Tastes

I was kind of surprised I never reviewed this, as I’ve been nursing it for at least two years. Not good, y’all. And that pains me to say, because I respect this distillery. Nose is faint caramel. Not much to write home about. I think I can smell the glass itself about as much as I can smell the juice. Body is peanuts, sugar, salt, brine. Really salty. Finish is… baking spices? Yeast. This is lackluster in every possible way. I prefer the main line by a lot, which is never the way a store pick is supposed to go. I think they did a decent job making it drinkable as a 2-year product when compared to some young whiskeys, but that’s the only praise I can think of here. Miss all around. Side note: the legs on this drink look like I coated my glass with rain-x. I’ve never seen a whiskey do that before.

On my most recent trip to Kentucky, I was lucky enough to try some truly fantastic bourbons. Some of them, I’m still attempting to track down so I can have some more time with the flavors. To my great dismay, I’ve learned that some of these whiskies are virtually unobtainable for schmucks like me. This is one of the ones I can’t get. I’m fairly certain that the only way to try this is to buy a round at the Silver Dollar in Louisville (or some sister bar in TX). So if you find yourself in the area, you owe it to yourself to stop in and try this. Pricing was fair for what you get. Additionally, going back through my notes, it appears one of my “friends” on the trip must have inserted some extra comments that I leave in now for the sake of preserving history. Big thanks to @freeeeeeeedom for your contribution. Nose is powdered sugar, Nutella. Penis is my favorite mouthfeelsies with this one Body is heavy sugar and molasses, transitions slowly to a cherry flavor. The Heat really turns on on the backend. Finish is cinnamon, more sugar, and more cherry. A bit of water really opens up the cherry here. I could see wine as well. On ice, it’s phenomenal. All the harshness is gone, and the sugar and cherry work together. This is cherry juice. Postscript: I need new friends.

I don’t know what’s going on with these mashbill #1 store picks. Every now and then you’ll get a $40 (or less) bourbon that’s better than most of the standard MB1 portfolio, up just past EHT single barrel in quality. This is one of those times. Nose is green apple, brine, sugar, mild oak, vinegar. Body is green apple, leather. Cherry. Honey. Milk. Finish has mild cinnamon, more apple, hint of vanilla. Brine hits at the end of the finish. This was truly special. If the reason it’s gotten harder to regularly find MB1 products on the shelf is because of barrel pick programs like this, I think I’m okay with that.

In a blind taste test bracket with friends that took 3 years to complete (long story) this whiskey started out as a 2-star whiskey for me. I didn’t try it for 3 years, and when we got back to it, I thought it deserved to be in contention for the best on the board. I don’t know what my palate has been through to make that happen, but this little guy deserves a fair revisit. Nose is heavily aged. There’s cedar, sour grapes, sugar, grass. Bit of pear. Oak is dominant. Body has cherries, leather, sugar, salt. Heavy oak. The pear is still there. Finish is red wine, cinnamon, salt. I love this whiskey. May be one of the best value bourbons on the market today.

1792 Series (12 of 12): 225th Anniversary Did you know: This bottle does not celebrate the anniversary of the distillery, but of the statehood of Kentucky. If you do about 30 seconds of research (or 5 seconds of math) this is obvious. Most of us know that 1792 is not the year Barton was founded but rather the year Kentucky became a state. 1792 + 225 = 2017. Thing is, most “anniversary” bottles mark the anniversaries of a distillery or a product line. I had never really stopped to think about how this one was a bit different. Fingers crossed that in 2114 Barton will release ANOTHER 225th anniversary bottle marking THEIR 225th, and collectors will pair these as the Barton 225th anniversary set. Nose is lemon, cedar, sugar, cherries. Faint red apples. Smells decently aged, 12-15yrs. Love this. Body is sweet cream, cherries, green apple. Sugar. Delicious. Finish is gentle and sweet. Cream and cherries carry on. Faint baking spices on the backend. This is perfection. This is the best 1792 has to offer and it isn’t close. I can’t find fault with this drink. Amazing. Generally speaking, I’d skip the store picks, and here’s my official ranking of all the 1792 products, best to worst: 225th Sweet Wheat Port Finish 12 Year High Rye FP Small batch BiB SiB

Bottle kill quickie: Nose is caramel, oak, lemon, sugar. This is as knob creekish as you can get, although I can’t detect the high ABV. Body is sweet tea. Heat pops in here. Hot damn. There’s sugar, lemon. The sweet tea is the main note though. Finish is cinnamon, spices. Mild tobacco. On ice, I can get more of the leathery notes I often associate with knob creek. Other than that, just a less hot version. This ain’t special. It’s fine.

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