Smokeye Hill Barrel Proof Straight Bourbon Whiskey Review

Don't like ads?

No ads

By this point, most of you have already heard about Smokeye Hill Barrel Proof Bourbon. It gained notoriety when it beat Buffalo Trace’s George T. Stagg bourbon in the 2024 ASCOT awards category for “Best Small Batch Bourbon.”

I watched the video of the small batch competition here to see how it all went down. Fred led a blind tasting with 9 other judges who each sampled 5 bourbons side-by-side. The bourbons were EH Taylor Small Batch, Smoke Wagon Small Batch, Smokeye Hill Barrel Proof, George T. Stagg and Ben Holladay Rickhouse Proof.

The main thing that struck me as odd wasn’t the fact that the Smokeye won, it’s how the voting process was conducted. The first issue I have is that the judges were all talking to each other and laying out their own opinions during the tasting phase. You might say it’s all banter, but I view it as 10 salespeople trying to sell the others on their opinion during the tasting session. On a personal note from doing many barrel picks, I dislike this. If you’re doing it for fun, that’s fine, but having a discussion during a pick allows the strongest-willed person to steer the group in a direction they might not normally have taken. I’ve literally seen barrel pick team members get bullied into changing their opinions based on the will of the group leader.

At the end of the video, Fred calls a vote – he’s going to call out the code on the glencairn and each panel member will raise their hand if they think that one is the best, He starts with “4A” and scans the table for hands. Nobody raises one. Then *before* he calls out the next glass, he raises his own hand up and then announces “who liked 4B?” (that’s the Smokeye Hill glass). His eyes widen as he scans the table. It appears like he’s staring everyone down. His tone changes and he says “That was my vote!” Four other panel members raise their hand as well. How many of them would have voted for the Smokeye if they had to cast an anonymous ballot?

Only two members went on to vote for the GTS and three voted for the Ben Holladay. Another anecdote about this category was that all of the panel members selected only barrel proof offerings. Why weren’t EH Taylor Barrel Proof or Smoke Wagon Uncut and Unfiltered substituted for their 100 proof counterparts? Non-barrel proof whiskies will lose against barrel proof ones 99 times out of 100. It’s not a fair fight.

What Fred did was assert his dominance onto the panel – whether intentional or not – to vote a certain way. He even went on to mildly chastise one of the members that voted for GTS. While I’m sure that none of the panel feared for their livelihood if they didn’t agree with him, their own reputation could take a hit if they didn’t agree with the majority. These are people whose reputations are important in their field of work. In my opinion, a true awards panel should conduct their tastings privately (or at least quietly) and cast their votes in the same manner. This is the only true way to ensure no undue influence impacts their vote.

As I watched more of Fred’s ASCOT awards, I realized that the setup and filmography all had a certain “Reality TV” vibe to it. I can’t blame Fred for going in that direction because it will probably attract more viewers that way. My biggest takeaway to people who might assume that the ASCOTs are a better awards competition than another is that it shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than the other ones.

More about Smokeye Hill Barrel Proof Bourbon

Maybe I am over-analyzing the ASCOT awards too much. Maybe Smokeye Hill bourbon is genuinely a very good bourbon. It just seems strange to me that a 5+ year old bourbon (which is what Smokeye’s website says it is) can “beat” a bourbon more than three times its age. So what’s the story?

It’s no secret that the bourbon inside was distilled at the Ross & Squibb Distillery (MGP) in Lawrenceburg, Indiana. No, it’s not a standard MGP recipe. Instead, the secret lies in Smokeye’s own proprietary recipe it gave to the distillery. What we know is that it still involves corn, rye and malted barley. What’s different is the corn varietals listed are “blue and yellow” corn. These are both heirloom varieties of corn. And yes, even I had to double check to make sure “yellow corn” wasn’t the same as field corn, haha.

I have typically been very lukewarm towards bourbon made with heirloom corn, but that might be because craft distilleries usually use less-proven yeast strains and/or pot stills to make it. This results in a more raw experience that creates a grainy, oily bourbon that usually lacks some sweetness for some reason. All of this could be a non-issue with MGP keeping their same processes in place while substituting a new corn in the mash.

Once the new make was complete, Smokeye’s website seems to insinuate that the white dog gets trucked all the way to Colorado to get barreled. I can’t say for sure, but based on the final proof of these batches, Smokeye may have barreled this bourbon at 125 proof instead of MGP’s standard 120. Speaking of barrels, their barreling process seems a little strange. They use both 30 and 53 gallon barrels and also vary the char levels of them between #2 all the way to #5 (which is right before the barrel starts to fall apart). They are left to age in the dry Colorado climate where they inevitably rise in proof.

For this first release, Smokeye Hill released a handful of small batches that are distinguished through a unique, handwritten proof on the label. The bottle that was submitted to the ASCOT Awards came in at 65.5% ABV or 131 proof. That’s the bottle I’m reviewing today. I’ve found four other Smokeye Hill batches wearing proofs of 131.2, 131.4, 132 and 134.2 so if you have one of those, your experience may differ from mine.

If I were a betting man, I’d say these batches were probably made up of 20-30 barrels each because that’s typically the size that most blending vats come in. I’ll update this section if I hear otherwise. So how does this bourbon taste? Let’s find out. I sampled this neat in a glencairn.

Tasting Notes

Nose: Scents of buttery pastries mix with a bready/grainy note. That might be some of the youth still working its way out, but for the most part, the nose does smell quite developed. I am picking up on vanilla cupcakes with brandy-soaked cherries and raisins. The sweetness comes from caramelized sugars, fudge and a hint of table syrup. Baking spices are gentle – does that mean that the rye content is low? Finally, I find a nice amount of oak on the nose. I wasn’t expecting that.

Palate: For being this high in proof, the burn isn’t that bad. I can taste brown sugar, more of those brandy-soaked grapes/raisins from the nose and citrus (orange and lemon). Spices include cinnamon and peppercorn with pine needles showing up over time. Each sip has a very creamy mouthfeel. The rye makes itself known though a flavor that seems a lot like Twizzlers. The youthfulness of the bourbon gradually reveals itself as the session goes on. It’s not much, but it’s there. Oak and tobacco notes can be found but they don’t have the polish of an older bourbon. I will be interested to see what this turns into over the next 3-4 years.

Finish: Big herbal flavors end my session with this bottle on a rye-forward note with plenty of herbs, ground peppercorns, mint and anise/licorice. If I was given this blind and asked to judge it solely on the finish, I’d think it was a rye whiskey. Tannins center around oak and barrel char and taste a little more refined than they did on the palate. Residual fruit notes center around those raisins, maybe some cognac flavors and citrus. Grainy notes return to the finish in the form of vanilla graham crackers.

Score: 7.9/10

This is definitely a bourbon that’s packed full of flavor. For being only 5 to 6 years old, I was surprised with how much developed oak and tannins I found. More importantly, the breadth of fruit and spice notes impressed me while the rye flavors stood out a lot more prominently than I expected. The proof definitely elevates the sip, but never feels like it gets too hot. This drinks closer to 120 proof.

The only thing I will ding this bourbon on is the lack of “cohesiveness” in the flavors. Rather than supporting each other, they seemed to come at you one by one. This concept is hard to explain, but a whiskey that’s cohesive might have flavors like “cinnamon-spiced cherry jam” or “honeyed oak.” Those are profile notes that you can distinctly taste together, but couldn’t picture them apart from each other.

Final Thoughts

The hype of the ASCOTs has caused the initial batches of Smokeye Hill Barrel Proof to sell out. It has even gained a secondary marketplace value of around $120 (up from its suggested retail price of around $80). That’s not as unreasonable for a bourbon that won a (prestigious?) award. I want take a second to remind my readers that original batches of Smoke Wagon Uncut and Unfiltered saw similar valuations in the secondary community.

It all comes down to how badly you want a taste. While I don’t think that this is “just another bottle of MGP bourbon for your collection,” I also don’t think the apple has fallen too far from the tree. There is some real promise here in what this bourbon is and what it should become. Plus, I like the concept of producers providing their own specs to a heritage distillery to make a product that’s refined and familiar. That’s a path I wish more of them would take. So go ahead and splurge if you’re in the mood for something new. Just don’t expect it to taste better than GTS.