1792 Aged 12 Years
1792 Bourbon Aged 12 Years
While I try to be impartial for every review, it is hard to not develop some favorite labels out there in Whiskeyland. If you have read a lot of my posts, you will know that I tend to love The Balvenie for scotch and Old Forester and even 1792 on the bourbon side. For the latter, I have done two reviews already, the Single Barrel (5x 🥃 at $40) and Small Batch (5x 🥃 at $30) and they both have scored very highly by my parameters. Not only great sips, but great value purchases as well. Recently, I stumbled upon some of 1792’s Aged 12 Years releases and picked up a bottle. I had a bottle of this once before, probably back in 2019 or so when they first came out and I honestly have no recollection of how it was so for all intents and purposes, I’m going to this bottle for the first time.
ABV: 48.3%
How it smells…vanilla, floral, maraschino cherries, oak
How it tastes…little fruity at the start and then the sweet vanilla kicks in. The end has some cinnamon with the finish being long and oaky with a little bit of cayenne pepper on the linger, but the oak is what dominates.
Price…$60
Rating...🥃🥃
Final thoughts….this was a bit disappointing. Despite my love for 1792, this one misses the mark. Was this terrible? No, not at all. Is it crazy expensive? Also, no…but as a “Limited Release” which is 1792’s only age statement bottle, and a 12 year old at that, I expect more. This goes back to my Dickel Bottled in Bond comment a bit ago, based on the age statement, it’s a decent price, but the taste is just lacking. Overall, I found this wildly over-oaked. I put a bit of water in it and it tastes better, the oak is cut down and you get more of the vanilla and baking spices. The same can be said for adding some ice, it becomes a very refreshing yet unchallenging sip, which is fine, but it’s not a bottle you should hunt for.
Rating wise, as much as it hurts me, the 2x 🥃 is probably right. When I did my tasting I wrote “if > $55 then 3x” so at $60, it has to be 2x, mainly driven by the “meh” factor and the fact that you can get better 1792 for cheaper.
I find it hard to be enthusiastic about an aged bourbon that isn’t very high proof that requires some water to make it “fine”....or a 12 year old bourbon that needs ice to make it enjoyable. Pound for pound, both the Small Batch and the Single Barrel were much better on taste – hard stop. Let alone, $20 - $30 cheaper.
Of the full line up, I think the only I am missing is the High Rye and the Port Finish. The next 1792 that I will review will either be the Full Proof or the Sweet Wheat, which would you prefer?
