Track your collection with unlimited notes and bottle quantities
GET IT NOW:
If you want to add an image with your reviews install the app.
GET IT NOW:
Learn More About Cookies
Excited to try this as I 'm a fan of the 1792 lines but I tend not to like the less aged items and am super in to the Full Proof and even more so the 12 Year.
Nose: Toasted pecan, dark caramelized sugar, vanilla, dried cherries.
Flavor: Lacking the harshness from the ethanol of the standard 1792 bottlings. Sweeter as well. Dark dried red fruits, vanilla, caramel, a little bit of barrel funk that I associate with fortified wine finished whiskey, and very little alcohol bite.
Finish: Medium short, a little spicy and nutty, a little drying as well. A little bit of funk that is somewhere between stinky weed and skunk that I found just a hair off-putting but not enough that I hated it.
Overall I liked it and I'd drink it again. If I found a bottle at MSRP (Yeah Right!) I'd buy it but not at secondary.
Fun variation on the base 1792. A little sweeter, a little more complex. Not amazing whiskey, and certainly not worth secondary-market prices, but a respectable and unusual dram.
We were gifted a bottle, and it's been worth having. It's most enjoyable now, as the port-flavors go well with fall-into-winter days. It's the dram I chose to sip on while decorating for Christmas, if that helps put it into it's place.
There aren't a lot of port-finished bourbons on the market (though the number is quickly escalating). Of the three I've had, I prefer the Angel's Envy port-finished to the 1792, though the 1792 comes out well ahead of the Abraham Bowman Port-finished. I haven't had all three in the house at the same time to do a blind tasting, so that's based on memory, but for most things the Angel's Envy should be the go-to--it's not worth the time to track down the 1792.