1792 High Rye Review

I'm going to start this review with my usual Barton disclaimer: I like their products more than most other folks seem to. I don't live in Kentucky so I don't have easy access to the crazy bang for your buck products like Heaven Hill Bottled in Bond 6 year. What I do have access to here though is Very Old Barton Bottled in Bond "6" and at $12 a bottle, that is easily the best whiskey value my money can regularly buy. Given my fondness for that product, it's been nice to see them branching out with quite a few special releases over the past couple of years - Port Finish, Sweet Wheat, Full Proof, and what we have here today, High Rye. I'm glad to see them pushing the envelope with different things but truth be told of all of those the High Rye sounded the least interesting to me. I personally didn't seek it out but when a friend spotted a bottle and asked if I wanted it, my Barton heart strings were tugged and I caved.

No Age Statement; 47.15% ABV; $46

Nose: Tingly rye menthol spice, a fair amount of ethanol heat, and a very familiar banana note that I typically taste and smell in Barton products. 

Taste: Some caramel/vanilla/honey wood sweets up front, then some spicy rye tingle in the back. That youthful Barton banana note is heavy handed, kind of like banana runts candy. The finish is mostly oak and wood related sweet flavors. It has a little spice kick in the form of anise and spearmint but I'm not really picking up a heavy rye presence. 

Thoughts: Of all the special release 1792 products, this one is my least favorite. It's pretty close in quality to the regular 1792 small batch in terms of age / wood depth and I don't think the high rye mashbill has added much of anything to make this special. It's not a bad bourbon per se but I find it exceptionally boring and average at best. In this price range for a Barton product, Full Proof is a much better value or if you wanted to go with a better high rye bourbon, stick to Four Roses Single Barrel.

Rating: C

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

1792 Full Proof Review

If you ask my opinion on the best bargain in bourbon available today, my answer is easy: Very Old Barton Bottled in Bond. It's certainly not the best but at $12 a bottle, it's an outstanding value. When you start to branch out from that bottle I think the rest of Barton products are decent enough but it appears I'm in the minority there. Back when we did the /r/bourbon community review of 1792 Small Batch, it was painfully obvious not many people cared for it. I can't quite get my head around why it did so poorly but I'm okay accepting the fact that I like Barton more than most people so keep that in mind as we proceed. 

No Age Statement (press release says 8.5 years); 62.5% ABV; $45

Nose: Smells a little young. I get some of the ripe banana notes that were prominent in the younger bottled in bond product. It noses very sweet, like a caramel banana sundae. You can certainly smell the 125 proof as it's pretty warm.

Taste: Upfront it is just like the nose - a hot caramel banana vanilla ice cream sundae. Towards the finish some leathery and tobacco notes come in showing some slight oak complexity. This tastes just like what I would expect from more proof and extra aging of the bottled in bond "6" product. 

Thoughts: This is pretty good. I doubt you will find a better (mostly) barrel proof bottle of whiskey in this price range on the shelf today. But like the bottled in bond product it is not without its flaws. When I first opened the bottle I thought it was brutally hot for the proof and occasionally I get some harsh char or untamed ethanol. It mellows out well with some airtime though and at the end of the day it's just a solid, uncomplicated bourbon with a lot of umpf. 

Rating: B-

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Barton 1792 Small Batch Review

This is another review I did as part of the /r/bourbon series of community reviews.

From my perspective, Barton is one of the better Kentucky distilleries that doesn’t get as much recognition as it should. Personally I am a huge fan of their Very Old Barton Bottled in Bond product which did very well in my Bottled in Bond bonanza. I happen to think that is the best bottle of whiskey you can buy for under $15. Barton also recently launched a couple of one-off products, 1792 Sweet Wheat which I liked well enough and 1792 Port Finished which I have yet to review but am enjoying a lot. Given all that, it stands to reason I should like their flagship product 1792 Small Batch as well.

No Age Statement; 46.85% ABV; $30

Nose: Very standard bourbon nose - typical caramel and vanilla sweets, moderate about of woody oak with just a little tannic complexity. It doesn’t smell as young as I expected and the heat is well tamed.

Taste: Yep, tastes like bourbon. No surprises here as it’s mostly a rehash of the nose. On the sweet side I find a little extra honey in the mix now and the finish has a little rye spice tingle. Again my biggest surprise is it doesn’t taste as young as I expected. Unlike the Bottle in Bond product which must be the product of distillate from the same season, I suspect this small batch is a mix of some older and younger barrels which I think has created a nice balance of younger grain forward fruity notes along with older more tannic complex wood notes.

Thoughts: This is about as standard of a bourbon as you can get. It’s not too woody, not too young, not too sweet, and not very bitter. It’s just an all around safe bourbon whiskey. That might be its biggest downfall though as that also makes it somewhat boring. If you are just looking for a good daily sipper this would fit that bill very nicely and I feel it’s just a notch above some of the other products near this price range like Wild Turkey 101 and Old Forester Signature though not as good as something like Henry McKenna or Eagle Rare.

Rating: B- / C+

Value: As always, I don’t factor cost into my ratings. Considering that I’ve paid almost double this price for whiskeys I’ve rated about the same, I think this a decent buy.

1792 Sweet Wheat Review

The bourbon circles were really surprised several months ago when news of an 8 year old wheated Bourbon from Barton emerged. Like most of the current whiskey crowd, I’m a fan of wheaters so I was really looking forward to something different and a little older than the other wheated products that regularly stock the shelves. Unfortunately what I thought would be an easy to find bottle ended up being the total opposite in my local market. Of my two preferred locals, one got shut out completely and the other store got a single bottle which I am reviewing here today.

No Age Statement (press release claimed 8 years); 45.6% ABV; $35; Distilled by Barton

I’m not one to usually care about packaging but I’d like to give a nod to Barton on their current label and bottle design. I really dig the retro modern look of this product.

Nose: Woody, dark fruits, a little spice zip, and some tannic bitter tea. Smells about right for 8 years. Alcohol is well tamed, smells spot on for the proof.

Taste: Nice but simple balance of sweet to oak. Finish tapers off with some darker tannic notes and less sweetness. Not complex beyond that at all but it really doesn’t need to be. Again like the nose I think it tastes its age or a little older as the oak notes have some complexity to them. I’m only getting a little bit of the standard wheater vibe from this one - there is minimal cinnamon that I am used to in the Buffalo Trace or Maker’s Mark library of wheated products. Honestly if I had this blind I would have a hard time guessing it’s a wheated bourbon which really makes me wonder about the mashbill here.

Thoughts: Good but nothing super memorable. In my hierarchy of wheated bourbons I would rank this above standard Maker’s Mark, around the same as standard Old Weller Antique and Weller 12, but below Maker’s Mark Cask Strength. The profile is completely different than all those other products which is helping it in the uniqueness category. I really hope availability increases as it is something I could go back to if it were easy to find.

Rating: B-