1792 Aged Twelve Years

Rating: 16/23 This bottling is somewhat perplexing, making me question its reputation. While I understand the recent surge in popularity for 1792 and that a 12-year age statement is significant for bourbon today, it seems unusual for a 12-year-old bourbon to be so scarce (unless it's a Willett product). Nose: This is pleasant. It has a rich toasted marshmallow quality complemented by vanilla and occasional caramel notes, leading to a mellow yet subtly intricate woodiness. It's toasty, but the grain character still comes through. I feel I'm not fully conveying how intriguing this is. The notes are delicate but complex and well-balanced. I'm quite impressed by this aroma. Palate: Woody with an unexpected spicy warmth. It's drier than anticipated, but there's a nice richness in the toasted marshmallow-vanilla-faint banana range. The spices carry a distinct chili flavor, with less prominent baking spices. Ample dry wood and vanillin are present. It bears resemblance to I. W. Harper 15 in this aspect. I detect some good maturity, but that chili spice feels out of place, and I'm not getting the subtlety I experienced on the nose. I was hoping for a sweeter, smoother drink than this. I do get some woody depth, which I desired, but it gives an impression of whiskeys from different ages rather than a single, well-aged dram. Finish: Indeed, the woodiness persists, but not assertively. I detect some herbaceousness related to the chili, but all that dimension is somewhat muted. There's a lingering warmth and faint baking spices (fresh ginger, clove, perhaps cinnamon), but it all seems blended together. Dry wood notes appear occasionally, but not abundantly. It's quite restrained for a 12-year-old. - Conclusion - I wanted to love this, but I'm only moderately impressed. Russell's Reserve 10 (rated 15-16/23) offers more, but feels less mature and cohesive than this. As a reference point, 1792 Sweet Wheat (rated 15/23) tastes younger and less nuanced than this. I'm now detecting some cotton candy notes in the Sweet Wheat, suggesting this is significantly superior. My single barrel bottle of Resilient 15 (rated 18/23) has a bolder, richer wood character that is very enjoyable, though it lacks the nuance of this. The Resilient approached polished wood, while this is more subtle. However, the Resilient has considerable minerality, which isn't apparent here, so this might be somewhat light. I am now detecting more minerality here. 1792 Full Proof (rated 19/23, though I believe that rating might be a bit low) is richer, fuller, and more decadent than this. It's sweeter with less wood influence, but it does exhibit some nice variation. It also highlights its mineral notes more prominently. Ultimately, this is a great spirit. It's not mind-blowing like a highly sought-after bottle should be, but there's much to appreciate. It definitely warrants a rating above 16, but I'm hesitant to place it as high as 19. A rating of 17 or 18 seems more appropriate, though I'm leaning towards 18. It's a difficult decision. Revisiting this, I don't see it as an 18. It's more in the 15 to 17 range. Perhaps not a 15. It's a 16 or 17. Comparing it to my last drops of I.W. Harper 15 (rated 14/23), I notice many similarities. The I.W. Harper is richer but also more bitter and less complex. Given how much better this is, I'll settle on a 16. I had been wanting to try this for a while but couldn't find it, so I'm very thankful to for sharing!

1792 Series (8 of 11): 12 Year Did you know: This is the section where I really hoped to provide a definitive answer to the question: “Why do so many brands offer a 12-year expression?” Instead, I have a rabbit hole of research and conspiracy theories to share. If you're only here for the 1792 details, scroll down to the ~~~ Some people completely dispute the existence of a common 12-year product, and in their defense, most American whiskies I encounter are NAS. However, generally speaking, when a number is prominently displayed on the bottle, 12 often appears. Such comments from figures like Dave Pickerell (Makers Mark), who suggested a bourbon should be aged between 6-12 years, and Harlen Wheatley (Buffalo Trace), who stated 8-12 is optimal for a rye bourbon, lead some to view 12 years as a potential limit: proceed with caution. In the realm of scotch, a wondrous place some call “Scotland,” I’ve heard that 12-year single malt stock available to blenders is so plentiful that there's no substantial price increase for releasing a 12-year blend compared to a 9, 10, or 11-year blend. When you factor in the mistaken market belief that older is superior, it's understandable how a 12-year designation could become a standard. Note: the stated age of a blended whisky cannot be younger than the youngest component. Note #2: Scotland exports single malt globally. Consequently, the aforementioned market pressures in Scotland would extend to other nations. With bourbon, similar trends are observed, such as sourcing from MGP or... whatever activities occur at Bardstown. I prefer not to know. Let me maintain my illusion that company culture is a genuine factor. The key point is: the 12-year bourbon labels that come to mind are clearly not sourced. Consider: Elijah Craig, Weller, ORVW, Knob Creek, 1792, etc. My leading hypothesis: the classic dilemma of what came first. Why do distilleries produce 12-year products? Because consumers associate a 12-year offering with quality. Why do consumers associate a 12-year product with quality? Because distilleries seem to establish that as a benchmark year. I'd be delighted if this were the accurate explanation. One last speculative thought: when creating an older small batch bourbon, excessive oak influence is a concern. The remedy is to incorporate younger components. Numerous bourbon authorities have viewpoints. The age of your small batch is determined by the age of its youngest component. It might truly be that straightforward. If you possess inside information regarding this perceived 12-year benchmark across various countries and whiskey/whisky types, please share! I've pondered this for a considerable time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nose presents notes of tart cherry, wood, maple, and lemon. Vanilla. It smells tart. Like perfume. Honestly, this smells somewhat over-oaked. It's reminiscent of a Rhetoric. Palate thankfully avoids being over-oaked. This tastes well-proportioned. I detect cherries, cedar, lemon, tobacco, sweet syrup, and salinity. A hint of tangerine. Finish offers lemon, cherry, and tea leaves. Salt. Creaminess. It's all present. Occasionally, a bourbon possesses a special quality. It's an intangible factor where the whole surpasses the sum of its components. This is one of those whiskies. While perhaps not my preferred 1792, I will still cherish this bottle in a way I won't other expressions. It invites sharing and unhurried enjoyment. It has a refined taste. If you appreciate Russell's Reserve/WTMK styles, this would likely appeal to your palate. It's not an overwhelming oak profile like some, but certainly oakier than many. Anticipating the next selection: 1792 High Rye

Recently, I've been re-evaluating bottles I first sampled 2-3 years ago, before I had a solid understanding of bourbon and before I knew my preferences, and writing new reviews. I previously reviewed 1792 Aged 12 Years (in August 2022), but couldn't effectively describe my experience then. So... Appearance: Medium Copper-Amber Aroma: I detect hints of maple and baking spices, alongside leather. The aroma isn't very intense. This is likely due to it being less than 100 proof. Palate: A very slightly syrupy sensation on the tongue. Tart cherry; Spicy, somewhat tannic oakiness; Sweetness emerges after a few sips, but the spiciness tempers it – not a negative, just an interesting characteristic. Later sips reveal a note of bubblegum, similar to the bubblegum included with Topps Baseball cards, once the sugary sweetness fades. However, 'oak' seems to be the dominant flavor in this spirit's profile. Spicy oak. Updated 11/15/24: Tonight, I finished this bottle... and from the final serving, I'm noticing a subtle 'hot cocoa mix powder' on the palate. Finish: A peppery finish with spice and a more subdued 'bubblegum' sweetness.

NOSE: Caramel, vanilla, and a touch of acetone. Beautiful, thick, and well-defined legs form on the glass after swirling, leaving a lasting impression. TASTE: The initial impact is alcohol, followed by a shift to warm vanilla and caramel. This warmth persists on the palate. FINISH: The warmth remains in my mouth. There's no significant burn or finish in the throat; it lacks the strong throat warmth found in some spirits. SUBSEQUENT TASTES: Increased creaminess emerges, with caramel and vanilla becoming more noticeable. This is a quality drink that improves with every sip, which could be a problem! The aging is evident and makes this spirit worth enjoying and adding to my collection.

NEAT NOSE - Oak, Vanilla and a hint of Toasted Marshmallow that quickly vanishes PALATE - An incredible balance of oak, vanilla, and some caramel that appears near the end. This bourbon doesn't achieve anything particularly novel or unique, but it does so beautifully. The texture is somewhat syrupy, and it goes down smoothly. No heat at all. FINISH - Medium - Long. Initially, the finish has tannic oak. I did add three drops of water because the oak felt a bit overwhelming, and after opening up, the finish became more like sweet oak. This is an amazingly balanced bourbon. BUY? Yes, but I'd pay close to the suggested price. This one can be difficult to find but it's not worth over $100. BUY AGAIN? - Yes. It would be interesting to taste this blind against Weller 12.

Aroma: Dark fruit, prominent cherry, caramel, brown sugar, and vanilla. Palate: Oak, spice, fruit, and vanilla sweetness. A pleasant, long finish with barrel tannins appearing at the end. Overall: To set the context, 1792 is my preferred bourbon brand. This 12-year-old expression reaffirms my fondness for this brand, but in a distinct manner. I typically anticipate the high-rye characteristics found in the Small Batch and the banana notes in the Single Barrel or Bottled-in-Bond. This 12-year-old, however, leads with dark fruit and is delicious. I appreciate its unique character compared to the brand's other offerings. I strongly endorse it.