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

[tanstaafl2]

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.

Certainly don't recall the details anymore but that is my basic recollection of the conversation (out by the bus before the tour started as I recall). The vatting he ended up with from the barrels used, whether or not by design, ended up at under 90 proof. Which suggest some could have been more than 90 and obviously some could have been a good bit less!

[BigRich]

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.

Squire it is quite clear what you do and do not believe. I think that horse was beat to death 8-10 posts ago.

[squire]

I should hope it's clear I don't take my Bourbon with Kool Aid.

[PaulO]

Maybe the bartenders told Diageo they wanted 86.8 proof for mixing cocktails? It could be the same ones that said the rye should be lowered to 81.

[Josh]

Maybe the bartenders told Diageo they wanted 86.8 proof for mixing cocktails? It could be the same ones that said the rye should be lowered to 81.

:slappin::slappin::slappin::slappin:

[squire]

Yep, them barkeeps sure know their stuff.

[smokinjoe]

If we can step away for a minute from all of the extra-curricular comments regarding WT's motivation, integrity, and pricing models, I feel it is worthy to point out again what I think is the very salient point that has emerged since this thread was opened. And that is the very unusually low from-the-barrel proofs that can come out of WT's warehouses. I find these <45%ABV numbers to be truly stunning, and I for one, never saw that coming. Whether it results in good/great whiskey remains to be seen, and only relevant to each individual, but my own whiskey-geek-o-meter is pushing into the Slobbering in Anticipation HOT Zone!

[CardsJJH24]

for the doubters that don't think its possible for barrel proof to be that low.... i have a friend that put some standard Maker's Mark into one of those 2 liter sized barrels you can buy to age stuff at home. he left the bourbon in his living room for over 6 months before dumping, but when it came out it was incredibly watered down and tasted horrible. I don't think it could have been more than 40 proof.

I only mention this to point out that it is possible for the barrel proof to drop under certain conditions. exactly what those conditions are i'm not sure.

[Josh]

I believe them and I do find it interesting on an intellectual level, but the price is still too high and the proof is still too low.

[Harry in WashDC]

Maybe the bartenders told Diageo they wanted 86.8 proof for mixing cocktails? It could be the same ones that said the rye should be lowered to 81.

I agree with Josh - :slappin::slappin::slappin::slappin:

Good news was - I wasn't drinking so snorted nothing.

[Vosgar]

I know a lot of us have had some damn fine whiskey that's been in the 80-90 proof range, so to crucify this one before having the opportunity to try it is absurd to me. Sure, it might be lousy and yes, WT's recent efforts haven't been their best, but at least give it a chance.

[Josh]

Gary, have you ever had a good 86 proof whiskey that retailed for $150? That's what we're talking about, not EWSB.

[The Black Tot]

I believe them and I do find it interesting on an intellectual level, but the price is still too high and the proof is still too low.

Josh is right here. I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone is saying) it won't taste great, but the value proposition is what's galling most of us.

For that price, the proof ain't in this pudding.

[Vosgar]

Gary, have you ever had a good 86 proof whiskey that retailed for $150? That's what we're talking about, not EWSB.

No I haven't Josh. I'm only referring to the negativity based on proof, not price. IMHO, automatically dismissing a whiskey because it isn't above a certain proof is short sighted as a person may be missing out on one they'd really like. Price tolerance is a whole 'nother animal but to me isn't linked to proof. Again, just my opinion.

BTW, I've never paid anywhere even close to $150 for a bottle. Just can't get myself to do it.........yet :grin:

[Josh]

No I haven't Josh. I'm only referring to the negativity based on proof, not price. IMHO, automatically dismissing a whiskey because it isn't above a certain proof is short sighted as a person may be missing out on one they'd really like. Price tolerance is a whole 'nother animal but to me isn't linked to proof. Again, just my opinion.

Nobody's saying that there are no good bourbons at 86 proof, at least not in this thread.

Price is linked to proof, that's my point. You're getting less for your money and $150 is a lot of money.

To put it another way, why would I buy a Cadillac with only AM radio? Sure, what matters most is how it drives, but if I'm paying Cadillac prices I want luxury in every aspect of the car. If I'm paying $150 for a bourbon I want premium proof not just age, packaging and taste.

[smokinjoe]

Price tolerance is a whole 'nother animal but to me isn't linked to proof.

That's a good point, Gary. "Price tolerance" is different than "value proposition".

I don't link price and proof, either. It is about as germane to me as passing judgement on a whiskey simply based on an age on the label.

[smokinjoe]

Nobody's saying that there are no good bourbons at 86 proof, at least not in this thread.

Price is linked to proof, that's my point. You're getting less for your money and $150 is a lot of money.

To put it another way, why would I buy a Cadillac with only AM radio? Sure, what matters most is how it drives, but if I'm paying Cadillac prices I want luxury in every aspect of the car. If I'm paying $150 for a bourbon I want premium proof not just age, packaging and taste.

I'll point out again, because of the extremely low from the barrel proof here, this 86 proof whiskey has the potential to be different than other 86 proof whiskies. Technically, same amount of alcohol in the bottle, but how it got that way? Entirely different. My guess/hope/expectation is that the taste profile is going to show that difference. In other words, I'm hoping this new Caddy's Turbo V6 delivers the performance of your dad's old V8.

[tanstaafl2]

Having tried and enjoyed 33yo scotch that was bottled at a mere 83.4 barrel proof I am willing to give this one a chance if it is offered to me!

But not sure I will buy it untried, presuming I can even find it since I have no plans to hunt for it, so I may never get that chance.

I do think a low barrel proof whiskey is likely to be better than most whiskey that is cut to that proof. After all it is well aged water! The aforementioned scotch certainly didn't taste thin like most 80ish proof whiskey does. Whether that is sufficient to justify the price is of course a personal choice.

[amg]

Yeah, there's plenty of low proof scotch out there that's well over $150. It's tough to accept scotch prices on bourbon, but that seems to be the direction we're headed.

[Josh]

Yeah, there's plenty of low proof scotch out there that's well over $150. It's tough to accept scotch prices on bourbon, but that seems to be the direction we're headed.

The sales of Diamond would seem to hint that enthusiasts are not willing to accept that.

Producers do listen to what is said here and other places online. Those of us who are not willing to see what happened to SMS happen to bourbon need to speak up and let them know that is not acceptable.

[BigRich]

The sales of Diamond would seem to hint that enthusiasts are not willing to accept that.

Producers do listen to what is said here and other places online. Those of us who are not willing to see what happened to SMS happen to bourbon need to speak up and let them know that is not acceptable.

[Josh]

Conspiracy theories? How is expressing my opinions on pricing and proof "boiling it down to one faceted conspiracy theories", whatever that might mean?

[TunnelTiger]

Off topic and I apologize for thread jacking but I have a theory.

Drinking high proof bourbon/rye for the last couple of years have destroyed my taste buds that used to enjoy 80 proof scotch and bourbon.

That is all.

[Richnimrod]

I think I'm kinda with Smokin Joe on this issue. When a Bourbon that's dumped and not filtered has a relatively low proof; that should yield a much richer pour than the same proof achieved through the addition of filtered water from say a 10 to 15% stronger proof barrel-result. Thus; my expectation is for a way-different 86-proofer than any normally available off the shelf. Hope I'm right......

[BigRich]

Conspiracy theories? How is expressing my opinions on pricing and proof "boiling it down to one faceted conspiracy theories", whatever that might mean?

I didn't say said comments were yours. What I objected to is oversimplifying the economic trends of SM scotch pricing in the last 15-20 years.