Wild Turkey Tribute... On its way, hopefully!

[JAORobot]

I should be the proud and lucky owner of a bottle of Wild Turkey Tribute anyday now..

hopefully it turns out to be the case and then I have one sitting on my shelf with my other liquors..

however, what do i do?!

i probably will never have another one again, will wild turkey release another 15 or similar/older product anytime?


i am a bourbon novice, my love is growing quickly, the romance and passion for the history and craft is there, but, my taste buds simply have not tasted enough to probably properly understand the 15yo wild turkey over the other products i am currently tasting..

i've only had a few shots worth of kentucky spirit, about 1/3 done with a rare breed bottle, just got a 101 regullar wild turkey, am almost finished with a gentleman jack and about 1/3 done with a single barrel jack (pardon the tennesse's being mixed in)..

so, do i wait for a special occasion??

do i open it immediatley and sip and see what i think??

excited as helll; hope its true and that it arrives..

btw: kentucky spirit is GOOD stuff! compared rare breed, wt 101 and kentucky spirit tonight... KS was easily the best of the bunch, with Rare Breed and 101 more being different flavors and themes to me.. whereas the kentucky spirit was something special..

[kbuzbee]

Congratulations!!

The good news.... There is no wrong choice here... If it were me and knowing what I know from years of enjoying (specifically WT ) Bourbon. I would humbly suggest you hang on to it a while. Continue enjoying a wide variety of Bourbons. Do some blind tastings (those are amazingly educational). Write a few reviews (even if only for you to read). You will (and I'm sure already have) notice what you perceive from each bottle will change and grow. At some point you won't even ask this question. That is the time to open it.

JMO

Ken

[JAORobot]

somewhat buzzed/drunk from some various drinks, mostly bourbons.. I ordered a second bottle.. I dont exactly have the type of money to buy a $100 bottle of bourbon, let alone TWO.

regardless, its already happened, and it will certainly make it easier to open one of the bottles having a backup around.

will be fun to do a wild turkey, russel's reserve 90, rr 101, rare breed, kentucky spirit and tribute back to back taste test..

[JAORobot]

yippeee, bottle just arrived, looks nice!

going to hide it so that next time I am drunk around here I dont pop it open by accident..

[Strayed]

...will wild turkey release another 15 or similar/older product anytime?...

Well, let's see... Wild Turkey USED to put out a really nice 12-year-old, about three years ago. Does that tell you something?

As to bourbons that you may never meet again, well yeah -- that's true. But it's also true of just about any bourbon. Especially single-barrel bourbons. There's about 240 bottles (more or less) of whiskey in a 55-gallon barrel. The angels take their share, but that's mostly water and the distillery replaces more than that amount when they reduce it to 100 proof or whatever. Two hundred forty is not a whole lot of bottles -- think of how rare a piece of art pottery or a print would be if it were, say, number "177 of 240". That's pretty much the idea behind Single Barrel. The next barrel will only taste the same to someone who can't descern the difference. In some cases the difference between bottles from one barrel and the next can be really obvious. And the flavor profiles of bourbon brands change over time. Today's Maker's Mark is completely different from what it was in the seventies. Same with Wild Turkey, although not as dramatically. And those are bourbons still made by the same people. When you get into the J. W. Dants, the Henry McKennas, the Yellowstones, whose familiar names have been passed from one company to the next, it's easy to see that nearly any bourbon you drink today is likely to be a whole different beverage in less time than it would take to deplete the current stocks. Old Crow (up to ten years old or more, and 100-proof) was one of the finest bourbons available (outside of Kentucky, anyway) as recently as twenty years ago. Today, as an 80-proof three-year-old in a plastic bottle, it may well be one of the worst.

The point is, treat ANY bourbon as if that bottle were the last one you'll ever see of that particular whiskey. Because really, it is.

[JAORobot]

...will wild turkey release another 15 or similar/older product anytime?...

Well, let's see... Wild Turkey USED to put out a really nice 12-year-old, about three years ago. Does that tell you something?

As to bourbons that you may never meet again, well yeah -- that's true. But it's also true of just about any bourbon. Especially single-barrel bourbons. There's about 240 bottles (more or less) of whiskey in a 55-gallon barrel. The angels take their share, but that's mostly water and the distillery replaces more than that amount when they reduce it to 100 proof or whatever. Two hundred forty is not a whole lot of bottles -- think of how rare a piece of art pottery or a print would be if it were, say, number "177 of 240". That's pretty much the idea behind Single Barrel. The next barrel will only taste the same to someone who can't descern the difference. In some cases the difference between bottles from one barrel and the next can be really obvious. And the flavor profiles of bourbon brands change over time. Today's Maker's Mark is completely different from what it was in the seventies. Same with Wild Turkey, although not as dramatically. And those are bourbons still made by the same people. When you get into the J. W. Dants, the Henry McKennas, the Yellowstones, whose familiar names have been passed from one company to the next, it's easy to see that nearly any bourbon you drink today is likely to be a whole different beverage in less time than it would take to deplete the current stocks. Old Crow (up to ten years old or more, and 100-proof) was one of the finest bourbons available (outside of Kentucky, anyway) as recently as twenty years ago. Today, as an 80-proof three-year-old in a plastic bottle, it may well be one of the worst.

The point is, treat ANY bourbon as if that bottle were the last one you'll ever see of that particular whiskey. Because really, it is.

jeez, this one statement alone will make it painful to drink alot of my whiskeys from now on! guess ill be sticking to 7+7's!

considering that kentucky spirit is really pushing my limit for $$$ per drink, I dont think Ill be popping open the tribute anytime soon.. however, if i just have a shot or two every holiday/special event, it sould last for years...

whats the best way to keep a bourbon "fresh"? the cork alone do the trick?

[gillmang]

On John's point about evolution in tastes over time, this is definitely true in my experience. I have had the chance to taste Jim Beam from about 1980 and now Old Taylor and Grandad whiskey from National Distillers. The older whiskeys seem heavier-bodied (even at lower proofs) and more flavourful, more "fruity" in general than the same brands today. I have not found as yet any Old Crow from 30 years ago. About Maker's, I still like it and again haven't tried any from the 1970's. But I hear what John is saying and Mike Veach has expressed a similar opinion. I really don't understand why this shift has occurred, I have heard theories about entry proof, for example, but that alone can't in my view make all the difference. Sometimes I wonder about the type of warehouse but Maker's still uses a traditional type of warehouse. I wonder if on average Maker's is not as old today as back then, but even a younger whiskey should please if it is rich and well made. My own feeling - and John you were suggesting this about new whiskey (white dog) - is that it can't vary all that much from plant to plant and probably from the industry norm of 30 and 40 years ago. Possibly yeasts are contributing less flavour today - but I have no way to confirm that. I think "all in all" the differences may be down to different forms of warehousing, perhaps more use of cycling than in the past, perhaps (and this does get back to white dog) more yield being obtained from a given amount of grain, thus changing somewhat the flavor. Anyway there is a way to get a fuller-tasting product today - and this is to buy older whiskey in general (e.g. Elmer T. Lee is as good as anything from the 1970's, I'd say), and also, blend whiskeys at home. Currently I am making 3 and 4-whiskey blends in the bottle (a combination of three or four commercially available brands) and am getting rich complex straight whiskey character.

Gary

[OneCubeOnly]

I think "all in all" the differences may be down to different forms of warehousing, perhaps more use of cycling than in the past, perhaps (and this does get back to white dog) more yield being obtained from a given amount of grain, thus changing somewhat the flavor.

I'm sure those factors come into play, but I subscribe to a very different theory. I think the major factors are: 1. demand/aging--the trendiness of the white spirits forced bourbon distillers to keep their product in the warehouse instead of rushing it off to market. Even the "bottom shelf dwellers" of the past tasted great. And 2. wood quality--cooperages are now forced to use younger, more immature trees for their barrels and this change is being reflected in the bourbon.

I've said it before--even though the spirit of forums like this is to "spread the gospel" about bourbon, from a selfish point of view the last thing you should REALLY want is for bourbon to become trendy.

[gillmang]

Good points, and I bear in mind too what Mike Veach has said about distillation proofs being generally higher than in the past. Perhaps a lighter-bodied alcohol does not meld well with heavy charred wood character.

It will be very interesting to taste the first "micro-distilled" bourbon. I understand Woodstone Creek Winery and Boutique Distillery of Cincinnati, OH has distilled bourbon whiskey in a 280 gallon capacity pot still and is currently aging the product (along with some malt whisky - scotch-style). Maybe John or some of the people who live nearby might drop by to obtain more information. The plant is just east of Xavier University and owned by a gentleman called Don Outterson. This development is very exciting. The bourbon whiskey promises I believe on its release to offer the first truly craft character seen in many a moon.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
The reason that older whiskey taste different than todays whiskey can be summed up in one word - "economics". The bourbon of today is made a whole lot cheaper than the bourbon of old. It is not one factor, but a combination of factors that contribute to the change. Here are what I see as the major changes:

1) Higher distillation proof: This takes out more flavor from the grain. In the old days before prohibition the distillation proof would be as low as possible and sometimes as low as 90 proof. Even after prohibition it remained low until the late 1960's and 70's when a higher maximum barrel proof was often higher than the distillery's distillation proof. It is cheaper to distill at a higher proof because there is less chance of making a mistake in a batch.

2) Higher barrel proof: Brown-Forman spent hundreds of thousands of dollars having the world's leading organic chemistry labratory in Germany do a study that prooved that many of the barrel flavors wanted in a whiskey dissolve better in water than alcohol, thus the lower the barrel proof, the better the flavor from the barrel. In the 1960's the barrel proof went from 110 maximum to 125. This allows for cheaper whiskey because you will get more bottles of 80 proof whiskey out of 40 gallons of 125 barrel proof whiskey than you will out of 40 gallons of 107 barrel proof whiskey (I will let Howie do the math as to how many bottles are in each, 750 ml bottles, Howie). This makes it cheaper to produce with greater profits.

3) Lower bottle proof: For about a half of a century, Bottled-in-Bond whiskey was the most popular type of whiskey sold in the U.S. At 100 proof it kept a lot more flavor than the lower proof products being sold. This is true for a couple ofl reasons. First adding water dilutes the flavor, plain and simple. The other reason is that the distillers have to filter lower proof product more to prevent cloudiness, or "flocking", when the whiskey gets cold. This flocking is simply vegetable oils solidifying and do not hurt the product, but it looks bad. By removing these oils, you are also removing flavor - not just from the oils because the heavy filtering removes more than just the oils.

4) Aging has changed: Some products have been the victom of their own success - Makers Mark and Wild Turkey first come to mind - and have sold more than they could produce so they lowered the aging period for their product. This was easier for Maker's Mark since they never had an age statement, but Wild Turkey had to take the "8 Years Old" statement from their bottle first, giving them the chance to mix some 4, 5,6, and 7 year old whiskey in their bottles of Wild Turkey. This made making the product cheaper as well. Many standard brands did the same thing. One of the big problem is that by lowering the age and raising the barrel proof, they lost a lot of flavor in the process.

5) Consumer Attitudes: This has changed a lot in the last 50 years. Consumers are fooled by the Scotch market and think older must be better and this is not true. One of the best bourbons I ever drank was a 5yo I W Harper distilled in 1936 and bottled-in-bond in 1941. Loads of flavor that many older products of today never achieve. I know of a person willing to trade multiple bottles of 20 year old Pappy for a few bottles of 8 yo Old Fitzgerald Bonded from the 1960's. Older can be better, but always and in my opinion, not often.

So Gary, These reasons in combination are what I believe to be the difference between older bottles of bourbon and today's product.

Mike Veach

[Stoopsie]

2) Higher barrel proof: Brown-Forman spent hundreds of thousands of dollars having the world's leading organic chemistry labratory in Germany do a study that prooved that many of the barrel flavors wanted in a whiskey dissolve better in water than alcohol, thus the lower the barrel proof, the better the flavor from the barrel. In the 1960's the barrel proof went from 110 maximum to 125. This allows for cheaper whiskey because you will get more bottles of 80 proof whiskey out of 40 gallons of 125 barrel proof whiskey than you will out of 40 gallons of 107 barrel proof whiskey (I will let Howie do the math as to how many bottles are in each, 750 ml bottles, Howie). This makes it cheaper to produce with greater profits.

The math: 40 gallons of 125 proof yeilds 315, 750ml bottles of 80 proof. 40 gallons of 107 proof yeilds 270, 750ml bottles. Mike's theory has been proven mathematically.

[gillmang]

Thanks gentlemen, most interesting!

Gary

[bourbonv]

Thanks Howie! You know my math skills so I depend upon you to do these complicated calculations!

The higher proof gives the distiller 45 more bottles to sell. Now that is not all profit because tax is based upon the proof gallon (100 proof) so the tax is higher on the 125 proof than the 107, but I would bet that the tax on the barrel comes out fairly close to even when considering the extra bottles sold. (Howie, Do you want to do the math?)

Mike Veach

[gillmang]

I think part of the saving is in barrels, because if you can put more proof in one barrel, you need to use less barrels assuming the same output of alcohol.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
I agree that it also saves barrels, but not that many. If the whiskey in the example that Howie provided the math for sold for $20.00 a bottle then the 125 proof whiskey barrel would provide $6,300.00 worth of sales. The barrel cost about $125.00 the last I heard so that is a very small part of that overall cost.

Mike Veach