Musings on Wild Turkey 101

[Cranecreek]

   I was listening to courting turkeys going nuts in the woods behind my shop this morning and was reminded of another turkey.  The proverbial favorite of many a bourbon drinker....Wild Turkey 101.  Maybe not actually maligned but certainly taken for granted among the array of bourbons nowadays.  When presented with a limited choice in a lounge or "Supper Club" I am relieved when I spot a bottle of "The Bird" in the mix behind 

the bar.  And talk about consistent !  Every bottle without fail tastes just as the one before it did.  Which brings me to the observation that it is quite spicy, more so even than some high-rye whiskies.  The mash bill calls for I believe 13% rye, putting it on par with the likes of Jim Beam's standard offerings along with many other brands that have nowhere near the same level of spice as WT.  As one unnamed SB'er (who lives in Washington D.C.!!) wrote a while back  "Pepper and Spice are always present in all offerings of this brand"  So my palate has the company of at least one other.

  To what Wild Turkey 101 owes this flavor profile has always been a mystery to me.

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Cranecreek

[Charlutz]

Agreed. 

1 hour ago, Cranecreek said:

 To what Wild Turkey 101 owes this flavor profile has always been a mystery to me.

 

I’ve seen the Russells talk fondly about the rye spice flavor in bourbon and in WT. I’ve never seen them say, nor read anywhere, their explanation of where it comes from in WT’s (as you point out) fairly low rye mashbills (both their bourbon and rye). My uneducated guess is that it’s the yeast. Tasting the various four roses recipes was an eye opening experience as to the impact a yeast can have. The K compared to the F or V is staggering. Add to that it seems to be the one significant variable that is proprietary to each distillery and that’s where I’m placing my bet. 

[kevinbrink]

7 minutes ago, Charlutz said:

Agreed. 

I’ve seen the Russells talk fondly about the rye spice flavor in bourbon and in WT. I’ve never seen them say, nor read anywhere, their explanation of where it comes from in WT’s (as you point out) fairly low rye mashbills (both their bourbon and rye). My uneducated guess is that it’s the yeast. Tasting the various four roses recipes was an eye opening experience as to the impact a yeast can have. The K compared to the F or V is staggering. Add to that it seems to be the one significant variable that is proprietary to each distillery and that’s where I’m placing my bet. 

Might be the yeast, the lower entry proof might be at play as well, the bourbon comes out of the barrel requiring less water to proof down.

[flahute]

It’s the yeast. 

[Cranecreek]

15 minutes ago, flahute said:

It’s the yeast. 

Would you share with us your source of info ?

[Cranecreek]

1 hour ago, kevinbrink said:

Might be the yeast, the lower entry proof might be at play as well, the bourbon comes out of the barrel requiring less water to proof down. 

It seems there are two schools of thought on barrel entry proof.  One being that because of the additional h2O it oxidizes better and makes for a more rounded & sm____er whiskey.  And the other camp saying the lower proof draws more spice & flavor from the wood.

[kevinbrink]

3 minutes ago, Cranecreek said:

It seems there are two schools of thought on barrel entry proof.  One being that because of the additional h2O it oxidizes better and makes for a more rounded & sm____er whiskey.  And the other camp saying the lower proof draws more spice & flavor from the wood.

I don't know enough to speak to either but I do believe that when you add less water you strip out less character.

[Cranecreek]

2 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

I don't know enough to speak to either but I do believe that when you add less water you strip out less character.

My knowledge ends with what I read in W.A. mag. Summer '17 pg 36. "The Secret Science of Proof & Barrels"  The article kind of leaves it up in the air.

[flahute]

3 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

Would you share with us your source of info ?

Eddie has mentioned it on more than one occasion.

[rjg1701]

4 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

It seems there are two schools of thought on barrel entry proof.  One being that because of the additional h2O it oxidizes better and makes for a more rounded & sm____er whiskey.  And the other camp saying the lower proof draws more spice & flavor from the wood.

 

4 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

I don't know enough to speak to either but I do believe that when you add less water you strip out less character.

It is, as always, more complex than that.  Generally speaking, it is true that less added water means more flavor, but the low entry proof has other affects as well.  I don't recall the exact numbers, but entry at and below about 115 tends to extract different compounds from the wood than higher proofs do.  Higher entry proofs are usually associated with the more bitter oak flavors and lower with sweeter.  There is a thread somewhere with a much more detailed explanation.

[kevinbrink]

4 hours ago, rjg1701 said:

 

It is, as always, more complex than that.  Generally speaking, it is true that less added water means more flavor, but the low entry proof has other affects as well.  I don't recall the exact numbers, but entry at and below about 115 tends to extract different compounds from the wood than higher proofs do.  Higher entry proofs are usually associated with the more bitter oak flavors and lower with sweeter.  There is a thread somewhere with a much more detailed explanation.

Yeah I'm very much aware of many of the threads and many articles discussing low entry proof but I also know that some of those articles/threads/opinions contradict each other, sure there is science at play but I'm not sure all of this is fact as much as educated speculation. Maker's has a lower entry proof and it tastes like cherry flavored acetone, I don't think that flavor profile is the result of using wheat as a secondary grain alone. At the end of the day there is a lot that goes into what makes a whiskey taste the way it does and whatever you drink is the result of the way all of those things come together not a single reason. I suppose on some level I pointed out barrel entry proof as it seems to be the most tangible aspect. I know a few people up thread felt like it was the yeast but having had enough store picks and single barrels of Four Roses, who are clearly serious about yeast, you realize sometimes you buy one that is way off profile. The other major factors to consider are barrel selection and blending, if something is not going to hit profile for one of their products many of those barrels are, I would guess, ending up with NDP's, I can think of at least one that has been said to be sourced from WT (Charles Goodnight).

[flahute]

Yeast. 

 

But yes, if you want to get into the weeds, every single step is important and effects the flavor. 

If you ferment at a colder temperature which makes it take a day longer, it changes the flavor. 

Thats just the beginning. 

[Mako254]

19 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

My knowledge ends with what I read in W.A. mag. Summer '17 pg 36. "The Secret Science of Proof & Barrels"  The article kind of leaves it up in the air.

 

http://whiskyadvocate.com/secret-science-proof-and-barrels/

 

 

[Cranecreek]

1 hour ago, Mako254 said:

 

http://whiskyadvocate.com/secret-science-proof-and-barrels/

 

 

 Thanks Mako !

[kaiserhog]

It's Alchemy, pure and simple. 

[Flyfish]

I always thought that low entry proof was responsible for leaving more flavor in. The longer you distill, the more stuff comes out until you are left with vodka--the beverage that brags that it is devoid of all color, aroma, and flavor.

[Cranecreek]

On 5/11/2018 at 11:21 AM, kevinbrink said:

I don't know enough to speak to either but I do believe that when you add less water you strip out less character.

I think what you wrote there is important.  WT does not have to proof down far when bottling , combine that with the lower barrel entry proof, and one more factor not yet discussed....#4 Alligator Char.  Nobody touts that more than WT.

[Charlutz]

33 minutes ago, Cranecreek said:

I think what you wrote there is important.  WT does not have to proof down far when bottling , combine that with the lower barrel entry proof, and one more factor not yet discussed....#4 Alligator Char.  Nobody touts that more than WT.

I generally agree, but remember, as it ages the whiskey can gain or lose alcohol or water depending on climate, location in warehouse and probably other factors. We discussed at length in a thread in the last week or so. 

 

When you say WT ‘does not have to proof down far’ your statement is limited to comparison against a higher proof barrel sitting right next to a lower proof one. The comparison gets further afield against a barrel that may have an entry proof of 125 but after aging has dropped to 101 proof and maybe no water is added at bottling. Is that whiskey ‘better’ than a WT product that went in the barrel at 110, aged until it reached 120, and then water was added to bring it to 101? I don’t know. 

 

Note: I’m not a chemist or distiller. In fact, I’m pretty much an idiot.  I wrote the above simply based on the fact that as whiskey ages it can gain or lose alcohol. I don’t if my conclusion is right and if one of the more knowledgeable members has input, I’d love to be educated. 

[Cranecreek]

3 hours ago, Charlutz said:

I generally agree, but remember, as it ages the whiskey can gain or lose alcohol or water depending on climate, location in warehouse and probably other factors. We discussed at length in a thread in the last week or so. 

 

When you say WT ‘does not have to proof down far’ your statement is limited to comparison against a higher proof barrel sitting right next to a lower proof one. The comparison gets further afield against a barrel that may have an entry proof of 125 but after aging has dropped to 101 proof and maybe no water is added at bottling. Is that whiskey ‘better’ than a WT product that went in the barrel at 110, aged until it reached 120, and then water was added to bring it to 101? I don’t know. 

 

Note: I’m not a chemist or distiller. In fact, I’m pretty much an idiot.  I wrote the above simply based on the fact that as whiskey ages it can gain or lose alcohol. I don’t if my conclusion is right and if one of the more knowledgeable members has input, I’d love to be educated. 

You are correct Charles lots of variables after the whiskey is barrelled too.  I should have said WT does not have to dilute down as far as some of its competitors.  I see your emojies work mine do not-what brouser do you use ?  maybe that makes a difference.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Cranecreek

[Richnimrod]

3 hours ago, Charlutz said:

I generally agree, but remember, as it ages the whiskey can gain or lose alcohol or water depending on climate, location in warehouse and probably other factors. We discussed at length in a thread in the last week or so. 

 

When you say WT ‘does not have to proof down far’ your statement is limited to comparison against a higher proof barrel sitting right next to a lower proof one. The comparison gets further afield against a barrel that may have an entry proof of 125 but after aging has dropped to 101 proof and maybe no water is added at bottling. Is that whiskey ‘better’ than a WT product that went in the barrel at 110, aged until it reached 120, and then water was added to bring it to 101? I don’t know. 

 

Note: I’m not a chemist or distiller. In fact, I’m pretty much an idiot.  I wrote the above simply based on the fact that as whiskey ages it can gain or lose alcohol. I don’t if my conclusion is right and if one of the more knowledgeable members has input, I’d love to be educated. 

Now this here (^^^) would be a great experiment.

If only we could get WT to donate a couple of their barrels that diverge widely in final proof for us to sample.    ...One diluted to 101 from 125, and the other diluted from about 102 to 101.

That  would give pretty definitive answers to the implied question, eh?

[Charlutz]

30 minutes ago, Cranecreek said:

 I see your emojies work mine do not-what brouser do you use ?  maybe that makes a difference.

Some of the shorthand ones work. If you type colon closed parenthesis you can get a smiley, colon capital D for the big grin, semi-colon closed parenthesis for the winky smile, etc. 

 

Edit - I’m on my iPhone. 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Charlutz

[Cranecreek]

35 minutes ago, Richnimrod said:

Now this here (^^^) would be a great experiment.

If only we could get WT to donate a couple of their barrels that diverge widely in final proof for us to sample.    ...One diluted to 101 from 125, and the other diluted from about 102 to 101.

That  would give pretty definitive answers to the implied question, eh?

Actually I think that would work pretty good.  I have a place in the shop where we could build a stand for the barrels. 

It would also provide easy access......for........me.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Cranecreek

[flahute]

Generally speaking, the less water you have to add, the better. Not necessarily because more water is bad, but because of how it's added. It's dumped in one straight shot and that can be a shock to the whiskey. You don't get as complete of a chemical bond. Nancy will tell you all about the chemistry behind it if she reads this. It's why she adds water slowly when she proofs down a whiskey. And she can taste when the bond is incomplete. 

[Charlutz]

Agreed Steve. My point (to the extent I had one) is that it doesn’t seem to be as simple as lower entry proof = less water added. 

[Cranecreek]

19 hours ago, Charlutz said:

Agreed Steve. My point (to the extent I had one) is that it doesn’t seem to be as simple as lower entry proof = less water added. 

 

I think we are saying the same thing Charlie in different ways. 

 

1.  At the retention tank and before entering the barrel fill piping, WT proofs down their distillate lower than the 125 pf. Maximum allowed.  Was it 110 or 115 ?  Don't remember without looking back.

 

2. Then at bottle filling, with a target of 101 and not 95 or 90 or 86 proof than they do not have to add as much water as others.  Resulting in less of the character of the bourbon being diluted.  If I get a chance to visit a distillery again I would like to pay more attention to that step.

 

Two processes not directly related to each other except for the fact that if you start out with less alcohol in the barrel

you could make the correlation it will also be lower (to some degree) after aging.  But it is only meaningful when you compare it to other products with a higher barrel fill proof.

 

  I have never seen the process of cutting the "White Dog" with water at the retention tank so I am not sure of the actual way the water is added.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Cranecreek