101, 101 and 101.

[nor02lei]

I have been very anxious to try the newer no age WT 101 for a long time. Thanks to a friendly member I did get a 20 cl bottle just the other day. Luckily I had 2 older 101 bottles at home so I thought a side by side would be appropriate. The other older versions are one with tax stamps bottled 1979 and one 1/3-litre bottle with I think is bottled in the first half of the 90-is (I have been drinking quit a lot of both this versions especially the tax stamp one). Both the older ones have an 8 year statement on the label. I will refer them as 79 and 90. First locking at the glasses there are a big difference in colar. The 2 youngest are about the same but the 79 are very much darker. Locking a bit closer the 90-is a tiny little bit darker than the no age. When I smell and sample the no age I’m a bit surprised how taste alike it is to the 90-is. The vanilla trademark and the usually 101 sweetness are there just a little less concentrated, however the finish dies pretty fast. Retesting the 90-is verify this. The exact same flavours but a little more concentrated and the finish lies there quit a bit longer. 79 however are a completely different tale. The ground flavours and stile are the exact same as the others but its a bit chewier and there are a lot more other flavours then the previous ones. The real wood is pretty obvious here but not really in any disturbing way. It comes out in a spicy/bitter outfit that intergrades quit well with the other flavours (not at all unlike the OFBB 2004). There is also a small tiny contribution of a taste that I really don’t know the English name of. In Swedish its finkel and it’s a flavour from other alcohols than ethanol. Usually this can be disturbing but not at all in this case. However together with the real wood it makes the whiskey far more†wild “ than the others. This can be a long shot but it also indicates that the spirit may have been distilled at a lower proof than today. On the other hand it can as well be my imagination. However I can bet my left testicle that there is at least some of the whiskey inside the bottle that is considerable older than 8 years.

Conclusion: 101 are still 101! A little lighter maybe with a little less character (still plenty though) but smoother and more easy drinkable on the other hand (that is a quality to) and as a “get drunk†Turkey I do prefer it before the at least 4 different bathes of rare breed that I’ve tried. The only one of those 3 that is up to the name (wild) is the 79.

Leif

[OscarV]

At a Wild Turkey distillery tour I took in April, they said that 101 contains 8, 6 and 4 year old bourbon.

WT did a good job with the new no date 101.

Like you said, it still has plenty of character.