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