We continue our series on 1792 bourbons with a review of the discontinued 1792 Ridgemont Reserve 8 Year. For a detailed history of 1792 and reviews of many other 1792 and Barton products, check out our 1792 page.
Recall that 1792 branded bourbon was first released by Barton in 2002. Its name “1792” merely refers to the year Kentucky joined the United States. Also then accompanying the “1792” name were the words “Ridgewood Reserve.” Shortly after release, Brown-Forman (owner of the Woodford Reserve brand name) sued Barton for trademark infringement. Apparently, Brown-Forman thought “Ridgewood Reserve” too closely resembled “Woodford Reserve.” In early 2004, the court agreed. Shortly thereafter, Barton renamed the product “1792 Ridgemont Reserve.”
For nearly a decade, this line was a “Small Batch Aged 8 Years” product. In around 2013 or 2014, Barton dropped “Ridgemont Reserve” from the labels, making “Small Batch” more prominent. “1792” became the product’s official name. It also then dropped the 8 year age statement.
This particular bottle is a “store pick” bottle of 8 Year Ridgemont Reserve that we received as a sample from Scott Jeffries through our friend of Flight Club, Eric Schroeder (thank you, gentlemen).
Prior to the introduction of the 1792 Single Barrel line, 1792 Small Batch offered limited “store-pick” single barrels. Many (if not all) of those were from a famous Warehouse Z on Barton’s campus. Presumably, the popularity of those picks caught on, and in 2016, 1792 began the Single Barrel line.
1792 Ridgemont Reserve (8 Year) (Store Pick) (93.7 proof)
Nose: Rich hard butterscotch candy; vanilla; cinnamon, nutmeg and clove spice; ginger; roasted corn; dry oak; white pepper. Solid. (4/5)
Palate: Vanilla and butterscotch candy; late arriving cinnamon sugar; oak; baking spice (allspice, nutmeg); ginger. Simple and pleasing, although maybe a bit thin. (3.5/5)
Finish: Medium. Initial dark chocolate dryness, but with some late developing vanilla simple syrup and white pepper. (3/5)
Overall: This shows much more age than anything else I’ve seen with 1792, making me wonder how young the core product lines are today. The nose is rich, but the entire pour is a bit downhill from the strong palate. Still, this pulls a strong score. I’d love to have a bottle of my own. (3.5/5)
Value: Discontinued, and we only have a sample, so a retail score is not applicable. (N/A)
“This shows much more age than anything else I’ve seen with 1792, making me wonder how young the core product lines are today.”
Scott is a co-founder of Flight Club and a frequent writer and reviewer on the Club’s blog.