1792 Bottled-in-Bond

1792 Bottled-in-Bond (2023)

Cost: $41 at local liquor store (South Carolina)

Age: NAS

Proof: 100

Mash Bill: Unknown (rumored 74% corn, 18% rye, 8% malted barley)

Reviewed neat in a Glencairn.

Appearance: Tawny, copper. Very oily and viscous looking with a couple quicker forming legs initially but the majority taking 20+ seconds to finally start running down the side of the glass.

Nose: I’m immediately hit with a minty, earthiness that stings. After opening my mouth up a little more for a second whiff, I get a much brighter and fuller nose: mint, baking chocolate, a hearty hit of vanilla and a fairly nice red fruit sweetness with a hint of orange peel. This is a pretty robust and pleasant nose, but it does occasionally overwhelm and burn for 100 proof.

Palate: There’s a pop of cherry amongst a mix of tannic oak and caramel that stand out in the forefront. The earthiness from the nose is still present and could somewhat be described as a mix of dried tea leaves and barrel char, but there’s still something about it I’m not quite able to put a finger on… This has a moderately thin mouthfeel and certainly doesn’t have a mouthfeel that matches the oiliness seen on the sides of the glass.

Finish: Lingering sweet cherries and the orange peel return here. There’s a decent amount of tannic oak that lingers the longest that creates a drying effect on the palate. The sweet cherries and orange zest upfront help balance out the finish. I’m not a big fan of dry finishes, but this one doesn’t offend. There’s a very mild and delayed hug that develops about 15 seconds after the swallow and is just enough to remind you this was a 100 proof sip after most of the flavor has retreated.

Rating: 7.2/10

Overall: There’s a nice continuity of cherry/red fruit sweetness from start to finish in this sip that I like. There are other notes that show up in the nose, palate, and finish that make each part of the experience unique from the other parts and keep it from being boring. The extra 6.3 proof over 1792 SB does just enough to make this a noticeably better sipper. If this was available year round, I would say it would likely be a great candidate for a daily sipper, but with it being a once a year release, I somewhat struggle with justifying getting this bottle over significantly more exciting and unique seasonal sips. That said, at the $41 I was able to pick this one up for, it’s more than worth it’s dollar value.

1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out.

2 | Poor | I wouldn’t consume by choice.

3 | Bad | Multiple flaws.

4 | Sub-par | Not bad, but many things I’d rather have.

5 | Good | Good, just fine.

6 | Very Good | A cut above.

7 | Great | Well above average

8 | Excellent | Really quite exceptional.

9 | Incredible | An all time favorite

10 | Perfect | Perfect