GG, GH, GI have all been very good. From my understanding, anything released up to today, and for the immediate future, should have a significantly larger proportion of 10 year old barrels in the mix. WT101 is currently advertised as a blend of 6-8 year old barrels.
I happen to feel bourbon hits its sweet spot between 10-14 years old in most instances; too young (as most releases are these days) and it tastes less complex and more alcohol forward, too old (looking at you pappy 20/23) and it's like drinking oak tincture. Obviously bottling "to taste/profile" has its merits, but there is no substitute for time in the wood. I have yet to find a bourbon that I thought was better after its age statement had been removed or lowered, and I've proven this multiple times with countless blind tastings. Bourbon can reach maturity sooner than anticipated, and in fact become "too ripe", but this most definitely an exception, and not the rule.
I'm pretty basic when it comes to bourbon, really.
Give me a corn heavy mash bill, preferably sweetened up with some wheat, (or the rye portion throttled back some), give me 10 years in the wood, and give me at least 94 proof, 100 being better, 107 being optimal. To me, that is basic bourbon, which used to be so common, but now is getting harder and harder to find.
Jim, Jack, and the rest of the watered down, over-priced regulars are basically swill to me at this point; genuine proof and age is actually needed to carry flavonoids. If it wasn't for the advertising campaigns and ties to Sinatra, run of the mill JD would be bottom shelf $15 whiskey at best.