1792 Full Proof Straight Bourbon

RANDOM HAZMAT SHOWDOWN 1792 FULL PROOF TOTAL WINE SINGLE BARREL SELECT JACK DANIELS SINGLE BARREL BARREL PROOF Ladies and gentleman, I am overdue. Life calls, etcetera. For my audience of eight, mea culpa. I like to think of myself as a stats guy. As Sergeant Joe Friday would say, “Just the facts, ma’am.” (I’ve delivered facts in spades with that reference alone). While facts and stats are my bread and butter, if I were to hazard an outright guess, I’d bet that the mean demographic of Distiller users is someone like me: A guy unwilling to admit that he is likely on the back nine of life, and having experienced both birdies and bogies before the turn, finds time to enjoy the view on the way to the finish, even if he is always keeping score. 1792 FULL PROOF TOTAL WINE SINGLE BARREL SELECT Clear dark orange mahogany color, akin to Pantone 153. Close inspection of the subtle nose reveals strawberries, toasted oak, burnt caramel, and vanilla. Mouthfeel has a little glycerin, and the high-proof ethanol announces its presence on entry, walking and then stomping toward the back and greeting some mulled cider en route. The heat continues on the finish, with a supporting role from chocolate covered cherries, some oak, and vanilla. As a purist, I’m a lover of high-proof whiskey. It’s unadulterated, or nearly so, and the resultant need to sip—when taken neat, as I do—requires more time and coerces more contemplation, which enhances the overall experience. But higher proofs can be more difficult to differentiate than lower-proof whiskies due to the higher alcohol content; the nose, taste, and mouthfeel have to meet the higher ABV on its own robust terms. I like the 1792 FP, but it lacks balance. There’s a lot of heat—to be expected, of course—but there’s no overt characteristics in its flavor or olfactory profile that set it apart. Where the 1792 FP is more differentiated is in terms of relative value; it can be found for around $50 at retail. This is good, not great, bourbon. Would I buy it again? Yes. 3.75 on the Distiller scale. 125 proof. NAS. Non-chill filtered. JACK DANIELS SINGLE BARREL BARREL PROOF Color is a dark and brooding pure mahogany, a shade darker than the 1792 (Pantone 159). The first impression on the nose is not one of olfactory descriptors but rather tactile ones: there is an effusiveness, warmth, and fullness that first appear, shepherding notes of peanuts, peanut brittle, BBQ sauce, and a little brown sugar. The mouthfeel has a similar weight to the 1792 on entry, and the alcohol is better integrated, despite the higher proof. Sweet creamed corn leads the way. The finish is surprisingly soft: the alcohol is there as it should be, but held in check, and again there is a tactile sensation that enhances the atypical flavor profile. The finish displays a soft oakiness, an even softer and subtle cotton-candy sweetness, and some vanilla. Overall, the profile is more savory than sweet. The JDSBBP does a better job distinguishing itself than does the 1792 FP. This is immediately apparent on the nose: it doesn’t exhibit the typical bourbon descriptors like caramel, toasted oak, and vanilla that come at you, but rather peanuts (typical for Tennessee Whiskey, yes) and BBQ sauce. Jack Daniels Single Barrel Barrel Proof can be found for around $65—just $15 more than the 1792 BP. Would I buy it again? Yes. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. 129.4 proof. NAS. Charcoal filtered per the standard Lincoln County Process. CONCLUSION Aside from the color and high ABV, these whiskies don’t have too much in common. While the 1792 FP comes across as an overpowered Camry, the JDSBBP is on the threshold of being very good: it is fuller, richer, smoother, and has a greater depth of flavor. The charcoal-filtered “Lincoln County process” delivers on its promise to mellow the sharp edges. The JDSBBP not only has greater complexity on the nose, but it also has greater depth of flavor, a longer finish, and a superior whiskey experience. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

Reading through the other tastings here, I see some love, I see some hate, and I have to say, I really don't understand the hate. 1792 Full Proof carries a quintessential bourbon profile. The nose is oak, vanilla and cinnamon spice, this last perhaps emerging from the fact it's 125 proof. The palate has a creamy mouthfeel with caramel emerging to accompany the vanilla, oak, and spice, and the finish is long and lingers, leaving me wanting more. In fact, I had lucked into this online, since it's allocated in my area and was almost hesitant to buy it with the way people were lukewarm about it, but it's $45, which puts it in the same ballpark as Maker's Mark Cask Strength, and having tasted both, I'd say they punch the same weight with the Maker's having a few notes of chocolate and cherries to perhaps push it a bit over the edge. But although I prefer the Maker's CS, it's also widely available in my neck of the woods, so when I stepped into the store last week and saw 1792 Full Proof on the shelf, I nabbed myself another bottle and might pick up a third this week if it's still there, you know, just for good measure. A lot of higher priced Cask Strength and Full Proof bottles are more complex, I'll grant you that, but they're also selling for anywhere from $20-$50 more than this. So for my money, I'll take 1792 FP anytime I see it on the shelf and bring it home and enjoy it. For all of you who dislike it, well, more for me, right?

I have a bottle thats been open for some time - for some reason, I remembered not enjoying this - but its been very pleasant for it’s 125 proof. Its fairly underdeveloped and the oak and heat can overtake the gentler apple and caramel notes. But its definitelt not overwhelming. I still get classic apples and caramel softed by vanilla on the nose, perhaps i see some of the banana note others have mentioned. The palate is surpirsingly gentle, presumably since ive had this bottle open half full for a while. Its sweet in the front with apples, caramel and vanilla - some darker notes appear with a hint of brown sugar in the mid palate as the alcohol heat intensifies and the oakiness overtakes the other flavors. The finish is long and warming, as one would expect for a whiskey at 125 proof - and it leaves the mouth drying with a bit of apple leftover. Certaintly not my favorite barrel proof whiskey, but im glad i gave it another try!

A mere take on the simplicity of heavy rye bourbons. 1792 hits on the original bourbon pallate, with the higher proof adding that much more of a punch. Nose: Very spice forward, holds strong from front to end with keeping its consistency in notes. The front holds the wildest smooth start. Which is weird, because it finishes so hard on the rye spice. The middle, like the nose, keeps very consistent. It holds the flavor so well. I got light notes of big red chewing gum and even ligther fruity notes with a hint of vanilla. Conclusion: A good bourbon that holds its name high. 1792 can take pride in this full proof variant because it keeps the traditional bourbon flavor with the rye to boot. I’m biased for a complex but traditional glass, and this holds true to my liking.

First glass of a new bottle, neat. Nose is apple, cinnamon, and vanilla; some more fruits too when you hunt, including a little lemon. Flavor is sweet, spicy and rich (the proof adds a lot of the heat and depth, but it doesn't burn). Oak comes through in the middle and hangs around till the end. Finishes with the richer, darker fruit notes. Maybe, a well caramelized apple pie, that's gotten a little brown on top. Definitely more of a classic bourbon than something unique, but a very, very good classic bourbon.

This was a store pick from Gary's Wine Marketplace, Wayne NJ. In a Glencairn. Nose was toffee marshmallows caramel vanilla; on the palate it was more of same, like a chocolate caramel marshmallow candy bar, and the proof surprisingly didn't overwhelm. Finish was long, and i got more brown sugar and baking spices as the finish evolved. Good thickness but not a viscous mouth feel. When cut the nose was modestly more complex but tasted otherwise same. Liked it better uncut.