Milliardo
1792 Small Batch Bourbon
Bourbon — Kentucky, USA
Reviewed
March 23, 2022 (edited April 3, 2022)
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”
Create Account
or
Sign in
to comment on this review
@Milliardo Copy and paste this invite link: https://discord.gg/VSmCvzAQfH. If for some reason that doesn't work, I'll email it.
@skillerified Sounds fun! Shoot me an invite some time. [email protected]
@Milliardo Yes, please come join the Discord chat. I've learned a lot from being able to interact directly with some of these fools. :-) Also, you have 10 different bottles of 1792? I didn't know their line was that deep.
@BDanner two birds, one stone?
Your "Kentucky Fowl" might also land you in trouble with Wild Turkey.
@skillerified needs to lure you into wasting time pontificating on the Discord he started… your antics will find a good home there if you have time to spout off irrationally with us
@Milliardo i’m with you on the Booker’s. Too hot and young for me. But their 30th anniversary was damn good….the only one I liked.
@Ctrexman solid point. I still feel duped, but there is that
If you're looking for a home for all that Bookers I don't think you'll have trouble finding a trade partner