1792 Aged Twelve Years

I get caramel apple, vanilla, and oak in the aroma. Initial taste is pretty oaky and tannic, some sweetness in the middle of the palate but finishes very dry. Subsequent taste offered more sweet, maybe a hint of apple and caramel. There is also a slight spiciness, maybe white pepper, on the upper palate and it finishes with a light vanilla note. @aboutbeverages

Toasted red apple and caramel nose with a dusty caramel boozy vanilla taste. Medium dusty barrel finish.

Rating: 16/23 This one is a bit of a unicorn, which really makes me scratch my head. I get that 1792 has gained popularity recently and that 12 years is a relatively old age statement for bourbon these days, but surely a 12 year old bourbon shouldn't be that hard to find (unless it's Willett). N: This is nice. There's a rich toasted marshmallow quality that brings in vanilla and occasional notes of caramel, which leads into a really mellow but subtly nuanced woodiness. It's toasty, yet the grain shows through. I feel like I'm not describing just how interesting this is. The notes are subtle, but they're intricate and nicely balanced. I'm very impressed by this nose. P: Woody with some surprising spice burn. It's drier than I'd expected, but there is some nice richness in the toasted-marshmallow-vanilla-faint-banana range. The spices have an odd amount of chili flavor to them, with much more subdued baking spice. Plenty of dry wood and vanillin. It reminds me of I. W. Harper 15 in that regard. I'm getting some nice maturity here, but that chili spice does seem off and I'm not getting that nuance I got on the nose. I wanted a sweeter, mellower dram than this. I do get some woody depth, which I definitely did want, but it gives me an impression of whiskeys of different ages rather than one decently old dram. F: Yeah, the woodiness lingers, but not boldly. I do get some herbaceousness coming off of the cili, but all of that dimension is toned down a bit. I get some lingering burn and some faint baking spices (fresh ginger, clove, maybe cinnamon), but it's all very blurred together. There are some dry wood notes at times, but not a lot. It's quite restrained for a 12 year. - Conclusion - I wanted to love this, but I'm only moderately impressed. Russell's Reserve 10 (15-16/23) has more going on, but it tastes less mature and coherent than this does. As a sanity check, 1792 Sweet Wheat (15/23) tastes younger and less nuanced than this. I actually get some cotton candy out of the Sweet Wheat now, so I'm thinking that this is substantially better. My single barrel bottle of Resilient 15 (18/23) has a bolder wood decadence that is just so nice to sip, but doesn't achieve the nuance that this has. The Resilient approached polished wood while this is more subtle. That said, the Resilient has a fair amount of minerality, which doesn't show up side by side with this, so this may be a bit on the light side.Yeah, I'm getting more minerality here now. 1792 Full Proof (19/23 - though I think it's on the low side there) is more rich, full, and decadent than this is. It's sweeter with less wood, but it does have a bit of nice variation going on. It does emphasize its minerals a bit more as well. At the end of the day, this is great. It's not blowing my mind like a unicorn should, but there's a lot to appreciate here. There's no way that this is below a 16, but I don't think that it is as high as a 19. Well, I can imagine a 19, but I'm skeptical. I'm very much in the 17 to 18 range right now, though I'm leaning toward an 18. It's a tough call. Coming back to this, I don't see it being an 18. It's more of a 15 to 17. Eh, probably not a 15. It's a 16 or 17. Pulling out my last drops of I.W. Harper 15 (14/23), I do taste a lot of similarity. The I.W. Harper is richer, but also more bitter and less complex. I'm not that impressed by how much better this is though, so I'm going to land on a 16 here. I'd been looking to try this for a while but hadn't been able to track it down, so a big thanks to @Milliardo for sharing!

Ok. A little too much spice than I wanted.

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

Sweet maple flavor. If you can find you should get. It’s whiskey