Tag: Barton-1792

1792 Full Proof, Single Barrel Select, Red Wagon Shoppe.

JoshLeave a comment

Maker: Barton 1792, Bardstown, Kentucky, USA (Sazerac)

Style: Rye recipe straight bourbon whiskey (high malt?)

Age: NAS (I don’t remember if the store disclosed the age), but at least four years old.

Barrel #8683

Proof: 125 (62.5% ABV)

Michigan state minimum for 1792 Full Proof: $47

Tasted with a splash of water (don’t be a hero when it comes to 125 proof bourbon)

Appearance: Dark copper.

Nose: Dark caramel, charred oak, Habanero chili.

Palate: Full-bodied and semi-dry. Caramel, white pepper, anise, allspice.

Finish: Dry with some sweet heat.

Parting words: This is my first review of any kind of Full Proof 1792. I did review 1792 Single Barrel from the pre-divorce Red Wagon alongside a selection from the Rural Inn. I believe that last bottle of Full Proof I owned, however, was a selection from the Rural Inn. It tasted good, but I always got a wicked headache afterwards. I’m not sure why, but unchill-filtered bourbons have a tendency to do that to me.

No such complaints for this Red Wagon (Rochester Hills) selection, though. It has big caramel flavors with some holiday spice in the background. It’s not particularly complex, but with a splash of water, it’s a very nice winter or autumn sipper. $47 isn’t chump change, but when the high proof is factored in, it’s a pretty good deal, especially compared to how much microdistiller or Potemkin distillery products go for these days. Red Wagon selections almost never disappoint. Full Proof 1792 Red Wagon Shoppe, Single Barrel Selection barrel #8683 is recommended!

Kirkland Bottled-in-Bond: Barton 1792

JoshLeave a comment

Maker: Barton 1792, Bardstown, Kentucky, USA (Sazerac)

Style: Bonded rye recipe (high malt?) bourbon.

Age: At least 4 y/o.

Proof: 100 (50%) ABV

Michigan State Minimum: $36/1 liter (works out to $27/750 ml)

Appearance: Medium copper.

Nose: Alcohol, five spice powder, dark caramel, velvet.

Palate: Medium-bodied, semi-dry. Caramel, thyme, oak, white pepper.

Finish: Dry and lightly woody.

Mixed: Good with Benedictine, and in a Manhattan.

Parting words: I reviewed the Kirkland Small Batch last summer. Back then I expressed my hope that the bonded would come in soon. It came in a few weeks after that and I got three bottles. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to review it until today, and even more unfortunately, I’m only down to one more bottle.

As one would expect, this is a step up from the Small Batch, though not nearly as much as I had hoped. There’s more complexity and depth, for sure. The cinnamon candy had been replaced with five spice, and there’s more caramel and tannic grip to it. It cleans up nicely compared to its Small Batch sibling, but it’s still not quite what I would call elegant. I would rank it below Very Old Barton and 1792 bonds, but just barely.

Still, for a store brand at this price, it lives up to expectations. It’s good in traditional cocktails, but like the Small Batch, it’s at its best on the rocks. If this one every comes around again, buy it.

Kirkland Bottled-in-Bond: Barton 1792 is recommended.

Final parting note: I took the Pepsi Challenge with this (diluted to 90 proof), Very Old Barton 90 proof, and 1792 Full Proof (diluted to 90 proof) to attempt to determine which mashbill the Kirkland BiB was: VOB or 1792/Kentucky Tavern (supposedly a high malt bourbon). I’m only about 67.924% sure, but I think the current Kirkland BiB was made from the 1792 mashbill. It has a certain spicy, burnt note on the palate and finish that bears a resemblance to it. If I am ever able to get a hold of the Single Barrel (which is in the current price book, but I have not seen on a shelf), I will attempt the same exercise.

Kirkland Small Batch: Barton 1792

Josh1 Comment

Maker: Barton 1792, Bardstown, Kentucky, USA (Sazerac)

Style: Standard recipe straight bourbon.

Age: NAS (at least 4 y/o)

Proof: 92 (46% ABV)

Michigan state minimum: $28/1 liter. Comes out to $21/750 ml

Appearance: Shiny copper.

Nose: Pretty hot for a 92 proofer. Cinnamon imperials, baking spice.

Palate: Cinnamon disks, cayenne pepper, oak.

Finish: More candy notes, but some oaky tannin and caramel.

Parting words: When Costco announced that they were going to be releasing a new line of Kirkland bourbons, all distilled at Barton 1792, I was excited, even though there were some who shrugged their shoulders. As you know, dear readers, I love Very Old Barton. Unfortunately, it’s highly allocated in the Great Lakes State where I live. As much as I love it, I find it hard to motivate myself to drive all over the metro area looking for a $14 bourbon. Kirkland Small Batch is slightly easier to find, but at least it comes in bigger bottles.

The question on my mind when this line was announced was which recipe was going to be used for it, Barton or the high malt 1792 recipe. After spending a couple months with this bottle, I can firmly say that I have no idea. If pressed on the matter, I would say Barton, given the sweetness and spice.

Either way, this is pretty much what I expect in a $21 bourbon. Some oak and spice, but a little thin. Strangely enough, I actually like this bourbon better on the rocks. Everything seems to be much more harmonious and integrated.

At any rate, Kirkland Small Batch: Barton 1792 is recommended! I really hope my local Costco gets some of the Bottled-in-Bond, or Single Barrel in soon!

1792 Sweet Wheat

JoshLeave a comment

Maker: Barton 1792, Bardstown, Kentucky, USA (Sazerac)

Style: Wheated Straight Bourbon

Age: NAS (at least 4 y/o)

Proof: 91.2 (45.6% ABV)

Michigan state minimum: $36 (listed as “SWEAT WHEAT”)

Appearance: Medium copper.

Nose: Alcohol, vanilla, apricot, char.

Palate: Full bodied and sweet. Crème brûlée with apricot and vanilla bean.

Finish: Short and drying.

Parting words: 1792 Sweet Wheat is an extension of the 1792 Bourbon line of (originally) high malt bourbons. It is presumed by people who have looked into these sorts of things (like me) that it is the same recipe as the old Kentucky Tavern bourbons. Constellation took this recipe and used it to create 1972 back when it owned the Barton Distillery. When Sazerac bought the distillery, they gave the bottle a makeover and created a number of line extensions, the most successful of which have been the barrel proof and single barrel expressions.

Sweet Wheat is a different beast from those, though, because the recipe has been changed. The rye has been swapped out for wheat, putting it into the same category as Maker’s Mark, Larceny, Weller, and the notorious Van Winkle bourbons. It fits somewhere between Maker’s and Larceny/Old Fitzgerald in terms of flavor. It’s not as delicate as Maker’s and Weller, but not quite as sharp and yeast-driven as the Heaven Hill wheaters. I like it a lot at $36, but I like it less at what I paid for it.

If you can find it for <$45, buy it. Any more than that, and you’re overpaying. 1792 Sweat, err Sweet, Wheat is recommended.

Thomas S. Moore, Cabernet Sauvignon cask finish

JoshLeave a comment

Maker: Barton 1792, Bardstown, Kentucky, USA (Sazerac)

Style: Rye-recipe bourbon finished in Cabernet Sauvignon casks.

Age: NAS (at least 4 y/o)

Proof: 95.3 (47.65% ABV)

Michigan state minimum: $70

Appearance: Ruddy brown.

Nose: Overdone cherry pie, particle board, alcohol, anise.

Palate: Full bodied. Cherry juice, oak, then burn.

Finish: Cherry vanilla ice cream, alcohol.

Parting words: Sazerac has done a lot with the Barton distillery in Bardstown since they purchased the distillery from Constellation in 2009. The latest thing is the Thomas S. Moore line of wine barrel finished bourbons.

I’m not a purist when it comes to finished bourbon. I think a finish can be a nice addition to bourbon when applied judiciously and when the underlying bourbon is good quality. Fortified wine finishes are pretty common with whiskeys of all kinds, so I thought I’d try the Cab Sauv finish first. The finish adds some fun, fruity notes, but they’re quickly overcome by an underlying unrefined harshness. Water reduces the heat, but the harshness remains. It reminds me of going to my senior prom. I was wearing a tux and a sporting a fresh haircut, but underneath I was the same crude, rude teen.

If this were $20 cheaper, this harshness might be easier to overlook or I could write it off as an interesting mixer, but $70 is serious money for a bourbon from a major distiller. Sazerac can do better than this.

While I’m at it, I might as well mention the bottle and label, which are worse than what’s inside. The two tone horse picture, disjointed graphic design, and ugly, generic bottle, makes Thomas S. Moore look more like a prop from a mid-century movie set than a 21st century high-end bourbon.

Thomas S. Moore, Cabernet Sauvignon cask finish is not recommended.

1792 Bottled in Bond

JoshLeave a comment

Maker: Barton 1792, Bardstown, Kentucky, USA (Sazerac)

Style: High malt (?) bonded bourbon.

Age: At least four years old (all from one distilling season).

Proof: 100 (50% ABV)

Michigan state minimum: $38

Appearance: Medium copper.

Nose: Roasted corn, sweet malt, cayenne powder.

Palate: Cola, alcohol. With water. Caramel, cola, less burn.

Finish: Sweet and custardy. Sweet cola (yes again) with melted ice cubes.

Parting words: For many years, the Bottled-in-Bond category was a guarantee of quality among American whiskeys. Then, when I was getting into the hobby, it was most common as a sign of a good value. The pendulum has swung back a bit these days and premium bonds are making a comeback. The new, pricey Old Fitzgerald and Heaven Hill BiBs, Henry McKenna, and now 1792.

I like the standard expression well enough, and I have really enjoyed the single barrel and barrel strength editions I’ve had. Sadly, the Bottled-in-Bond doesn’t live up to those. It’s not bad, it’s just not enough of an improvement on the Small Batch to warrant $8 more dollars and the hard work of trying to locate a bottle. Ironically, it may be hampered by being bonded and restricted to one distilling season. There’s a lack of complexity that the addition of older bourbon might be able to fix.

1792 Bottled-in-Bond is only mildly recommended.

Head to Head: Ray’s vs Red Wagon 1792 Single Barrel

Josh1 Comment

20170120_101320.jpgMaker: Barton 1792, Bardstown, Kentucky, USA (Sazerac)

Age: NAS

Proof: 93.7

Michigan state minimum: $42

Ray= Selected by Ray (Rural Inn, Indianapolis, Indiana)

RW= Red Wagon (Troy, Michigan)

Appearance

Ray: Light copper

RW: Darker, medium copper.

Nose

Ray: Alcohol, grape bubblegum, leather.

RW: Over-toasted walnuts, cut grass, caramel.

Palate

Ray: Sweet and fruity, then burn. With water it becomes sweeter with more vanilla and less fruit.

RW: Caramel apple, oak, burn. Oakier with vanilla and classic old bourbon flavors when water is added.

Finish

Ray: Brown sugar, then burn. Water brings the fruit back out.

RW: A little chewy, then lingering warmth.

Parting words: The Sazerac corporation purchased the Barton-1792 distillery from Constellation brands in 2009. Their primary motivator may have been Barton’s tall airy warehouses but they were surely after 1792 Ridgemont Reserve as well. The brand started out as something of a Woodford Reserve ripoff (see here) but soon settled into its own niche as a decent selling upper-middle shelfer. Sazerac capitalized on that success and added a series of line extensions and opened up the single barrel expression for selections by retailers and enthusiast groups.

These two barrels are good examples of how much variation there can be, even in those breezy rickhouses. Ray’s was fresh and fruity while the Red Wagon barrel was chewy and mature. The Red Wagon barrel might be older, but it’s more likely that the oakiness came from being on a hot upper floor. I was able to taste Ray’s before I bought it, at an informal tasting at the Rural Inn around Thanksgiving. I bought the Red Wagon bottle blind, but I’ve enjoyed their selections before. If I had to pick one that I enjoyed more, it would be Ray’s but both are tasty, worth the money and worth seeking out. Both these 1792 Single Barrel selections are recommended.

Rendezvous Rye

Josh3 Comments

Maker: High West, Park City, Utah, USArendezvous-bottle

Distillers: MGPI, Lawrenceburg, Indiana (6 y/o, 95% rye component) & Barton-1792, Bardstown, Kentucky (16 y/o, 80% Rye component)

Style: Indiana style rye whiskey (high rye)

Batch: 12A31

Age: 6 y/o (but blended with a 16 y/o)

Proof: 92 (46% ABV)

Appearance: Copper with a pinkish hue. Slightly cloudy.

Nose: Cedar, barbecue sauce, fresh cut grass.

On the palate: Medium bodied and soft. Dry with some spearmint. Water brings out a gentle sweetness to balance out the grassiness. Thyme, caramel, allspice, ginger.

Finish: Light, with a little sweetness but mostly tarragon and burn. Some char comes through and then softly fades. Much the same with water, but the burn has been transformed into a pleasant tingle.

Mixed: Very tasty in a Sazerac. Didn’t try it in anything else.

Parting Words: Rendezvous Rye was the first (or at least one of the first) products to be released by High West. The source material has shifted since that first bottling, but Rendezvous has been HW’s most consistant, and to me, most successful product. The tangy ketchup notes that plague Son of Bourye are here too, but they are kept firmly in the background by caramel and herbal flavors and aromas. Through prudent barrel selection and judicious mingling of ryes of two different styles, High West as created a rye that is very much worth seeking out. With rye supplies tightening, I hope they can continue to keep Rendezvous at an affordable price and at its current level of quality. Rendezvous Rye is recommended.

Very Old Barton, Bottled-in-Bond

Josh2 Comments

Maker: Barton-1792, Bardstown, Kentucky, USA (Sazerac)VOB BiB

Age: 6 y/o

Proof: 100 (50% ABV)

Appearance: bright copper with long, thick legs.

Nose: Alcohol, jalapeno, charred corn on the cob, caramel, a hint of tropical fruit. Water brings out more tannic oak.

On the palate: Medium bodied. Spicy but sweet, like pepper jelly. Jerk sauce, grilled polenta, old oak, alcohol.

Finish: Hot, but sweet. Caramel corn and oak. Lingers for a very long time, tingling all over the mouth.

Parting words: I love this bourbon so much, baby, that it tears me up inside. It’s perfectly balanced between fruit, spice and oak. In Kentucky its popularity is on par with Jim Beam white label and Evan Williams. That should tell you something.

It is perhaps the best bargain in American whiskey. For around $12, VOB BiB (for short) is better than most bourbons that sell for twice the price. It mixes very well, but I love drinking it neat or with a splash of water so much that I don’t mix it much. Try the 90 (crimson) or 86 proof (green) versions if you’re looking for a mixer. Older bottlings before Sazerac took over have a prominent banana flavor and aroma that I enjoyed but some others didn’t so if you come across an older bottle, be aware. But either bottling is fantastic and highly recommended.

Head to Head: Bourye vs. Son of Bourye

Josh1 Comment

Maker: High West, Park City, Utah, USA

Distilleries: Four Roses, Barton-1792, LDI

Style: Blended whiskeys (bourbon +rye, no GNS)

1. Bouryre

2. Son of Bouryre

Batch

1. 1 (thanks Amy!)

2. 3

Age (youngest whiskey in the mix)

1. 10 y/o

2. 3 y/o

Proof

1. 92

2. 92

Appearance

1. Dark copper, long, thick legs.

2. Burt orange, long, fairly thin legs.

Nose

1. Alcohol, oak, caramel, cumin, crushed red pepper.

2. Peppermint, lemongrass, tomatoes, ginger.

On the palate

1. Thick, soft mouthfeel. Creamy soft caramels, nougat, a bit of fennel, alcohol

2. A little thin. Mild, some mint and orange.

Finish

1. Hot, but fading to sweet caramel with a hint of oak.

2. Warm, but not too hot. Some light vegetal notes as it fades slowly.

Parting words

The Bourye is from a bottle I split with a friend, but  I failed to record the batch information. At any rate, the differences between these two whiskeys are pretty stark. The Bourye is well-balanced and an enjoyable sipper. It has plenty of spice, but balanced out by caramel (presumably from the bourbon) and oak (presumably from the 16 y/o rye in the mix). I have seen it on shelves recently, but in most places it has long since sold out. It was pricey, and the remaining bottles will be even pricier now, but it is very well done and there’s nothing not to like. Bourye is recommended.

Son of Bourye was really awful when I first opened it. It was like drinking tomato ketchup. It has settled down in the bottle since then, but it is still mediocre. Some apparently enjoy sour, citric notes in their bourbon. I don’t. The whiskeys in the mix are very young and it shows. The young high rye rye, overwhelms everything else. If this whiskey were $20 cheaper, it might earn a mild recommendation as a change of pace and a decent mixer. Its price, around $40, puts it into the sipper category. As a casual sipping whiskey, it fails. I find it hard to recommend Son of Bourye compared to its competition in that range such as Elijah Craig, Knob Creek, or Wild Turkey Rare Breed. Not recommended.