1792 Port Finish

1792 Series (11 of 12): Port Finish Fun story: Due to Latin dance, I was geeking out about wine-finished bourbons with the owner of a wine bar. You with me so far? Good. I told him I wanted to try finishing 1792 small batch in a small barrel (5 L) with some wine that would do a good job amplifying the fruity notes, which for me are cherry, fruit punch, and watermelon. We tried his Cabernet and his “custom red”, and while both were good, neither one quite balanced sweet and dry correctly for my needs. Then he said: “It’s a shame I don’t have my port right now. That sounds like exactly what you’re looking for.” Then I realized: 1792 figured this out way before I did. Of course it should be a port. That seemed to be the perfect finish for the flavor amp I was wanting to do. Needless to say: I went in a different direction for my project, and when I was able to get my hands on one of these, I was eager to find out if the end result lived up to the promise of the blueprint. Nose is cherries, plums, grapes, sugar. Tomato. Body is rich with grape, raisin, prunes. Some cherry. Apricot. Bit of almond. Finish has almonds and more cherry. A bit of the 1792 fruit punch sneaks in there. Very thick feeling, very sugary. Very low burn as well, which is impressive with the port influence. This is a heavier finish, but it’s well done. I was a bit skeptical at first, because in some ways it reminds me more of a Cabernet finish. It has a Prichard Hill vibe going on. However, I compared this to some of my favorite port finished bourbons (Angel’s Envy, Isaac Bowman, AE Cask Strength) and only the cask strength could come close in quality. And those comparisons put this whiskey in an awkward spot when it comes to value. The way they married the fruit punch flavor with the port is truly special. Possibly best in class stuff. But it’s still not worth what you’d have to pay to get a bottle these days. It’s a delicious bourbon that I hope your friend has and is willing to share. Seriously looking forward to the next on-deck: 1792 225th Anniversary

Another bourbon I consumed in a flurry of day drinking after working overnight. It was generously supplied by my buddy, Ryan. Many thanks, bro. I really enjoyed the small batch and sweet wheat offering from 1792, and I thoroughly love port finished, single malt scotch so I was really, really excited to try this one. Sadly, I don't think it was finished for very long or the Port casks weren't of the best quality. It's a testament to how good the base whiskey is that I'm still inclined to give it a solid score because I didn't get much (if any) Port wine notes. It's sweet, but so was the sweet wheat, it's pretty smooth, but so was the small batch, so where does that leave this? It's a tasty bourbon, that's where. I could've kept topping off the tasting glass and lost count of pours quite easily. That speaks volumes about 1792 as a whole. Whether or not you need the batch variations is a matter of personal choice and depth of your wallet. You can't go wrong by picking this or any other 1792 offerings IMO. Go get one or two and see for yourself. Cheers.

Fun variation on the base 1792. A little sweeter, a little more complex. Not amazing whiskey, and certainly not worth secondary-market prices, but a respectable and unusual dram. We were gifted a bottle, and it's been worth having. It's most enjoyable now, as the port-flavors go well with fall-into-winter days. It's the dram I chose to sip on while decorating for Christmas, if that helps put it into it's place. There aren't a lot of port-finished bourbons on the market (though the number is quickly escalating). Of the three I've had, I prefer the Angel's Envy port-finished to the 1792, though the 1792 comes out well ahead of the Abraham Bowman Port-finished. I haven't had all three in the house at the same time to do a blind tasting, so that's based on memory, but for most things the Angel's Envy should be the go-to--it's not worth the time to track down the 1792.

Excited to try this as I 'm a fan of the 1792 lines but I tend not to like the less aged items and am super in to the Full Proof and even more so the 12 Year. Nose: Toasted pecan, dark caramelized sugar, vanilla, dried cherries. Flavor: Lacking the harshness from the ethanol of the standard 1792 bottlings. Sweeter as well. Dark dried red fruits, vanilla, caramel, a little bit of barrel funk that I associate with fortified wine finished whiskey, and very little alcohol bite. Finish: Medium short, a little spicy and nutty, a little drying as well. A little bit of funk that is somewhere between stinky weed and skunk that I found just a hair off-putting but not enough that I hated it. Overall I liked it and I'd drink it again. If I found a bottle at MSRP (Yeah Right!) I'd buy it but not at secondary.

Doesn't even come close to other Port finished bourbons like Angel's Envy. I wanted to love this, due to Angel's Envy being a top 3 favorite of 50 bourbons, whiskeys and ryes, however, I can't stand it in the same way I can't stand 1792 Small Batch. That is due to its Scotch-like finish of leather, tobacco, and peat - dry and tannic. I usually drink neat, but ice or water doesn't help either. Go for Angel's Envy or Midwinter NIght's Dram instead if you want a Port finish, unless you really like 1792 bourbon in general.Extremely overpriced at $100 in Seattle - in the rare cases when you can even find it.

Nose - Maple syrup is super prominent, a thick richness. Saltyness like a salted caramel comes through. Peanut butter is heavy too. Some vanilla compliments that peanut butter. Very sweet and rich on the nose. Palate - Alot of the nose with some added cinnamon. A little lighter on the mouth than the nose says but still nice. Nice bitterness from oak and leather. Finish - Its consistant with the palate and nose. More cinnamon spice comes in at the end but still lighter than a harsher baking spice.