Maker: Barton-1792, Bardstown, Kentucky (Sazerac)
Age: 8 y/o
Proof: 93.7 (46.85% ABV)
Appearance: middle-aged copper with big, thick legs that cling tenaciously to the glass.
Nose: Cotton candy, strawberry ice cream, a bit of wood and vanilla.
On the palate: Sweet, then some burn, fairly full bodied. More cotton candy, vanilla, strawberry and tart cherry pie, bubble gum.
Finish: Burn with a hint of candy. Very little wood, though.
Parting words: I dunno…this is a toughy. My opinion of 1792 changes quite a bit depending on the time of day and what else I’ve been drinking. Before supper or as the first whiskey of the evening, it is very tasty. After something more boldly flavored like Four Roses Single Barrel or Evan Williams Single Barrel (both close to the same age) 1792 falls flat. It makes a smooth Manhattan but I like mine with a little more spice and wood. To sum up, it ain’t bad, but it ain’t great either. I have to come down somewhere though, so I’m giving 1792 a mild recommendation.
Sipology 
I’m with you on this one. I bought my first bottle of this whiskey about 5 years ago. It was when I first started to get back into whiskey. A sexy bottle and an attractive price are what first attracted me to this bourbon. I liked it alot the first time around. Sadly, it wasn’t as pleasurable the 2nd time around. It’s not bad, but it just doesn’t stand up to other Bourbons out there. Knob Creek and Basel Hayden’s are better and similarly priced. Still love the bottle though.
Cheers!
G-LO
Yeah, my experience is pretty similar. I find it hard to say it’s really bad, but it doesn’t stand up like you said. My last bottle was signed by the former master distiller Greg Whatshisname, though. I think when I move into a house big enough for a bar, I’ll fill it with 80 proof VOB and set it out for decoration.
For me it’s not worth it to keep giving it a try when there are so many other better and more consistent bourbons out there.
It sounds like you’re trying to be generous. How about, “It doesn’t suck, but you’re better off with VOB.”
That pretty much sums it up!
I agree with all the comments, but one thing I forgot to mention in my notes is that it is the only (to my knowledge) Bourbon that could be characterized as “high malt” bourbon, as opposed to high corn (BT et al) or high rye (WT, OGD, etc). So it has that going for it. Which is nice.
My wife and I sampled 1792 after the distillery tour in early March. At 11 a.m., it tasted pretty good but we both concluded that there are other bourbons in the price range that we would rather buy–including VOB that costs a lot less. So, put us down under the same tree that White Dog is using when it comes to 1792
Sorry-not riding the “popular” bandwagon trails. I enjoy 1792. I don’t experience the “bubble gum,pine needles,leather-(really?? leather?) or supposed other goofy ‘notes’ some claim to find. I just think it tastes good.
Thanks for commenting. Leather is very common tasting note in aged spirits of all types. That aroma that I and many others detect is a result of tannins from the oak barrels. Tannins are also used in the production of leather. You might be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannin
reviews
1792 Ridgemont Reserve | Sipology