Paddleford Creek Bourbon (83 Proof)

Tasting from a 50ml. While at the store and having noticed they had a lot of different 50ml sizes of whiskeys that I had not heard of or had, I only decided on this one. The problem is, I can't remember why I thought I was going to enjoy this one over any of the other mystery bottles. All I remember is shuddering at the charcoal filtering, but I guess curiosity won me over somehow. Fortunately, the scent here is actually quite a bit enticing, so long as you can get past the extreme napalm that is ethanol vapor. I can smell the nuttiness that Jack Daniel's brings to the party, which I associate with charcoal filtering, since I steer clear of any other brand that uses that same filter medium. However, this is also easily detectable as a bourbon, because the corn seems to rule over the remainder of the nose with a lot of sweetness and sugar. Upon first taste, I struggle with getting anything other than the charcoal filtering nuttiness after a few seconds, likely due to the weak proof. The comparison here to Jack Daniel's was good, and honestly, it's hard for this product is distance itself much further than that. I'm getting a little bit of barrel and young corn sweetness in the middle of everything, but the finish comes quickly, burning any other taste profiles out of the way. As I go back for a few more sips, it's actually the smell that I don't like, leading me to believe this is something different; in fact, I would easily be convinced this is Jack Daniel's but aged in a freshly used bourbon barrel, or a re-charred bourbon barrel, something catchy like that. It's not winning any flashy awards, but I didn't think that's what path I was on here anyway. Honestly, if you're looking for a comparable, yet still different charcoal filtered whiskey, I would actually recommend this. I feel like following all the other painstaking rules to get bourbon on the label (and then filtering it at all, let alone through charcoal) is giving people a false hope of things that could have been. I would say if the strict new barrel rule were dropped (so barrels could be reused and helping to mellow the corn even more) and the proof were increased just slightly to say, 90, then this would actually be a pretty good whiskey without any other standards to worry about.

Color: Light gold, amber Nose: Peach | Strawberry | Light Oak. A surprisingly pleasant nose with a slight touch of ethanol. The youthfulness of this bourbon is subtle but present. Palate: Light mouthfeel. The fruitiness of the nose fails to come through. Light caramel and fresh wood notes that quickly dissipate. Finish: Short finish that doesn’t leave you with much. Not offensive, just not there.

Nose - vanilla, brown sugar, banana, maple, caramel, barrel char, moderate ethanol burn. Taste - sweet vanilla, brown sugar, caramel, maple, cinnamon, wheat, banana, cola, sweet oak, moderate alcohol bite, finishing quickly and super sweet with caramel and barrel char flavors. It’s extremely sweet and artificial tasting, which becomes sickening after a few sips. Better as a mixer, if you must.

The nose is fruit forward. Apple, banana, and some orange peel. There isn't much else to say on that. It's very thin. Some of those fruit notes come through. Very light vanilla and oak. Caramel finish. There's a real lack of flavor here, very flat.

An elegant, Bourbon from Minnesota. It has a rich birth with notes of caramel & toasted nuts; while a bold life adds notes of corn, grain, oak & toast; that led to a long & balanced death with notes of tobacco & earth. May 2018 / August 2019 / 2022

Aromas are leather and wood. Some vanilla. cinnamon. peach. Apple pie. Flavors lose almost all of that. First hit is hot alcohol. Harsh burn. The wood holds on. The leather comes back in the finish as the burn fades away.