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

[Josh]

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.

Let me clarify, then. I was saying that if we who think premium products should be also be high proof don't speak up, the bourbon world will be full of "premium" products with two digit proofs and three digit price tags just like the SMS world is.

[Paddy]

This has been a very entertaining thread to follow, and my thoughts line up pretty solidly with Josh on this one.

It may be mighty fine bourbon, but I won't even bother to kick the tires on this one... let alone test drive it.

Since I'm not a collector, or flipper, I'd rather take the same amount of money and fill a shopping cart full of RB! :grin:

[Kartofel]

After my experience with Diamond Anniversary, I'm more wary of special releases of Wild Turkey. That was something I would take the 101 or Russel's Reserve Small Batch over. And the 101 consistently seems to be the favorite in most blind Wild Turkey verticals I've done, adjusting for proof. So this would have to be some crazy whiskey to be worth 6 bottles of 101 as far as I'm concerned.

[The Black Tot]

I read a lot of comments about old bourbons tasting "like splinters" or being complained about for being over-oaked.

While I agree nobody has tasted this yet, nobody yet has expressed concern about the fact that these barrels have had a much more significant amount of water in them throughout the entire aging process.

Since we know water pulls out oak flavors more strongly than does alcohol, isn't this wearing all the signs of an expected major oak bomb?

This isn't a criticism of an untasted product, since generally speaking the stuff that people crucify for being over-oaked I usually find I enjoy.

[Richnimrod]

This isn't a criticism of an untasted product, since generally speaking the stuff that people crucify for being over-oaked I usually find I enjoy.

[tanstaafl2]

While I certainly don't want to see a glut of double digit proof whiskey carry super premium prices I still think that true barrel proof whiskey that come in under 100 proof without being cut are different from (and so far generally better than) any whiskey cut down to that same proof based on my admittedly limited experience with a handful of bottles that were sub 100 barrel proof bottlings. I am more intrigued with this one than the Diamond for example since I am inclined to take Eddie at his word that this is bottled at barrel proof, having heard it from him directly.

That said it still is a matter of personal preference for each individual about coughing up the cash for this one. And I am still with Josh that as a general rule I want to encourage barrel proof or at least 100+ minimum proof for "premium" bottles as much as possible.

[TunnelTiger]

When is the release date for this? I'm a pass but as always I do look forward to tasting comments from our members.

[amg]

While I certainly don't want to see a glut of double digit proof whiskey carry super premium prices I still think that true barrel proof whiskey that come in under 100 proof without being cut are different from (and so far generally better than) any whiskey cut down to that same proof based on my admittedly limited experience with a handful of bottles that were sub 100 barrel proof bottlings.

I think it will certainly be interesting in that regard. I have a 99.8 proof SAOS BP bourbon that, at 9 years old, is definitely creeping into "over-oaked" territory, though.

[Vosgar]

Since I'm too cheap to buy a bottle of my own, I may need to talk to a few bar/restaurant people I know and see if they'll get it. The combination of age and low barrel proof intrigue the hell out of me and I'd splurge for pour

[Phil T]

I'm with you on this one Gary. Some of the best FRSB' s I've enjoyed were relatively low barrel proof iterations, so this Turkey intrigues me that way. Not sure I would pony up the coin for a bottle though.

[Spade]

I agree that the low barrel proof combined with the age are definitely interesting. But, $150 for a product I've never tried before—especially given the lackluster response to WT's recent limited releases—seems like a big risk. I personally don't have the means or the interest to potentially waste that much money on an unknown quantity.

Unless the general sentiment on this is that it's amazing, I won't spend any time worrying about trying to get a bottle. And, of course, if that is the sentiment, trying to get a bottle will probably be nearly impossible. So, either way I'm pretty sure this is one I won't try.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Spade

[GaryT]

I think this has the potential to be really nice (maybe great) whiskey, but I'm with Bruce - except rather than being "not sure", I'm "quite positive" I won't shell over $150 without having a sample first (and that is based just as much on the disappointment of some recent high-dollar offerings from Turkey, not so much focused on the proof).

So . . . I'm really hoping that someone takes the plunge Or maybe enough of us get together (12 of us?) and collectively pitch in $13-$14 for a 2oz sample

[LCWoody]

I'll take the plunge. It's just money, I've tasted money before......it's not very good.

[flahute]

I'll take the plunge. It's just money, I've tasted money before......it's not very good.

[Richnimrod]

I'll take the plunge. It's just money, I've tasted money before......it's not very good.

[shoshani]

You know, reading in this thread about how the low proof is because that's how the barrels were, and about how aging in a valley affected the distillate that way, I am reminded that our own Col. Cowdery mentioned a while back that WT was increasing barrel entry proof slightly because they'd discovered that some aged barrels were underproof when they were opened. I'll bet this is part of that.

I know they have new warehouses and all with the new facility, hopefully higher up than these, but they probably had to increase the entry proof to take care of any similar contingencies.

[TunnelTiger]

Yep and that's why good marketing managers are so well compensated. Take a product that was basically unusable for what it was initially intended put it in a different bottle with a new label and boast about it's uniqueness.

WT's marketing team are masters of it.

[tanstaafl2]

Might have to give the Campari marketers some credit here too. When the GBS did their barrel tasting Eddie Russell did indicate the fact that barrel entry proof had gone up between the 2004 and 2005 barrels partly for the concern about final proof. This I think would have been pre Campari.

if it is in fact at barrel proof then I have to confess the more this one is looked down upon "in absentia" (admittedly somewhat earned by the lackluster results with the WT Diamond in particular) the more intrigued I get to try it for myself. That is of course the ultimate test!

Presuming I can find it.

[Richnimrod]

Presuming I can find it.

....And have made the decision to part with that much cheese for the privilege....... I am, as yet undecided, about that question.

[BigRich]

....And have made the decision to part with that much cheese for the privilege....... I am, as yet undecided, about that question.

Hahahaha ...says the guy who hasn't actually seen the BruceBunker in person.

[Richnimrod]

Hahahaha ...says the guy who hasn't actually seen the BruceBunker in person.

[tanstaafl2]

True enough! I have not seen it.

Bruce; if you're offended that I assumed you'd be in any way selective based upon price.... TOUGH TITTY!!!! HA! I'm sure your bunker is a sight to behold... and to be rather jealous of.

So, maybe it's better that I have only dreamed about it.

Me, offended? Dude, you got to be kidding! :cool:

And every dream needs a little basis in reality to build on... :grin:

[BigRich]

Me, offended? Dude, you got to be kidding! :cool:

And every dream needs a little basis in reality to build on... :grin:

Yaeh but Rich doesn't realize that's just the back 1/4 and the ceiling is 20ft high.

[VAGentleman]

I got to try this at the Bourbon Affair and I like it quite a bit. It isn't as dark as I thought it would be at 17 years. Its got some vanilla and little spice on the nose with some oak(no surprise). It has a really nice thickness on the tongue. It starts with some nice vanilla and then a little spice, nothing huge like WT is usually known for. There is a lot of wood toward the middle and finish but its not out of balance. Reminded me a little of the Tradition with the woodiness. A nice long finish that lingered. This is pretty good bourbon. I also got to try the RR 1998 and Single Barrel Rye, both great. I'll give impressions of those elsewhere so as not to thread hijack.

[tanstaafl2]

I got to try this at the Bourbon Affair and I like it quite a bit. It isn't as dark as I thought it would be at 17 years. Its got some vanilla and little spice on the nose with some oak(no surprise). It has a really nice thickness on the tongue. It starts with some nice vanilla and then a little spice, nothing huge like WT is usually known for. There is a lot of wood toward the middle and finish but its not out of balance. Reminded me a little of the Tradition with the woodiness. A nice long finish that lingered. This is pretty good bourbon. I also got to try the RR 1998 and Single Barrel Rye, both great. I'll give impressions of those elsewhere so as not to thread hijack.

Good to hear it has that nice thick oily mouthfeel. I think this is characteristic that distinguishes lower barrel proof bottlings from ones that are cut down with water even if the final proof is higher. Not always going to be the case I suppose but has been in the few examples I have tried.