| Don't like ads? | No ads |
Here we are, at the end of a wild ride exploring different versions of Wild Turkey’s 12-year-old bourbon. I hope you have enjoyed the history I’ve detailed through the lens of the label changes across the decades. There’s just one thing I want to add at the beginning of this review that while my exploration of the Beyond Duplication bottles ends today, I am aware there is one label that I haven’t reviewed – the 2012 version (affectionately called “Monochrome Label”). I don’t have access to one at the moment, but when that time happens, I’ll update this section to include it.
With that being said, the last label change I’ll be covering is what enthusiasts call “Uni-label.” The previous two versions of labels – Split Label and Faux Split Label – both are recognizable due to the gap between the top and bottom label. From 2005 to 2011, Wild Turkey simplified the labeling process by using a one-piece label for the front. The words “Beyond Duplication” are still located on the foil wrapper at the spout and near on the bottom of the bottle. Here’s the chart showing you the differences one more time for reference:
As you can see, Unilabel was export-only, just like its predecessor. This may seem odd today, but Asia (Japan, specifically) was seen as having saved the bourbon industry through the terrible Glut years. They were buying bourbon when Americans wouldn’t. So when mature stocks of Wild Turkey began to run low in the 1990s, the decision was made to keep the old juice flowing to the country that helped support them the most.
Wild Turkey 12/101 “Uni-label”
I’ve tried scouring for any changes between this generation (2005-11) and previous generations (1982-2004). If you’ll recall, the first two generations of 12/101 had a chance of containing bourbon not distilled at Wild Turkey (Old Boone being the most famous example). The Split Label (1993-98) would have been the first time it was guaranteed to be all WT bourbon. Then the Faux/Pseudo label (1999-04) likely saw bourbon produced after changes to the distillation process were enacted in 1987 to limit urethane levels.
For Uni-label, I’d say that this generation has two possible differences that make it different from the others. These differences could have an impact on the flavor profile of the bourbon. The first is that in the early 90’s, Wild Turkey began to transition away from the cypress wood fermentation tanks towards more modern stainless steel ones. The transition would be complete by 1997.
Most Wild Turkey fans will point to this as the second-biggest reason why Wild Turkey doesn’t taste the same today as it did back then (the other being the barrel entry proof change in 2004/2006). They argue that the cypress wood could have contained residual particulates from other fermentation cycles which could influence subsequent fermentations. I know that’s also the purpose of adding sour mash back into a new fermentation tank, but one could argue that sour mash might change over time, especially if distilling operations are shut down for annual maintenance. What I’m trying to say is that the cypress wood staves acted like a further method of ensuring consistency among batches whereas stainless steel is completely sterilized between batches.
The second influence into why the bourbon used in Unilabel might be different involves the campus that the barrels were aged at. I couldn’t find an exact date, but Wild Turkey began their lease at the Camp Nelson warehouse campus sometime in the 1990s. Previously, those six metal-clad warehouses held Canada Dry bourbon which is too weird of a story to get into here. I’m not saying that this is absolutely a factor, but if Wild Turkey started to fill up Camp Nelson with “new fill” barrels even as early as 1999, that means technically the last year of Unilabel could have had some 12-year-old barrels from that campus in it. What’s more likely is that even if barrels were placed at Camp Nelson in 1993, then EVERY batch of Uni-label could have the possibility of Camp Nelson barrels in it.
If you’re new to Wild Turkey and haven’t had the chance to experience single barrels from Camp Nelson compared to Tyrone (or Macbrayer?), then do yourself a favor and start tracking down samples from each one to see the differences. Most people find Camp Nelson barrels to have a slightly different profile (fruitier, spicier, better) compared to barrels only aged at Tyrone (main campus).
With all the speculation out of the way, it’s time to actually just drink the damn bottle to find out for myself how this tastes. Bottoms up! I sampled this neat in a glencairn.
Tasting Notes
Nose: True to previous forms, this 12-year version still punches above its weight at least as far as how old it smells. The amount of oak (seasoned, funky and spice) speaks to how long it rested in a barrel while also bringing its friends leather and pipe tobacco along. The sweet scents center primarily on candy like Cow Tales and Bit-o-Honey candies. Baking spices like ground cinnamon, nutmeg and anise pair well with some of the more rye-forward notes I’m finding (pepper, floral and a bit of citrus). Speaking of fruits, I can find that traditional cherry note along with a little bit of rancio (the kind I’d find in a Tawny Port). No doubt that’s from the oxidation that some of these barrels have achieved.
Palate: Whereas the sweetness on the nose centered around caramel/vanilla and honey, the palate exposes a third type of sweetness, this time from those artificial, seasonal maple candies. The palate is a bit more sweet than oaky, but don’t mistake that for me saying that there’s no tannins here. I still find a blanket of oak (some musty, some seasoned) and a light tobacco note. Dark red berries (mostly cherries) lighten up the other flavors on my tongue while that rancio note appears again – so oxidized cherries I guess? The baking spices offer plenty of heft to this dram and I do think it drinks with a viscosity like it’s not just 101 proof.
Finish: It’s not the star of the finish, but the rye-forward notes come back into focus on the finish with licorice (anise), citrus and herbal notes just hanging around. They pair nicely with the tannins (leather, tobacco and lots of oak) and spices (cinnamon, peppercorns, nutmeg) which do come across a bit bitter just like the Faux-split label bottle I reviewed did. This one isn’t as bad, though.
Score: 8.7/10
I came into this review thinking this is where the 12-year version finally drops off. Surely Wild Turkey was getting low on their older stock and having to choose from lesser barrels to create each new blend. But that’s the thing about assumptions…
I made a comparison to a George T Stagg in my previous review of Faux-Split Label and that still rings true here – with the exception this has a bit more of that nutty character to it. I imagine that’s partly due to the rancio effect I was tasting throughout. And to expand on that, maybe this particular batch didn’t have much or any of those Camp Nelson barrels that I speculated on above. It tastes too oxidized to be made from barrels in such a windy location. That’s just my opinion though – what do you think?
Final Thoughts
Wild Turkey Uni-Label still demonstrates that it’s one of the best values in Wild Turkey today. It literally has everything you’d want and expect from not just an old Turkey product, but bourbon in general. If this was released today, nobody would bat an eye about spending upwards of $300 or $400 on it. Ironically, this is what it’s going for on the secondary market. So next time you’ve got that much money burning a hole in your pocket and you’re thinking which modern-day release to buy, maybe consider turning to the secondary market to pick one of these up. I guarantee you won’t regret it.