Popular Bourbon, Wild Turkey 101

[fogfrog]

I like it when driving through Missouri. In Missouri, a lot of the Gas Stations are also liquor stores. So on the way to St. Louis, I was looking at what they were selling and it sure looks like one of the most popular bourbons is Wild Turkey 101. They sold it for just over 20 bucks, I think 21. It cose more than Jim Beam Black. It cost more than a lot of pretty good bourbon, but I had only heard on this board mention of the Rare Breed and the RR. So I was not sure but took a gamble and bought the regular 101. In fact I got it in a Traveller Flask.

So since they sell it in a Traveller Flask and in regular bottles and they have more of it than other brands I was curious what was up with that?

I tasted it and think it is really pretty good!

curious what your take on Wild Turkey 101 is and why is it so expensive? Is it as much a premium as say Elijah Craig, and Jim Beam Black etc... (it costs more).

I noticed that it does not need dilution to make it drinkable because of the taste but only because of the strength which is good. The taste is a lot different than the Jim Beam and also than the Elijah Craig, but I dont' know how to describe it.

The claim is that the Wild Turkey is aged at a lower proof so it gets more of the barrel flavors because not as much water is added to it to get it down from the barrel strength down to 101.

How do you all rate/compare it to others? And why is it so popular it is sold in all the gas stations in Missouri?

Thanks,

Paul

[ratcheer]

Well, it has never been a low-end product. In fact, when I started all this about 35 years ago, it was considered a premium brand. Maybe not absolutely high-end, but way up there.

But, when Blanton's came out in the mid-80's, everything since has seemed to be a succession of "ours is better than yours" one upmanship. As a result, yesteryear's best products now seem to be run of the mill.

The same thing has happened with other spirits (scotch, vodka, even tequila), cars, and many other product categories. In the 70's, Zenith was pretty much a luxury brand television. Now, it is just a marketing name on low to mid quality mass merchandise.

At least WT101 is still a decent quality product.

Tim

[ProofPositive]

IMHO Wild Turkey in ANY form, even the 80 proof, is a cut above Elijah C and at least a couple of cuts above Jim B. I know I will catch hell over this next comment....but, I have never enjoyed any bourbon from the Jim Beam product line. However, that is not the case with Beam's "Small Batch Collection (Knob Creek, Baker, Basil Hayden & Booker's"). Of those I have had the pleaure to try, I have enjoyed. But straight JB - in any form, is not my idea of a good pour - even on a rainy day. As I said, there will be hell to pay for those comments....but, I also said IMHO....and opinions are like something else in the human anatomy - and everybody has one.

Wild Turkey is simply a legend in its own time. In my younger days, I was not too crazy about WT101 because I felt it was too strong, too much burn. However, I was dumb & stupid...not knowing how to really savor & enjoy it to the fullest. All these years later I have learned better and it is now one of my favorites. You can never go wrong with WT in any form you may find it. That cannot be said of many other 'families' of bourbon. In fact, and again this is just IMHO, maybe not any except Van Winkle, Hirsch, Maple Farms, etc. That is pretty high & lofty company....at least in my book.

[Virus_Of_Life]

I haven't had WT 101 in a few months, but this got me reminded just how much I DO love it! And where I am at in SoCal it can be found on sale at Rite Aid for $14, yes that's right $14 on sale at rite aid of all places! Along with the 1.75L of Evan Williams at $13 those two were my 'every night' pours. But as I stated in one of my other posts I find the WT 101 holds up every bit as well to the WT Kentucky Spirit which is a much higher price! Need to check Rite Aid tomorrow and see if it is on sale!

Have to say that the WT is probably as good if not better than the Woodford Reserve I am sipping right now...

[ProofPositive]

That is a great price! The best I can do here for same bottle is $21.00 - so, you are definitely getting a good deal.

In re to WR, I liked it the first time, did not the second time. Anyhow, I would put WT against it any time and WT would come out on top 9 times out of 10 IMHO.

[Virus_Of_Life]

INCREDIBLE you mention that! Because I almost did not want to finish my WR I poured this evening! I was sitting here thinking how I'd like to have WT instead, guess I will not be buying anymore of this...

The funniest thing about it? It is the most advertised bourbon I have seen in magazines (other than Makers maybe), I see it in just about every men's magazine I open; therefore I should have known it'd be a disappointment!

[nor02lei]

Paul,

For me WT 101 is a real taste per buck hit. In fact I had my last pour of it last night. And it is not only god to drink neat or with a few drops of water. It is very good with desserts and cakes as well. The real hit was this summer when a friend in waited me for some barbeque. He told me the dessert was barbequed bananas with vanilla ice-cream and that I should bring my on drinks. I brought WT 101. I can say it was a smashing hit with the desert. And my friend ho normally don’t like and drink bourbon fought so too. Sorry to say but the brand is very difficult to get here in Europe. Instead there are another WT 8 years old that are sold here. It is much dryer and not at all tasty to my personal taste buds.

Leif

[ratcheer]

I also prefer WT101 over Woodford Reserve and many other solid mid-shelfers. Even over some top shelf brands.

If I have an everyday pour, it is WT101. Always on hand, always good.

Tim

[BobA]

I'm with the others. For 25 years, I've considered WT 101 maybe the most reliable buy out there, in terms of price and quality (explorations fueled by this site have put others on that list). I guess people in Missouri agree. As to why it's in a "travel flask" (I guess you mean the flattish plastic 750 bottle), I don't know, but have noticed that no other quality bourbon is packaged like that here in Atlanta, just lower-end ones.

On cost, one thing is that proof costs money. Some of that is taxes we don't see, but also just general market pricing; if a buyer is going to drink everything at 80 proof, it would be dumb sell a bottle of 100 for the same price as one of equal quality, but 80 proof. You'll see that in every line; OGD 86 is about $13, 100 is $17, 114 is $22. Some of that is reflected across product lines.

But of course, the real answer on cost is, that's what they'll pay. Through a combination of quality and marketing, buyers are willing to pay more for WT 101 than, say, OGD 100. I think marketing has to play a big role, else I can't understand why JB white goes for $2-5 more than other 80 proofers that are, well, let's say at least as good.

Bob

[kbuzbee]

This is a great thread! I also love WT101. I enjoy ALL WT products, really. KS, RB and both RRs are great, and they do get the most airplay here but the regular 101 is as good as anything out there. Better (to me) than anyone else's "baseline" product (though regular BT is pretty tasty too). Great flavor and a great value. I really like the lower distilling proof. It shows up in the bottle, for sure. Was it luck or is Jimmy Russell some kind of genius?? I have no idea but thanks for starting this thread. I think WT higher end products have, in some ways, caused people to gloss over this turely wonderful Bourbon.

Ken

[gr8erdane]

Well, being the resident Missourian on the board the only reason I can think of for all the gas stations having it is that for years it was THE high proof whiskey in these parts. Most people drank Jack, Beam, Seagrams 7 or Crown Royal and all were 90 proof or less. For a night of hanging your head back and howling, Wild Turkey 101 was the choice. It's a shame but most is consumed by the shot, thrown down the gullet without really tasting it.

Also, you have to consider that the gas stations pretty much keep only a small selection of spirits due to limited space. They only carry what they figure will turn around quickly and WT 101 is a well known brand name. The fact that they advertise on local radio here doesn't hurt either.

[Black85L98]

When I am in a bar I can always count on them having WT 101. I do not drink it neat but order over ice with a coke on the side. I think it is a fantastic bourbon value at 101 proof. I always felt like this was a case of a company knowing they had a good thing and not screwing it up. I hope they don’t make any changes.

[kbuzbee]

When I am in a bar I can always count on them having WT 101. I do not drink it neat but order over ice with a coke on the side. I think it is a fantastic bourbon value at 101 proof. I always felt like this was a case of a company knowing they had a good thing and not screwing it up. I hope they don’t make any changes.

Actually, I hope they don't make any MORE changes. They already dropped the 8yo age statement and the most recent concern is the reduction of RR from 101 to 90 proof. I find these trends disturbing. I'm sure every distillery has ongoing discussions of how to generate the most profit and reducing the age or the proof would seem to be 'low hanging fruit' as we used to say. Our only hope is someone in the company is more quality focused and knows how to turn quality into profit rather than doing it through cost reduction. So far I'm still using my dollars to vote (mostly) for Wild Turkey. Time will tell.

Ken

[Black85L98]

I did not know they had made any changes to the regular 101. I'm sure it is still 101 proof.

The website still shows RR at ten years and 101 proof.

[ProofPositive]

There have been some changes but I am not sure of the timeline or specifics. Ken will be able to fill us in on that info and I hope he does. Thus far, my tastes are not yet refined enough to tell the difference between 'now' and 'then'. That is mainly because of the amount of time that has elapsed in my experience with WT101. I was a regular consumer about 20 years ago and do recall the label indicating an age of 8 years. How long it is now aged, I don't know. However, somewhere in my flickering recent memory banks I seem to remember 7 years for the current edition.

In the last few weeks, I remember coming across a cache of 101 somewhere that had an older label on the bottle that included the line "Old No. 8". Now, whether I would be correct in assuming that meant it was the same as 8 years old or not is yet unproved. As I said, Ken can educate us a bit on the subject. He has helped this newbie tremendously in respect to WT and bourbon in general.

[kbuzbee]

Thanks Wayne, those are very kind words. You are correct there was a #8. I've not had it but my hunch is this was labeling slight of hand to evoke exactly that impression. WT101 did used to be 8 years old. While there is no current age statement the assumption would be it is no longer as old as eight years validating your point.

However, age statements are often removed to give the distiller more flexibility (not necessarily to just allow age reduction across the board) in selecting the whisky to include in a bottle. If the bottle says it's 8 yo then the youngest whisky must be no less 8 years old. There may indeed be 8 yo whisky included in the current WT101. It may all be 8 yo. But since it doesn't say that, all you can do is assume.

Regardless, it's very good. Would I like to know the distilling proof, the barreling proof and the age of the whisky? Yes, I would. But the ultimate challange is taste. Does it taste the way you want it to and is it priced fairly? If so, enjoy.

Ken

[kbuzbee]

The website still shows RR at ten years and 101 proof.

It lies.

Ken

[ProofPositive]

Thanks Wayne, those are very kind words. You are correct there was a #8. I've not had it but my hunch is this was labeling slight of hand to evoke exactly that impression. WT101 did used to be 8 years old. While there is no current age statement the assumption would be it is no longer as old as eight years validating your point.

However, age statements are often removed to give the distiller more flexibility (not necessarily to just allow age reduction across the board) in selecting the whisky to include in a bottle. If the bottle says it's 8 yo then the youngest whisky must be no less 8 years old. There may indeed be 8 yo whisky included in the current WT101. It may all be 8 yo. But since it doesn't say that, all you can do is assume.

Regardless, it's very good. Would I like to know the distilling proof, the barreling proof and the age of the whisky? Yes, I would. But the ultimate challange is taste. Does it taste the way you want it to and is it priced fairly? If so, enjoy.

Ken

Absolutely! We do at times seem to get caught up too much in the numbers when taste is the ultimate test & most important factor of all. I follow what you are saying and agree it is a good thing to give the distiller some flexibility. What none of us like is what we have seen of late with RR. That is bordering on sacriledge !!!

for your help & insight - mucho appreciation!!!

[voigtman]

This is what jeff wrote in post 33003 back on 8/7/2004:

"First off, the current WT101 is a mixture of 6,8 and 10yo bourbons, mostly 6 I have been told. While the Current WT 101 is a spicy, manly kick in the pants, the 8yo, to me, seems a little more smooth and refined."

Wild Turkey 101 used to be 8 years old and the label said so. Then came the "Old #8 brand" label (shown in the Regans' "The Bourbon Companion"). I don't know if the bourbon was then younger than 8 years old, but my guess is it was, or why change the label? Then the eight stuff on the label was dropped altogether and, if jeff is right, the current WT 101 is mostly 6 years old. I assume jeff is right.

Personally, I have no problem with giving master distillers all the flexibility they want and need. Certainly Jimmy Russell! But the problem is that the distillery company bean counters have some VERY significant say in when bourbon is ready to sell and this is perfectly illustrated by the Russell's Reserve proof lowering fiasco. This is why I like age statements: time can't be speeded up.

That said, it still comes down to taste and personal buying decisions: do I like it and is it worth the asking price? If so, the age doesn't matter much. But the flip side of this is that it validates marketing, focus groups, etc.: try to find out what people will like and what they are willing to pay for it. And this means that nothing is permanent and traditions have to yield to later marketing/profit needs. So, keep your fingers crossed that WT 101 stays that way. BTW, is there still a WT 86.8 proof or is the 101 proof joined now only by the 80 proof?

[Black85L98]

I have only seen the 101 and 80 proof.

To bad about RR I had a few bottles years ago and liked it. Thought the price was a little high for what it was but it was good.

I did not remember the 8 YO statement on the bottle but as I said I drink WT most of the time in bars. I have mabey bought 10 bottles of any WT in my life.

I often have it in my hand and opt for EW BIB 100 proof, I like it almost as well and at $11 can't be beat.

[BourbonBalls]

I was just thru San Francisco to Vancouver and was able to pick up a bottle of WT 101 that says "8 Years Old" right there on the label.

This expression WT is only available in Duty Free stores.

[squire]

Evening,

I have been a WT customer since the mid 1960s. Years ago there were some proud brands, Crow, Taylor, Fitzgerald, Yellowstone and others, and most of these live on today in name only.

Back when these names were peers amoung equals and goods were sold on reputation the top of the line standard was 8 years and 100 proof Bottled in Bond.

Inheritance taxes, corporate takeovers and changing tastes of the buying public made these old names fall victum to the times and a distressing trend emerged. Without exception there was a lessening of the product by lowering the age and proof. Often by just issuing a new label which discretely omited information. Often raising the price as well along with the new look.

Anchent Age did it with 10 year AAA and Wild Turkey with 8 year 101 by simply leaving the big '10' and '8' on the new label in the same place. I voted with my feet and moved my consumer purchases to other brands. I quit buying Jack Daniels when they went from 5 year 90 proof to 4 year 86 proof and quit buying Wild Turkey when they started following the same path.

These moves were profit rather than quality driven and any honest person in the buisness cannot say otherwise while still holding a straight face.

Still good whiskies and still a bargain but not the same and that is my point. Within a short drive from my front door I can get 100 proof BIB Evan Williams, J.W. Dant and Barton, all for less than ten dollars a bottle, with a 10% discount on a case purchase. I doubt anybody produces a more useful around the house mixing, drinking and cooking whiskey than Barton's Ten High and that's available for $14.29 for a 1.75 liter without the case discount.

We now live in a time when more high end Bourbons are available then ever before and they are certainly worth the money. If the marketers are correct and the new consumers want 80 proof goods thats fine with me. Let us have all versions, properly labeled, and the buying public will sort it out. I just wish the makers would give us an additional choice of their old standards without an overpriced gusseyed up cork stoppered limited edition whatever bottle for which I have no use once the contents have been consumed.

Regards,

Squire

[NYtaster]

Thats one of the great things about the WT brand, even the base product is well into the "great bourbon" realm in my opinion. I am a confirmed RB fan but can't fault the straight 101, great when the budget won't permit or it stocks are low.

WT (all bottlings) is no doubt the standard brand by which all others should be measured.

Tim

[ProofPositive]

Evening,

I have been a WT customer since the mid 1960s. Years ago there were some proud brands, Crow, Taylor, Fitzgerald, Yellowstone and others, and most of these live on today in name only.

Back when these names were peers amoung equals and goods were sold on reputation the top of the line standard was 8 years and 100 proof Bottled in Bond.

Inheritance taxes, corporate takeovers and changing tastes of the buying public made these old names fall victum to the times and a distressing trend emerged. Without exception there was a lessening of the product by lowering the age and proof. Often by just issuing a new label which discretely omited information. Often raising the price as well along with the new look.

Anchent Age did it with 10 year AAA and Wild Turkey with 8 year 101 by simply leaving the big '10' and '8' on the new label in the same place. I voted with my feet and moved my consumer purchases to other brands. I quit buying Jack Daniels when they went from 5 year 90 proof to 4 year 86 proof and quit buying Wild Turkey when they started following the same path.

These moves were profit rather than quality driven and any honest person in the buisness cannot say otherwise while still holding a straight face.

Still good whiskies and still a bargain but not the same and that is my point. Within a short drive from my fro100 proof BIB Evan Williams, nt door I can get J.W. Dant and Barton, all for less than ten dollars a bottle, with a 10% discount on a case purchase. I doubt anybody produces a more useful around the house mixing, drinking and cooking whiskey than Barton's Ten High and that's available for $14.29 for a 1.75 liter without the case discount.

We now live in a time when more high end Bourbons are available then ever before and they are certainly worth the money. If the marketers are correct and the new consumers want 80 proof goods thats fine with me. Let us have all versions, properly labeled, and the buying public will sort it out. I just wish the makers would give us an additional choice of their old standards without an overpriced gusseyed up cork stoppered limited edition whatever bottle for which I have no use once the contents have been consumed.

Regards,

Squire

Your synopsis of the historical trend does indeed paint a distressing picture . While I certainly agree that the best possible scenario would be to "Let us all have all versions...", the reality of the present state of affairs in some (maybe most) companies of the industry is dictated by the bean counters. They are concerned only about the bottom line and cloak it under the guise of 'progress' to the consumer as well as telling us what 'we' want to drink. It is not true in this industry alone....just look around, it is everywhere in corporate America. Unless more people vote with their feet, the present course will not be altered. However, the same can be said about many facets of our culture in these times. Unfortunately - and I do not mean this in an unpatriotic manner, most Americans will not "vote with their feet" any longer. They sit on their tushes, become desensitized to it all and do nothing but adjust the remote controls of life to go along with just about anything. Oh yeah, there may be some initial uproar to a undesireable change - be it sudden or evolutionary - forced upon them, but in the long run we just basically get used to it all and go along with life. Now, with all that being said, I am not advocating a new 21st century Whiskey Rebellion nor setting off on a course of fear & panic. And, if I keep going here along these lines, the moderator is going to banish me to the politics section of the Forum. So, I will end the speech before it becomes a rant.

While I feel your pain and understand the frustration , there are several companies and individuals still alive & well in the industry who IMHO are not going along with the distressing trend. From what you have said, you recognize same. I believe they are truly keeping the old flame alive and trying to bring us a high-quality product at a decent price. Yes, it does cost more....but, what doesn't? In my own line of work, I see it every day of the week....the desire to purchase a product at prices of 10-20 years ago. Of course, we (including myself) would love everything to be stable or decrease in terms of cost. However, that is not the real world in which we live. IMHO, the folks at Buffalo Trace, Julian Van Winkle, and several others in the business are doing an excellent job & making the effort to still go the extra mile to bring us a high-quality product at reasonable costs. Of course, I do realize "reasonable" is entirely subject to each one's pocketbook.

Amidst the chaos of corporate takeover, loss of old distilleries, and bean counter dictatorships....thank goodness for the aforementioned as well as the Barton & J.W. Dant for the sake of all of us. So, I will continue to vote with my feet & pocketbook to support the efforts of BT, JVW, & others, and, celebrate in some small way their successes. It is my hope their efforts lead the industry to new heights and away from the trend seen in the last couple of decades. Through it all, this is still America & we still have a lot to be thankful for every day. To each his own.....the right to our opinion and to drink what we want.

Speaking of drinking, I have gone way too far ....much further than I intended. My sincere apology in advance if I have offended anyone . Rather than risk banishment ......and, before I digress off into other tangents that may end in total nonsense , it is the ripe time to stop and head to the keep for some tastings of WT, EW12, WLW and VWSR.

A good and spirited night to all my !!!

[Sweetmeats]

This is a great thread!

Ken

Of course you'd say that.