Tastes

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.

1792 Series (2 of 10): Bottled in Bond Did you know: You can have Bottled in Bond vodka? I didn’t think this was possible, as the BiB act stipulates that you have to age the spirit in wood for at least 4 years in a federally bonded warehouse. Turns out: you could line the wood with something to prevent the spirit from making contact. Boom. BiB vodka. Nose is oddly plain. There was a lot going on in small batch, but not so here. There’s sugar, banana, yeast. Caramel. Very reminiscent of Jack or Woodford. Body is completely different, and I’m grateful. There’s caramel apple, jello, fruit punch, watermelon, cherry, sangria. Bubblegum. Delightful. Finish lingers with mild cinnamon and Hawaiian Punch. That last note is so good here. This is possibly an even bigger juice bomb than the small batch, and I tend to prefer this proof point. However, the nose is weaker somehow, and the small batch is a bit smoother. Overall, I think I prefer small batch. Still a solid bottle. Looking forward to the next on-deck: Bottled in Bond store pick, aka “yellow label 2.0”

One-time series introduction (I promise I won’t repeat): Milliardo collects things. Milliardo discovers bourbon. Now Milliardo collects bourbon. Sometimes his collections go well, like collecting all the letters in Blanton’s gold just before the gold rush. Sometimes his collections go super-duper poorly, like when he collected 4 years worth of Booker’s before he realized he didn’t actually like Booker’s. Or that time he collected a 5th year of Booker’s because he plays to win—even when winning is really just losing with a nose of denial and a stubborn finish. One thing Milliardo collected was 1792. Because they were pretty. That was literally the only reason. The tops were shiny and the collars were colored differently. Done. Take my money. Almost a year later, it’s time to see if these are any good. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1792 Series (1 of 10): Small Batch Did you know: Woodford Reserve sued the Barton 1792 distillery for initially calling this product Ridgewood Reserve. And the bastards won. I guess 69% of your name can’t match anyone else’s name. Ever. There goes Milliardo’s dream of distilling a wildly overpriced bourbon called “Kentucky Fowl” that’s such a poor value that when I later tint the label green, turn the dial slightly, appeal to an alcoholic holiday, and reduce the price to “only mildly overpriced” people will praise me for my improvements and forgive my prior failures completely. After the suite, this juice became Ridgemont Reserve until Sazerac bought Barton 1792 and changed this product’s name to small batch. My takeaway from all that history: much like Milliardo, this juice has a valid reason to hold a grudge against Woodford. I feel a bond forming already. Nose is astringent… which is odd for this ABV. Past that there is sugar, lemon juice, green apple, cantaloupe. Banana. Incredible nose once you get past the burn. Body is a juice bomb. Smooth too. Orange, fruit punch, sugar, caramel apple. Grapes. Gummy bears. Normally I don’t go for that last one, but it works for me in this drink. There is a bubblegum finish. I’m not sure I’ve ever experienced that before. There’s mild cinnamon, and the juice from the body lingers a bit, but that bubblegum note is not going to be denied. Cough syrup at the end? Don’t love that. I really expected this to be mediocre, but overall I love this whiskey. Huh. Can’t believe I’ve been sitting on (and not enjoying) this readily-available, mid-shelf whiskey for over a year now. I could easily see this becoming an every day sipper in my future. Looking forward to the next on-deck: Bottled in Bond, aka “yellow label”

Sup, Matthew McConaughey. Currently finishing this sexy looking bottle in my new Lincoln. Nose has sour wood, sugar, cherry, lemon. Body has baking spices, oak, syrup. Finish is gentle, with black pepper and licorice. This drinks like water. I don’t love the profile, and the best part for me is the nose. The body feels empty and is hard to enjoy. This will likely turn into a mixer or that whiskey you put nearby for that periodic “one final drink when it doesn’t matter,” and I likely won’t ever buy again.

Years ago, I declared that this was the better single barrel when compared to Blanton’s. Since then, my overall appreciation for Wild Turkey juice and Buffalo Trace juice has more or less flipped, and I suspect it will be hard for me (in all my mashbill #2 fanboyness) to maintain my former position. I revisit this tonight to find out. Nose has tons of sugar. There’s caramel, cedar, roses. Honeydew. Body is pancake syrup, sugar, baking powder. Dough. Butter. Black pepper. Finish is cinnamon, orange, and more caramel. I could see tobacco, but not as strong as in something like four roses. I’ve changed my mind. This is a good bourbon, and it’s readily available. But it’s not the single barrel champ that I once thought it was. I will likely figure out what I like best between this, Longbranch, and Russell’s Reserve 10, and just not buy the other two anymore.