1792 Full Proof Straight Bourbon

RANDOM HAZMAT SHOWDOWN 1792 FULL PROOF TOTAL WINE SINGLE BARREL SELECT JACK DANIELS SINGLE BARREL BARREL PROOF I am behind schedule, ladies and gentlemen. Life happens, and so on. My apologies to my eight followers. I like to consider myself a data-driven person. As Sergeant Joe Friday would say, “Just the facts, ma’am.” (That reference alone has provided plenty of facts). While facts and figures are my forte, if I were to venture a guess, I'd say the typical user on this platform is someone like me: A person who is unwilling to accept that he's likely in the latter stages of life, and having experienced both successes and failures before the halfway point, enjoys the scenery on the way to the end, even while constantly keeping score. 1792 FULL PROOF TOTAL WINE SINGLE BARREL SELECT It has a clear, dark orange-mahogany color, similar to Pantone 153. A close examination of the subtle nose reveals strawberries, toasted oak, burnt caramel, and vanilla. The mouthfeel has a slight glycerin presence, and the high-proof ethanol makes itself known upon entry, moving deliberately and then forcefully towards the back, encountering some mulled cider along the way. The heat persists through the finish, supported by chocolate-covered cherries, some oak, and vanilla. As a purist, I appreciate high-proof whiskey. It's either undiluted or very close to it, and the necessity to sip it slowly—when consumed neat, as I do—requires more time and encourages deeper thought, enhancing the overall experience. However, higher proofs can be more challenging to distinguish than lower-proof whiskies due to the elevated alcohol content; the aroma, taste, and mouthfeel must stand up to the higher ABV on their own robust terms. I enjoy the 1792 FP, but it lacks balance. There's a significant amount of heat—as expected, naturally—but no distinct characteristics in its flavor or aromatic profile set it apart. Where the 1792 FP does differentiate itself is in its relative value; it can be purchased for approximately $50 at retail. This is a good, though not exceptional, bourbon. Would I purchase it again? Yes. 3.75 out of 5 stars. 125 proof. NAS. Non-chill filtered. JACK DANIELS SINGLE BARREL BARREL PROOF The color is a deep, dark, pure mahogany, a shade darker than the 1792 (Pantone 159). The initial impression on the nose is not of olfactory notes but rather tactile sensations: there's an effervescence, warmth, and fullness that appear first, ushering in notes of peanuts, peanut brittle, BBQ sauce, and a touch of brown sugar. The mouthfeel has a similar weight to the 1792 upon entry, and the alcohol is better integrated, despite the higher proof. Sweet creamed corn leads the way. The finish is unexpectedly mellow: the alcohol is present as it should be, but well-controlled, and again there's a tactile sensation that enhances the unusual flavor profile. The finish exhibits a gentle oakiness, an even softer and subtle cotton-candy sweetness, and some vanilla. In general, the profile leans more savory than sweet. The JDSBBP does a better job of distinguishing itself than the 1792 FP. This is immediately evident on the nose: it doesn't present the typical bourbon characteristics like caramel, toasted oak, and vanilla that hit you directly, but rather peanuts (typical for Tennessee Whiskey, yes) and BBQ sauce. Jack Daniels Single Barrel Barrel Proof can be found for around $65—only $15 more than the 1792 BP. Would I purchase it again? Yes. 4.25 out of 5 stars. 129.4 proof. NAS. Charcoal filtered according to the standard Lincoln County Process. CONCLUSION Aside from their color and high ABV, these whiskies share little in common. While the 1792 FP comes across as an overpowered sedan, the JDSBBP is on the verge of being excellent: it is fuller, richer, smoother, and possesses a greater depth of flavor. The charcoal-filtered “Lincoln County process” successfully mellows the sharp edges. The JDSBBP not only offers more complexity on the nose but also greater depth of flavor, a longer finish, and a superior overall whiskey experience. All spirits were tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

Reading the other reviews, I see a mix of opinions, and I have to say, I don't really get the negative ones. 1792 Full Proof offers a classic bourbon profile. The nose has oak, vanilla, and cinnamon spice, the latter possibly from its 125 proof. The palate has a creamy texture with caramel joining the vanilla, oak, and spice. The finish is long and lingering, making me want more. I was lucky to find this online, as it's allocated in my area, and I almost hesitated to buy it due to lukewarm reception, but it costs $45, similar to Maker's Mark Cask Strength. Having tried both, they are comparable, with Maker's having slight notes of chocolate and cherries that might give it an edge. However, while I prefer Maker's CS, it's widely available near me. So, when I saw 1792 Full Proof on the shelf last week, I bought another bottle and might get a third this week if it's still there, just in case. Many higher-priced Cask Strength and Full Proof bottles are more complex, I'll admit, but they also cost $20-$50 more. So, for my money, I'll take 1792 FP whenever I see it available and enjoy it. To those who dislike it, well, more for me, right?

I have a bottle that's been open for a while. For some reason, I didn't recall enjoying this before, but it's been very pleasant for its 125 proof. It's fairly underdeveloped, and the oak and heat can overpower the milder apple and caramel notes, but it's definitely not overwhelming. I still get classic apple and caramel on the nose, softened by vanilla; perhaps I detect some of the banana note others have mentioned. The palate is surprisingly gentle, likely because this bottle has been open and half-full for some time. It's sweet upfront with apple, caramel, and vanilla. Some darker notes appear with a hint of brown sugar in the mid-palate as the alcohol heat increases and the oakiness takes over other flavors. The finish is long and warming, as expected for a 125 proof whiskey, leaving the mouth dry with a bit of apple remaining. It's certainly not my favorite barrel-proof whiskey, but I'm glad I gave it another try!

A simple take on the bold character of high-rye bourbons. This 1792 offering mirrors the classic bourbon profile, with the higher proof contributing an intensified impact. Nose: Heavily spice-driven from start to finish, maintaining consistency in its notes. The initial taste presents a surprisingly smooth entry. This contrasts with its strong finish, which emphasizes rye spice. The mid-palate, much like the aroma, remains very consistent. It holds the flavor remarkably well. I detected subtle notes of Big Red chewing gum and even fainter fruity hints with a touch of vanilla. Conclusion: An excellent bourbon that lives up to its reputation. 1792 can be proud of this full-proof variation as it preserves traditional bourbon taste, enhanced by the rye. I favor complex yet classic spirits, and this aligns perfectly with my preferences.

First pour from a new bottle, neat. The aroma is apple, cinnamon, and vanilla; some additional fruits appear when you search, including a little lemon. The taste is sweet, spicy, and rich (the proof contributes significantly to the heat and depth, but it doesn't sting). Oak is present in the middle and lingers until the end. Finishes with the richer, darker fruit notes. Perhaps, a nicely browned apple pie, that's gotten a little too dark on top. Certainly more of a traditional bourbon than something novel, but an exceptionally good traditional bourbon.

This was a store pick from Gary's Wine Marketplace in Wayne, NJ, tasted from a Glencairn. The nose offered toffee, marshmallows, caramel, and vanilla. The palate mirrored this, like a chocolate caramel marshmallow candy bar, and the alcohol content was surprisingly not overpowering. The finish was extended, revealing more brown sugar and baking spices as it evolved. It had good body but not a syrupy texture. Diluting it slightly made the nose a bit more intricate but the taste remained similar. I preferred it undiluted.