How much do you care whether a bourbon is non-chill-filtered? A question from Europe
In Scotch/world whisky circles, there is some nerd conversation about the issues of chill-filtration and added colour, since most countries allow caramel colorant E150a, and chill-filtration is the norm at ABVs 40-43%.
There must be some differences in the bourbon world. As straight bourbon, straight rye etc. can't be coloured, that is one less thing to care about, but since barrel proof bottlings seem such a big part of the enthusiasts' most highly rated bracket, how does this affect the conversation about filtration, and to how many US consumers is it an important issue?
I am very curious to what degree terms like 'uncut', 'unfiltered' or 'non-chill-filtered' play into purchasing decisions, compared to proof, age, mashbill and sourcing. Does a producer's filtering philosophy or track record become a point of 'maker affinity', or is the issue less important to the 'average discriminating US bourbon enthusiast' (should such a person exist)? And with the probability of high proof expressions being unfiltered (to some degree), is it considered less of an issue when the bottle doesn't mention it?
I keep a small registry ( r/SpiritClarity ) tracking who declares this on labels, a work-in-progress which is a fairly Scotch/Euro-centric list, but I have tried to include as many US producers as I can from over here. I'd greatly value corrections from people who know the landscape and depth of the subject much better than I do and would really like to get a sense of how much this issue matters to 'the bourbon lover'.