Musings on Wild Turkey 101

[Mako254]

23 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 agree to a point however I will say if you are to start (barrel entry proof in this case 115) closer to your bottle proof (101 and 110. Yes they have 81 and whatever long branch is but I think it is fair to say 101, wtks, RB and RRsib is the main focus here) over all, the whiskey will require less dilution even when you factor in proof variance when bourbon is aged in a metal clas multi story warehouse. If the variance is 6th and 7th floor barrels gain X and 1st and second floor barrels lose Y, that doesn’t change the fact that 115 is closer to 101 than say 125 (HH entry proof) is to 94 (elijah craig small batch).  I like my bourbon to be as close to ‘straight from the barrel’ as possible. Not saying one is better than the other but for what I like, 101 and RRsib deliver. Every has different taste buddies though. 

 

 

[VAGentleman]

On 5/12/2018 at 10:51 PM, flahute said:

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. 

Interesting, not sure how the big boys do it but all of the craft ones around me proof down in phases over at least a week because of the bonding, less shock and to make sire they don't proof too low the first time.  Would be interested in first hand knowledge about some of the bigger guys in the business (which you may have flahute)