I've long thought standard Woodford to be one of the most overrated bourbons out there (overpriced, underflavoured, and something . . . synthetic about the whole affair--and don't even get me started on the "COTTON CANDY SENT THROUGH A WOODCHIPPER" that is the Woodford Double Oaked), so I shouldn't be surprised that their entry into the rye sector suffers from a lot of the same defects. The nose is . . . fume-y, full of solvent notes, glue, rubber cement. Some artificial banana underneath, with a bit of butterscotch and some herbal notes (big dill, mint, eucalyptus) tagging along. Slight vanilla. Taste is boozy and a bit thin, with a bit of a burnt-peanut backbone, some bitter, oversteeped tea, slight woody sourness. Light maple. Grainy, with some slight herbaciousness, and notes reminiscent of a bottom-shelf Speyside Scotch (I am under the impression Woodford uses a fair amount of barley in its mash, and some of the whiskey is distilled in pot stills, so maybe that's what I'm getting?). Over time, a bit of honeycomb drifts into the nose, and you get a bit of chocolate-mint and vanilla in the taste. But the finish is dry, citrus rind, bitter woodsy-ness. Not my favourite. Its weaknesses are well-disguised in cocktails (even spirit-forward cocktails like the Old-Fashioned, surprisingly), which achieve a nice sweet-spicy punchiness, but riddle me this: why would I lay down the dollars for Woodford Rye when Rittenhouse--which drinks better neat AND on the rocks, costs less, and carries a few extra ABV points to assert itself in cocktails--exists and is in fine supply?