Introduction
Today, we’re wrapping up season seven of the show with the last sample in our five-sample flight of 1792: 1792 Full Proof Bourbon. Previously, we've reviewed 1792 Single Barrel, 1792 High Rye, 1792 Sweet Wheat and 1792 Small Batch.
Bob’s a big fan of this whiskey and has a bottle of it on his shelf. However, for today’s review, we’re both drinking from a sample sent to us by our friends at Bourbon and Stuff on Instagram.
This bourbon is bottled at 125 proof, which is the highest proof bourbon can be when it goes into the barrel. Interestingly, it’s not called barrel proof because they regulate the proof to 125, which I think is a good idea. The mash bill for this bourbon is 75% corn, 15% rye, and 10% malted barley. Although it’s non-age-stated, there was a press release back in 2016 that mentioned 8.5 years. So, let's dive in and see how this one holds up.
The following review is taken from our episode "Dial M for Murder / 1792 Full Proof." Click the link to listen to this review in audio format.
Nose
Brad: This is a really pleasant nose. I got toffee, vanilla, and there’s some orange creamsicle creaminess going on. What really stood out to me, though, was the scent of freshly watered coffee grounds—like right after the water has gone through them. 7.5/10
Bob: I had the same note, Brad—coffee grounds are in my notes too! It’s solid, and I like it, but I’m a little worried it might not hit my palate exactly how I want it to. The ethanol is very prominent, tipping more into the oaky and dark side of things, like some Buffalo Trace products. There’s also quite a bit of chocolate, but it’s not syrupy sweet as we’ve come to expect with some well-aged bourbons. I’m going to give it a 7.5/10 here.
Taste
Brad: When I got into the palate, this turned into a rich, delectable whiskey that I was not expecting. I got caramel cheesecake, dark chocolate notes galore, and it really reminded me of a nice, fruity light roast coffee. There’s a lot of really beautiful things happening here—easily the best 1792 I’ve had, by an order of magnitude. I’m giving it a 9/10.
Bob: “One of my favorite things to try to explain is mapping out how the flavors spread across my tongue. And this was an interesting one—it was like the Oppenheimer Trinity test of flavor explosions! Nothing happened on the tip of my tongue, but when it got to the mid-palate, it detonated and spread in all directions. The ethanol makes itself known—it’s not spicy, but it’s definitely prickly on the tongue. I got some peach notes on this that I wasn’t expecting, and I like it a lot. I’m going to stick with an 8/10.
Finish
Brad: On the finish, it came down a little from the highs of the palate, getting into darker territory—coffee beans, dark chocolate, and it really stuck in that range of a nice vanilla porter. There’s just so much richness here along with some classic oakiness. I’m going to give it an 8.5/10 here.
Bob: Man, I don’t know if I’ve ever been more in agreement with your tasting notes. The porter or stout comparison is spot on. It gets a little creamier for me on the second sip, and while the ethanol is prominent on the palate, it kind of fizzles out a bit on the finish. It leaves a really nice finish behind with a little bit of herbal, almost vegetal notes, and warms your chest on the way down. I actually like the finish better than the taste, so I’m sticking with an 8/10 here.
Balance
Brad: When it comes to balance, this whiskey offers a spectacular amount of complexity and flavor that I wasn’t necessarily expecting from the nose. It ramps up for sure, but I think they did something really interesting here. I’m giving it a 9/10.
Bob: I’m going to come down a little bit here, mainly because this sample has been sitting on our shelf for a while, so it might be a little oxidized at this point. The bottle I have on my shelf is significantly better than what we just poured here. It gets a little bitter towards the very end, and the nose didn’t fully indicate what kind of flavors it was going to have on the palate. Each part of the journey was a surprise, but it wasn’t super consistent for me, so I’m giving it a 7.5/10 here.
Value
Brad: When it comes to value, I’ve seen this online for about $70, but Bob, you mentioned it’s $46 in Ohio, right?
Bob: Yeah, in Ohio, it’s $46, but it’s now allocated, so you might have to enter a lottery to get it. I think that $70 markup is probably due to allocation in other areas. But let’s split the difference and call it $55-$60.
Brad: At that price point, I’m giving it an 8/10. It’s a great value for the pour that you’re getting, with the way it melds together coffee, caramel, creaminess, and oak.
Bob: I think it’s an even better value at $46. At $55, you’re getting into the range of Old Forester 1920, which I personally prefer, and Noah’s Mill, which I also prefer. But it’s still a good value, so I’m giving it a 7.5/10.
Final Scores
Bob: With that, I’m coming out to a 38.5/50.
Brad: I’m at a 42/50, Bob. I really enjoyed this one—one of the higher-rated whiskeys for me this season.
Bob: We’re averaging a 40.25/50 or 80.5/100, which definitely puts this in the ‘worth buying’ category. If you’re a fan of high-proof bourbons with rich, dark flavors, 1792 Full Proof is definitely worth a try.
Brad: I’d recommend trying a pour first, but I wouldn’t hesitate to grab a bottle if you find it at a good price.
Conclusion
Overall, 1792 Full Proof stands out as a rich, complex, and high-proof bourbon that delivers a satisfying experience. With an average score of 40.25/50, it sits right in the range where we would recommend buying a bottle. However, if you're unsure, trying a pour at a bar is always a safe bet. For fans of robust, dark, and oaky bourbons, this one should definitely be on your radar.
