with regards to proof and labeling? Maybe the result was 86.x (or even 87) and it was "close enough" to use 86.8 as a throwback. That's PURE speculation on my part right there.

[BigRich]

A lot of things were said at that tasting.

This was before the tasting and tour and before everyone had shown up. It was a conversation with Eddie that included Joe and Jimmy and maybe Rich and Bruce had come out by then too but I can't remember who else had sidled up.

Squire, his words (joe or jimmy please correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly) were that when he dumped the barrels he'd selected for Master's Keep that it came in just a hair under 90 out of the barrel.

[amg]

I was trying to video much of the tour in April, but not sure I got this complete part (I'll try to go back and listen; the audio wasn't great in several parts). I don't recall if he said that all of the barrels were under 90 proof, but pretty sure he said that the vatting of what was ultimately dumped came in under 90 proof - and that the proof was as high as he could get it with the barrels he had.

Perhaps there is some tolerance limits with regards to proof and labeling? Maybe the result was 86.x (or even 87) and it was "close enough" to use 86.8 as a throwback. That's PURE speculation on my part right there.

[squire]

Thanks for relating the conversation fellas, unfortunately Eddie's comments don't really add to what information has been generally released. Absent any more specifics we are left to speculate but heck, we do that well around here.

So here's mine . . . I believe Master's Keep is a Campari designed high end brand intended to leap into Pappy-price territory. With 100,000 barrels to draw from it makes sense that one of the selection guidelines was to choose barrels with abnormally low proofs because, well, that makes for a great back story. What was the run here, 7000 barrels? What are they gonna do with those other 93,000 barrels of 17 year old stock? They sure as hell ain't gonna blend it away in the 80 proof bottom line label.

If Masters Keep takes off as a brand and develops a cult following, including flippers and thriving black market sales (sales dept wet dream) then we may expect to see further releases, at 86.8 proof of course.

[Richnimrod]

I recall the pre-tour conversation Big Rich is relating, and Eddie did indeed say that ALL the barrels he selected for Master's Keep were melded together and did NOT quite hit 90-proof... or words to that effect.

At the time, I took it to mean they were all under 90; but thinking back I'm pretty sure he said the aggregated juice was under 90. Small, subtle distinction without a real difference, IMO.

That's as close to the meaning of his statement as I can recall.

Now, I'm not saying his words represent facts; but, if you're to take him at his word, and I thought he might have been truthful at the time, then the juice just didn't have any more octane than that.

Without a good basis to believe Eddie wasn't being truthful, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Josh]

This was before the tasting and tour and before everyone had shown up. It was a conversation with Eddie that included Joe and Jimmy and maybe Rich and Bruce had come out by then too but I can't remember who else had sidled up.

Squire, his words (joe or jimmy please correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly) were that when he dumped the barrels he'd selected for Master's Keep that it came in just a hair under 90 out of the barrel.

I was referring more to things said after the tasting. [emoji6]

[squire]

Josh I can well imagine.

[squire]

. . . .Now, I'm not saying his words represent facts; but, if you're to take him at his word, and I thought he might have been truthful at the time, then the juice just didn't have any more octane than that.

Without a good basis to believe Eddie wasn't being truthful, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

No reason not to under the circumstances, I expect he was being as truthful as his bosses will allow. I recall some other statements Eddie has made to the effect it took him a considerable length of time to convince headquarters to sell the Bourbon/Rye mix labeled as Forgiven. Obviously the decisions on what is to be bottled is made at the corporate level and not by the distillery employees.

That being said a little truth and a few facts seem to go far in Bourbon marketing. We are asked to believe Beam is still made the same as it was in 1795, Henry McKenna is unchanged since 1855, Evan Williams was actually the first distiller in Kentucky and is responsible for the brand that carries his name, and so forth. None of the major brands have completely clean hands in this regard and Campari is no different. They will figure out some way to market those thousands of barrels of aged whisky and if a fanciful story helps squeeze out more profits so much the better.