We continue our series on 1792 bourbons with a review of three different 1792 Full Proof store picks. For a detailed history of 1792 and reviews of many other 1792 and Barton products, check out our 1792 page.
Recently, we reviewed a standard Full Proof of 1792. We felt the standard offering Full Proof was a bit disjointed, but did have some nice flavors throughout. We wanted to know how a store pick Full Proof might compare, so we picked up three different ones and sat down for review.
1792 Full Proof – Gomers Store Pick (125 Proof)
Nose: Rich fresh caramel and creme-brule sugar; heavy acetone; dry oak; roasted corn; vanilla; baked pastry; almond syrup; spicy cinnamon and baking spice; baked apples; light floral that developed in the glass. Complex and pleasing, with delicious rich sugars, albeit way too much off-putting burning. (2.5/5)
Palate: Vanilla frosted pastry; almond cookies; cinnamon-sugar; buttered roasted corn; late developing high heat (cinnamon spice and alcohol burn) that takes over. (3/5)
Finish: Medium-long but numbing. Sweet vanilla/almond cookie; light powdered sugar icing; red-hot cinnamon candy that softens with a bit of oxidation in an opened bottle (with a fresh cork pop and for a few weeks thereafter, this one seemed almost unbearably hot); some lingering vanilla and dry almost bitter oak. (2.5/5)
Overall: This bottle rates much different with a fresh cork-pop (1.5/5) then with a bit of oxidation (2.5/5), but neither quite match up to my expectations. With a fresh bottle, prepare to be bombarded with acetone and red-hot cinnamon – something I’d steer you away from. With a bit of time in the bottle, the cinnamon mellows leaving some nice flavors, but the finish still leaves a bit to be desired. (2.5/5)
Value: I picked this up for around $45. At that price, I’d just as well roll the dice with a standard non-store pick. (2.5/5)
“With a fresh bottle, prepare to be bombarded with acetone and red-hot cinnamon – something I’d steer you away from. With a bit of time in the bottle, the cinnamon mellows leaving some nice flavors, but the finish still leaves a bit to be desired.”
1792 Full Proof – Carothers Store Pick (125 Proof)
Nose: Baked apple; caramel; brown sugar; baked pie crust; vanilla; light baking spices. This one noses way underproof and seems much more cohesive than much of the other 1792’s. (3.5/5)
Palate: Pie crust, just pie crust. Delicious pie crust. If you really look for more, there is some additional vanilla, baked multigrain bread, light caramel, red apple and very light cinnamon candy. But at its heart it is just delicious pie crust. (3.5/5)
Finish: Long. Vanilla and brown sugar, with a developing richness; almond cookie; red apple. (3.5/5)
Overall: One criticism for 1792 is that while there are a ton of flavors in each bottle, they don’t always play well together. Sometimes, simple is better. This is a prime example. The tasting notes are shorter than most of the other bottles, but that plays to this one’s benefit. (3.5/5)
Value: Chris Crow picked this up for around $45. It is pretty tasty high-proof bourbon for reasonable price. 3.5/5
“Sometimes, simple is better. This is a prime example.”
1792 Full Proof – Kansas City Whiskey Society Store Pick (125 Proof)
Nose: White sugar; light vanilla; lemon glazed scone; candied lime; ginger; dry oak; corn husk, but in a way that is different than the typical 1792 corniness (which here is light or almost non-existent); light earthiness. (4/5)
Palate: Light vanilla; lemon bar; sugar; ginger and lime; roasted corn; light baking spice. However, each of those feels diluted. (3.5/5)
Finish: Medium-long. Vanilla; caramel; corn; more sweet citrus/vanilla pastry; almond; light vanish; some lingering bitter-spice (almost like fresh radish?) Somehow at 125 proof this still feels watery. (2.5/5)
Overall: A tough one to score because the faults don’t seem to outweigh the pros. Even with some odd flavors, this one is quite satisfying. (3/5)
Value: Jay Cary picked this up for around $45. I’m satisfied with that price. (3/5)
“A tough one to score because the faults don’t seem to outweigh the pros. Even with some odd flavors, this one is quite satisfying.”
Scott is a co-founder of Flight Club and a frequent writer and reviewer on the Club’s blog.