Tastes

1792 Series (11 of 12): Port Finish Fun story: Due to Latin dance, I was geeking out about wine-finished bourbons with the owner of a wine bar. You with me so far? Good. I told him I wanted to try finishing 1792 small batch in a small barrel (5 L) with some wine that would do a good job amplifying the fruity notes, which for me are cherry, fruit punch, and watermelon. We tried his Cabernet and his “custom red”, and while both were good, neither one quite balanced sweet and dry correctly for my needs. Then he said: “It’s a shame I don’t have my port right now. That sounds like exactly what you’re looking for.” Then I realized: 1792 figured this out way before I did. Of course it should be a port. That seemed to be the perfect finish for the flavor amp I was wanting to do. Needless to say: I went in a different direction for my project, and when I was able to get my hands on one of these, I was eager to find out if the end result lived up to the promise of the blueprint. Nose is cherries, plums, grapes, sugar. Tomato. Body is rich with grape, raisin, prunes. Some cherry. Apricot. Bit of almond. Finish has almonds and more cherry. A bit of the 1792 fruit punch sneaks in there. Very thick feeling, very sugary. Very low burn as well, which is impressive with the port influence. This is a heavier finish, but it’s well done. I was a bit skeptical at first, because in some ways it reminds me more of a Cabernet finish. It has a Prichard Hill vibe going on. However, I compared this to some of my favorite port finished bourbons (Angel’s Envy, Isaac Bowman, AE Cask Strength) and only the cask strength could come close in quality. And those comparisons put this whiskey in an awkward spot when it comes to value. The way they married the fruit punch flavor with the port is truly special. Possibly best in class stuff. But it’s still not worth what you’d have to pay to get a bottle these days. It’s a delicious bourbon that I hope your friend has and is willing to share. Seriously looking forward to the next on-deck: 1792 225th Anniversary

1792 Series (10 of 12**): Sweet Wheat **note: I may have just legally procured a 225th anniversary. Did you know: In the food world, rye products are known for being dense and sour. Wheat products are seen as bitter or plain-flavored. I think this holds true for bourbon as well. If I’m right (and real talk: I’m probably not) this would present a grain-specific barrier when comparing wheated bourbons to ryed bourbons, since “bitterness” is a mouthfeel. You can balance sourness with sweet flavors, but bitterness takes some getting used to, a phenomenon I’ve bumped into before with over-oaked or high proof whiskies. More on this later. Nose is caramel apples, dust, lemon. Mild strawberries. Body is maple syrup, brine, sweat cream, strawberries. Butterscotch. Very smooth. Finish is mocha, heavy whipping cream. Cherry. If you’re not careful, that brine and mocha combo can take you down a bitter route and bypass that sweetness altogether. If you’re getting an unpleasant bitter note on this, try swishing it around a bit. A Kentucky chew or two helped me get the sweeter notes by the end of my pour. I’ve heard that they call Weller or combinations of Weller products “poor man’s Pappy.” The winning recipe I’ve seen is 2 parts W12 with 3 parts OWA. This does a decent job from a flavor profile perspective, but it leaves out the semi-important fact that neither W12 nor OWA are “poor man” friendly. I’m not saying this Sweet Wheat is either, but it’s cheaper and more readily available if you know where to look. It honestly fits the PVW15 flavor profile pretty well. It’s not Pappy, but to me it’s as close as the Weller cocktail. If you like wheaters, you need to try this. It’s rough around the edges in comparison to the pricier wheat bourbons, and honestly, it tastes a bit harsh even next to my go-to wheater Weller SR. However, if you can get your palate there, they really dialed in a fantastic strawberry/cream combo that (prior to this) I’ve only enjoyed on PVW15, the whiskey leprechaun’s Chessman (long story), the Weller cocktail, and some random Old Forrester pick. Of this group, Sweet Wheat was the least refined instance of that flavor by a wide margin, but still: solid value if you see it in the wild. Seriously looking forward to the next on-deck: 1792 Port Finish

1792 Series (9 of 11): High Rye Did you know: “High-rye” can be a meaningless adjective. Four Roses has two mashbillls, one with 20% rye and one with 35%. Buffalo Trace (who does not disclose) is generally considered to have an 8-10% rye mashbill and a 10-15% rye mashbill, yet their staff will refer to these as the “low-rye mashbill” and the “high-rye mashbill.” This means BT’s “high-rye mashbill” likely contains less rye than the “low-rye mashbill” from Four Roses. (Note: back in 2019, both distilleries, unprompted, had a tour guide that cracked a well-natured joke toward the other distillery with regard to this irony.) However, there does seem to be some consistency when distilleries put a moniker on their bottle to suggest a higher rye content. Here are a few: Redemption High Rye = 36% Blue Run High Rye = 30% Garrison Brothers Rye Bourbon = 37% There are others that aren’t disclosed, like Jim Beam’s High Rye, but reasonable assumptions put those in the high 20s to low 30s. So while there isn’t a true “high-rye” distinction, there do seem to be some norms. Given all that plus the estimation that standard 1792 is 18% rye, I think we can probably make the same assumption here (high 20s-low 30s). Nose is honey, oak, syrup, apple. Cherry. Baking a cake. Raspberry. Jam. Love it. Body is grapes, apples. Bit of dust. Fruit punch is there. Raisin. Sugar. Whipping cream. Blood orange. Finish sneaks in late building up a baking spices note. I love it when the mouth feel changes over time on a finish, and this one is dynamic. It lingers with you. This is a spicier small batch. The flavors aren’t altogether that different from small batch, and this makes me want to adjust my speculation down to about 25% rye, all other factors equal. I like it a lot, and if this were a regular offering, this would be a 1792 that I keep in stock. The finish has about as good a mouth feel as a bourbon can supply. Looking forward to the next on-deck: 1792 Sweet Wheat

1792 Series (8 of 11): 12 Year Did you know: This is the part where I really wanted to be able to share a clear answer to the question: “Why do so many brands have a 12-year product?” In lieu of an answer, I have a rabbit hole of research/conspiracy theories to share. If you’re just here for the 1792 notes, skip on down to the ~~~ Some folk outright deny the 12-year prevalence, and in defense of that position, most of the American whiskies I see are NAS. However, more generally speaking, when there is a number front and center on the bottle, 12 does seem to be a common one. Dave Pickerell (Makers Mark) said a bourbon should be aged between 6-12 years. Harlen Wheatley (Buffalo Trace) said 8-12 is optimal for a rye bourbon. These types of comments lead some folk to view 12-years as a maximum of sorts: exceed with caution. In the scotch world, a magical place some people call “Scotland”, I’ve heard that 12-year single malt stock (purchasable by blenders) is so abundant that there is no significant cost hike in releasing a 12-year blend vs a 9, 10, or 11-year blend. When you combine this with the erroneous market perception that older is better, it’s easy to see how a 12-year designation could become a benchmark. Note: the specified age of a blended whisky must be no older than the age of its youngest part. Note #2: Scotland exports single-malt to freakin everywhere. Thus, the above mentioned market pressures in Scotland would transfer to other countries as well. With bourbon there is plenty of similar behavior going on, ie sourcing from MGP or… whatever the hell they’re doing at Bardstown. I don’t want to know. Please let me retain my misconception that company culture is real. Thing is: the 12-year bourbon labels that come to mind are distinctly not sourced. Think: Elijah Craig, Weller, ORVW, Knob Creek, 1792, etc. My favorite theory: the chicken and egg dilemma. Why do distilleries make 12-year products? Because people associate a 12-year product with quality. Why do people associate a 12-year product with quality? Because the distilleries appear to make that a benchmark year. I would love it if this is the true answer. One final spitball answer: if you’re making a older small batch bourbon, too much oak is a thing. The solution is to add in younger stuff. A bunch of bourbon legends have opinions. The age of your small batch is the age of your youngest part. It really might be that simple. If you have insider knowledge about this perceived 12-year benchmark across multiple countries and multiple types of whiskey/whisky, please share! I’ve been kicking this one around for a long time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nose is sour cherry, oak, maple, lemon. Vanilla. Smells sour. Perfume. To be honest, this smells a bit over-oaked. Reminds me of a Rhetoric. Body is thankfully not over-oaked. This tastes well-balanced. I get cherries, cedar, lemon, tobacco, syrup, brine. Bit of mandarin oranges. Finish is lemon, cherry, tea leaves. Salt. Cream. It’s all there. Every now and then, a bourbon tastes special. It’s an x-factor where the total is greater than the sum of the parts. This is one of those whiskies. Arguably not my favorite 1792, but I will still savor this bottle in a way I won’t savor some of the other ones. It demands sharing and slow-sipping. It tastes fancy. If you’re into the Russell’s Reserve/WTMK stuff, this would likely fit into your palate. It’s not an oak bomb like some, but definitely oakier than most. Looking forward to the next on-deck: 1792 High Rye

1792 Series (7 of 11): Full Proof Store Pick Note: I don’t have this exact pick, but this feels like one of those times where listing the exact pick probably isn’t worth the effort. Mine has no apparent difference from the main issue, aside from the little gold sticker. No special age statement, no barrel number. Did you know: The designation “Full Proof” has no correlation to the proof coming out of the barrel. I thought it was curious that the full proof 1792 products were always precisely 125 proof. This would be nearly impossible if the bottle was called “barrel strength.” Rather, full proof means they adjust the barrel strength down to 125 proof to equal the proof of the white dog going into the barrel. Neat! Nose is noticeably more astringent than standard FP. Somehow. Same proof, but it tingles the nostrils. Dust, sugar, lemon, cherries. Grapes. Oak. Sweet tea. Body again packs the punch. This one is super hot. There’s bubble gum, grapes, jelly, red wine. Sangria. Cherries. Coke? Finish is like hot lemonade. Bit of black pepper. This finish is delicious. This may be the first sour finish I’ve ever experienced. Not sour like a warhead, but this definitely has a sour mouth feel. On ice: Nose really focuses on the sweet tea. Body is chocolate, fruit punch, dill, mint. Finish is still sour lemons. Delicious. This is radically different from the standard issue, and that intrigues me. I also don’t know how you could create the standard issue with this plus other ingredients, which is more or less how I always assume single barrels differ from batch products. I think I prefer the standard issue, but this is delicious and has a right to exist. Looking forward to the next on-deck (and a descension back to more standard proofs): 1792 12 Year

1792 Series (6 of 11**): Full Proof **I may have just bagged a legally obtained Port Finish :) Did you know: Drinking high-proof whiskies is like running marathons. Even if you regularly run 5ks, you need to train up if you want to do your best. For whiskey, this is true for your palate. It’s not that you can’t go from Hancock’s (88.9 proof) to 1792 FP (125 proof) and have a good experience. It’s that no matter how good you are at pulling notes from whiskey, you won’t be as good as you could have been had you trained up for the high proof stuff. I strongly believe that. And even if I’m wrong, you can still pretend to believe me, thereby gaining a permission structure for drinking high proof whiskey daily under the pretense of training. Live to win, baby. Nose is delicious. Unfathomably gentle. Apple, sugar, peaches, cherries. Body packs the punch. There’s that ABV. The main notes are caramel and milk chocolate, but the cherry is there too. Orange. Honey. This is delicious. Finish is cinnamon, baking spices. Bit of honey and dark chocolate. Coffee. Brown sugar. Mint. Poured over precisely one piece of ice delicately molded to perfectly resemble an American football: Nose goes away for the most part. I hate that. Nose was so good. Maybe caramel? Sugar? Body: wow. This is refreshing. All of the things I loved about small batch. It’s cherries, it’s apples, “Oh Yeah” it’s fruit punch. Tangerine. Watermelon. Juicy as you get. All slightly chilled. It’s like I’m drinking a damn Gatorade. I could drink this playing tennis in Columbia, SC, at noon in July and be totally fine. If you know, you know. Finish has honey, orange, bubblegum, toffee. Mint. This is one of the purer high-proof whiskies I’ve tried. There’s no noticeable buildup of the imperfections from the juice line, a common side-effect of high proofs that I can’t help but notice in things like Benchmark, many of the Booker’s, and (hot take in 3… 2… 1…) Stagg Jr. I said it. All the things I’ve loved about SmB, SiB, BiB, SPSiB, and other abbreviations are jammed in here if you’re patient. I don’t live for the high proof whiskies. Too much work. But this is one of the better ones I’ve had. Possibly the best. TRULY looking forward to the next on-deck: 1792 Full Proof Store Pick, aka black label 2.0

1792 Series (5 of 10): Single Barrel Store Pick Did you know: There are distilleries that call their whiskies “single cask” even though they are technically combining multiple casks (potentially of different kinds) into one giant cask for final maturation. Single casks whiskies coming from multiple casks. I love this hobby. Nose is banana. Cream. Sugar. Melon. Strawberries. Yeast. Roses. Body is caramel, cherry syrup, chocolate. Celery. Red apples. Watermelon. The cherry syrup can border on medicinal, but aside from that it’s really well done. Finish is vanilla, cinnamon, more cherry. Lemon. As disappointing as the BiB store pick was in comparison to the standard BiB, this is the opposite. I found the standard SiB to be boring and plain. This store pick contains rich notes that I didn’t even catch a hint of in the standard issue. It’s complex and expertly balanced. My favorite 1792 so far, aside from the small batch. Looking forward to the next on-deck: 1792 Full Proof, aka black label

I’m impressed with the way these store picks can tweak the OG BT. This will be a side-by-side to really see how this little guy differs. Nose is extremely floral. I’m not certain that’s a note I normally pull from BT, but it’s perfume, roses, fresh cut grass. Melon. The other main BT notes are there. There’s apple, lemon, sugar, cream. But that perfume is pungent. Almost like it’s higher proof. Body is like licking a bouquet of flowers. That is intense. The apple I get from normal BT is hidden, and there’s usually a nutty note. Not here. 100% flowers and perfume. With effort I would add to that a weak butterscotch note. Finish is gentle, with mild cinnamon, chocolate, and cherries. Cane sugar lingers. Cinnamon buzz feels good. This is my favorite part of the drink. I’m incentivized to drink slowly and in moderation. Where normal BT is comparatively flat with lingering nutty notes, this one shines on the finish. The combination of pungent aromas and cinnamon buzz added to a known entity (BT) plays tricks on you. It makes you think this is at least 100 proof, and going back to BT, I am disappointed with that comparative flatness. I can’t say all the notes are done to perfection, and I’ve had other picks I prefer. However, this is still fascinating, and I’m sad to see it go.

1792 Series (4 of 10): Single Barrel Did you know: Barton 1792 has a whopping 30 barrel aging warehouses. I mean 29. Whoops. 29. Too soon? Nose is banana. Cream. Sugar. Menthol. Mint. Body is caramel, brine, pit fruits, fruit punch. Lemon. Grass. Finish is lemon, cherry, cinnamon, more brine. Bit of apple. This is good, but it’s not what you’d expect from a single barrel of a good whiskey (small batch). I often get the impression that small batches are compromises: the best stuff is diluted with inferior stuff for the sake of volume. I get the opposite impression here. This single barrel is one piece of a recipe, and it is not yet whole. With 4 down, I still do not see any reason to ever stock a 1792 whiskey that is not small batch, and that tall-boy handle is looking better by the day. Edit: I just mixed small batch into this single barrel, and it actually did make it more dynamic and enjoyable. Looking forward to the next on-deck: 1792 Single Barrel Store Pick, aka beige neck 2.0

1792 Series (3 of 10): Bottled in Bond Store Pick Did you know: Although the Bottled in Bond Act is typically branded as an “everyone wins” moment in the history of consumer protection, there was serious opposition. The biggest name I’ve found was Isaac Bernheim, founder of IW Harper, but given that only a fraction of American distilleries were producing what modern drinkers would call bourbon, a huge part of this early bourbon market must have been controlled by rectifiers, blenders, and scam artists. This opposition attempted to brand this act as monopolizing the whiskey market for distillers and as an attack on blenders and rectifiers, and ultimately, they failed. Although prohibition disturbed the chain of events to follow, I’d have to side with Colonel Taylor on this one. 125 years later, we still have blenders, we still have a version of the rectifiers, and when I buy a bottle of bourbon, I’ve never once had to wonder if I’m about to consume tobacco spit mixed with sulfuric acid. Winning. Nose is a bit fainter than the standard BiB. There is still sugar, banana, and yeast. Still alarmingly reminiscent of Jack or Woodford. What’s unique to this is the dominance of sugar. I don’t like this nose, but I’d call it an improvement. Body is very true to the nose. It’s sweet sugar, bananas, vanilla. It’s a banana float with whipped cream on top. Huge departure from the standard issue BiB here. Finish is cinnamon and pit fruits. Cherry, sangria. Fruit punch. Great finish. Almost tastes like a port finish. Compared to the standard BiB, this pick somehow shifts the flavor experience toward the finish. It’s different, and if you are really into the banana & yeast side of bourbon (Jack Daniels, Woodford, etc.) you would like this pick a lot. It’s a refined version of those “bottom shelfers.” For me, this one is much more generic and less interesting, and given the fact that it was more expensive due to its store-pick sticker, it’s a poor purchase in my opinion. Store picks will vary, just be wary. You might come home with something pricier and less special. However, I will give 1792 and my local store some credit for creating a noticeably different experience from the standard BiB. Looking forward to the next on-deck: 1792 Single Barrel, aka beige neck.