Show rating data charts
Distribution of ratings for this:
Well, Jim Murray just called this "Bourbon of the Year" in his 2013 book, so I decided to bring out a dram for review. To me, this is one of those whiskies that sounds good on paper - and it is good - but it just doesn't work for me and it sits in my cabinet, not getting drunk.
Nose: VERY fruity nose for a bourbon. Think of the spectrum of yellow-to-orange fruits here: banana, oranges, apricots, and throw some sweet yellow corn and vanilla into the mix. There is definitely some prickly rye spice on the nose as well.
Palate: under-ripe banana, sweet-corn casserole, and vanilla are the dominant modes. Also prevalent is the prickly rye poking at all the pores in your mouth. Underneath, you get oranges and the bitter oak starts to assert itself. The mouthfeel is average.
Finish: Lots of corn and vanilla, rye, and oak compete for attention.
So, I get it. Kindof. I love getting fruit notes in bourbon... in theory. The balance in 1792 is quite good - not too sweet, not to spicy, not too oaky. Good on paper. But, the corn-and-fruit-forward profile just doesn't work. It's not a "moreish" dram. I drank this for a couple nights when I got the bottle, but then it has been mostly sitting around not getting poured for a while. I don't dislike it. There's no reason to turn down a dram. But it's just not DELICIOUS; it's a technically sound bourbon at a reasonable price, with an interesting profile that you won't find in many bourbons. I probably won't buy again; at least not any time soon.