1792 Small Batch Bourbon

Color: Light-Medium Copper Nose: Leather, oak, slight alcohol, definitely some rye spice, and maybe even tobacco... Palate: Initially sweet with spice following close behind. Not rich but not light, either. Slight burn going down on the first sip, but nothing crazy. Oak introduces itself on the second sip. I'm tasting a lot of things I have tasted in other Kentucky Bourbon. Caramel? Vanilla? I don't know. Those two are thrown around rather liberally when describing Bourbon. But maybe there's a reason for this. Finish: A little short with lingering spice and, perhaps, what I am going to identify as barrel char. Overall a very good bottle. Before finally getting around to trying this Small Batch, I've had a 1792 Single Barrel store pick, and their Aged 12 Years. I quite enjoyed both of those, and this is no exception. There's nothing really complex about this one but I didn't expect that, considering the price point and relatively low proof. But it is definitely a very good pour.

* Blind flight of 4 alongside Four Roses Small Batch, Woodford Reserve, Kirkland Small Batch * Nose: Richness with rye spice coming through, opening up into dark sweet candy like oaky caramel and molasses Palate: Sweet and somewhat rich, largely similar to the nose; caramel with subtle rye spices, rich candy sweetness, subtle oak tying things together Finish: Still fairly rich, fading somewhat into oakiness and a hint lingering rye spices Verdict: This has grown on me the longer it’s been open. This barely half-ounce pour finally killed the bottle, but it held its own in the blind tasting and should rightfully be considered the winner. Especially for how little has been left in the bottle for a while now! This bottle will need to be replaced.

[5.17.24] This one is probably not anything special. Honestly, I thought I'd had it years ago and apparently never kept a note. Regardless, my impression has improved somewhat but the real reason I remembered to include it was the joy of my mother-in-law finding it at the liquor store on a release day. She had quite the haul and tagged this in with the cluster. The story was worth it. Simple whiskey. Has some bite and is spicy, not as raw oak and wood chips as I remembered, but more fall spices like cinnamon. Good, not great, but good and I'll remember sipping this one after taking care of the in-laws' fish for a while.

NEAT NOSE - Sweet and balanced. Caramel, Vanilla, and Cinnamon. The caramel and vanilla are mingled together and are the most prominent while the cinnamon lies in the background. PALATE - Very light, and smooth mouthfeel. Nose transfers to the palate pretty effotlessly. Doesn’t take too much brainpower to decipher notes. There is more caramel, vanilla, and cinnamon. The cinnamon, however does come more towards the end. FINISH - Short and Sweet, but Spicy. BUY? - Yes. Great introduction to bourbon and makes for a great daily sipper. BUY AGAIN?? - Yes, great value and taste that will not dissapoint.

On the nose Im definitely getting a sweetness with this one, like a vanilla extract scent to it or almost a fresh bread scent to it. It smells like as if you were in the process of forming the dough of a nice batch of chocolate chip cookies. You get a quick burst of heat up front but honestly, I feel that the sweetness I got in the nose falls a bit flat on the palate. That notes fade kinda quicker than my liking. But on the back end Im getting a more bitter leathery/tobaccoy taste to it. Overall not bad, reasonable quality for the price.

boring. maybe i’ll try the sweet wheat, if i find a good deal on it. this SB basically tatses like 101 wild, but a slightly improved version. i’d seen the 1792 stuff hyped so much & when i tasted it i was let down. i let it rest 20mins in my whiskey tumbler, but ended up using an ice ball after a few sips–which improved a bit. not enough to make it exceptional in any way. for 30-35 dollars there are better options. def won’t be buying again.