1792 Bottled in Bond Bourbon

This is a special selection from a specific store in Gilbert, Arizona (this review might be less useful to anyone outside the Phoenix, AZ area). Since I've already reviewed the standard version, this review will mainly highlight any differences compared to the standard offering. The aroma is dominated by butterscotch, banana, vanilla, sweet oak, and alcohol. It's possibly a bit richer and more intense than the standard, but the core notes are the same. The taste matches the aroma well (apologies if that makes for a dull review) with some added barrel spices in the middle, such as clove and ginger. The finish presents a full burst of spice, with peppery cinnamon and slightly bitter oak (but the bitterness complements the sweetness on the palate). It's a little rough. The mouthfeel is thin yet also rich at the same time; it would be greatly improved with a thicker consistency, but alas, that's not the case here. I am a fan of this, along with the standard version, and this store selection enhances everything to a small but still noticeable extent. At $40, this is certainly worth buying again, less because it's truly exceptional and more because $40 for this level of quality is becoming increasingly rare in the current unpredictable bourbon market.

1792 Series (2 of 10): Bottled in Bond Interesting fact: Bottled in Bond vodka exists? I was under the impression this wasn't possible since the BiB law requires the spirit to mature in wood for a minimum of 4 years in a government-bonded facility. Apparently, you can line the wood to stop the spirit from touching it. Surprise. BiB vodka. Smell is strangely unremarkable. The small batch had a lot happening, but this doesn't. Hints of sugar, banana, and yeast. Toffee. Very similar to Jack or Woodford. Taste is entirely different, and I'm happy about that. Notes of caramel apple, jelly, fruit punch, melon, cherry, and sangria. Chewing gum. Wonderful. Aftertaste stays with light cinnamon and Hawaiian Punch. That final note is excellent here. This might be an even more intense flavor explosion than the small batch, and I generally favor this alcohol level. However, the aroma is somehow less impressive, and the small batch is a touch smoother. All things considered, I believe I like the small batch better. Still a good bottle. Anticipating the next one ready: A Bottled in Bond store selection, also known as “yellow label 2.0”

I found this about a year ago and it's been open for at least six months. It's difficult to find any versions of this brand other than the small batch and full proof in my area of Florida, where everything is either allocated or bought up by enthusiasts. So, with that noted, let's begin... The aroma is sweet bourbon and inviting. Nothing extraordinary, but it reminded me of the small batch version, perhaps even superior. The taste is where I genuinely feel this is nothing more than... well, average. I've seen reviews praising the BiB version extensively and claiming it's much better, etc. I'm just not experiencing anything beyond a typical bourbon. Honestly, if someone asked for a single bottle that could represent the taste of 'bourbon,' this would be it. Not outstanding, certainly not bad or unpleasant, just... average. 🤷🏻‍♂️ I was anticipating this bottle due to my enjoyment of the other two versions I mentioned, but this one wasn't worth an additional $10 compared to the small batch. 10/4/22

Tasted this afternoon; this particular bourbon is the focus here. Comparing a bottle from 2022 that has been open for 6-7 months to other pours opened for about the same duration. The somewhat floral, bright aroma and pancake-batter, vegetal taste have only slightly changed over the aforementioned time. Wanting this to be more than it is (due to its relative rarity), a neat pour finds it a bit lacking in flavor compared to one brand, complexity compared to another, and subtlety compared to a third when put to the test. Not that this is a bad choice; there is a lovely oakiness and rich, buttery quality that might favorably compare to a specific Bottled-in-Bond bourbon. Having made that positive comparison, a specific higher-proof store selection from the same distillery costs the same amount and presents a difficult decision on which bottling to choose when desiring that particular flavor profile.

Opened 11 months ago. The aroma has corn dust, bubble gum, strawberry, vanilla frosting, mild cinnamon, mild wood, and mild ethanol. The taste is chalky gum, powdered sugar, weak baking spices, and mild black pepper. The finish is brief with chalky mineral water, strawberry gum, clove, and mild ethanol. This is frequently promoted as the most overlooked 1792 bottle. I strongly disagree; it's the worst 1792 I've ever tried. It exhibits all the dry, chalky gum notes I find in the inferior bourbon they supply to NDPs, and lacks most of the fruity sweetness expected from a good Barton product. While I understand single barrel selections might be considerably superior, the standard 1792 Single Barrel offers much more for the identical cost. Frankly, I'd prefer drinking the 86 proof Very Old Barton.

The nose offers a complex profile with fruity undertones quickly giving way to fresh cinnamon raisin bread and bubble gum. The initial palate has a bubble gum-like sweetness, as if chewed for a while. Mid-palate reveals rye spice and vanilla, with a faint oak note at the end, alongside tart green apple. Not a bad pour overall, though a small batch offering might be slightly preferred.