Thoughts on EW 1783 vs EWB?

[justataste]

I've been digging thru the archives but haven't found much on EW 1783, which is supposed to be aged a little longer than the EWB.

Anybody try it? Thoughts or characteristics? I appreciate any comments.

[higgins]

I don't know what the respective ages are anymore since they both went NAS, but EW1783 definitely tastes a bit older to me. It has a more rounded flavor and much less of the grainy note that I get from EWB.

EW1783 isn't anything special, but to me it just has that quintessential 'bourbon taste'. The price is right, too, at just $10 around here.

[PaulO]

I would say that EW 1783 is one of the least expensive whiskies that I could recommend. I was never sure why it seemed to be a few bucks cheaper than regular EW. Keep in mind when reading old posts that a few years ago, both had age statements, now they don't.

[squire]

They're about as close to brothers as whiskys can be. Originally designed by Parker Beam (reputably his favorite) 1783 was older (10 years) close in proof (86 vs 90) a bit richer, rounder and smoother than Evan Williams Black label without being a lot more expensive. Times changed but the flavor profile is still more so than EWB.

[Flyfish]

I have considered suggesting EW 1783 as BOTM. At only about a dollar more for a 750, it seems significantly superior to regular EW. I buy it by the handle when I get a chance. (Of course, I buy lots of bourbon by the handle when I get a chance.)

[squire]

1783 is certainly a candidate for purchase by the handle.

[JVande]

Decided to pick up an EW 1783 as a cheap bottle to have in the hotel during my travels this week. Anyone have an educated guess on the age? It has a very nice nose and so far a distinct upgrade from EWB. I will throw out 7-9 year bourbon as I get more of a resemblance to the EWSB that I have open at the house.

[squire]

Originally of course it was age stated at 10 years and though that has fallen off the label the brand/flavor profile is still of an older, richer version of EWB.

[393foureyedfox]

i used to use the 1783 around the holidays to make a spiced apple-bourbon batch. i tried it with other brands but the 1783 worked best. i dont know how or why i settled on the 1783.....maybe the label and price got my attention one day. havent tried it straight in some time though.

[higgins]

Considering that the current NAS 1783 is surely closer to 7 years than it used to be, it might be interesting to compare it to the old 7 year age-stated EWB. I would, but I'm fresh out of both.

[mosugoji64]

Considering that the current NAS 1783 is surely closer to 7 years than it used to be, it might be interesting to compare it to the old 7 year age-stated EWB. I would, but I'm fresh out of both.

[squire]

I think comparison is valuable because most all information is useful but Brian is correct, they're different creatures today.

[brettckeen]

10yr 1783 is really really good if you can find it. EWB is a great mixer.

[HighHorse]

I think 1783 is one of the best values out there. It is the bar brand at The Porch where we congregate and, at $4.50 a pour .. it's the go-to when you just want a refreshing bourbon on ice without a lot of thought going into the purchase. At around $10 bucks .. it is better than many you can pay many more time for IMO.

We did find some of the old 10-year old up in Georgia and have a few bunkered. It is much better than today's "10-star" ... but ... it's all good.

[JPBoston]

Yet another value brand I can't get here in AZ.

[boneuphtoner]

I've tried the current versions back to back. 1783 is a more refined pour without some of the raw edges of the black label, but they are very similar.

[sailor22]

Recently did a comparo with an older 10yr age stated 1783 with a current release 1783. No contest there, the 10yr was much better. I used to recommend the 1783 when it was a 10yr but I don't any longer. The NAS juice does seem to hold up well to water as in melting ice, just doesn't work for me as a neat sipper. I still have a number of Bourbon knowledgable friends who drink it with ice and like it as a value pour.

[squire]

The 10 year version is certainly worth stocking up if you can find any.

[capitals83]

I used to be a huge fan of EW 1783. But in the past few years I have been reaching for EW BIB and FC instead. I guess my tastes have just changed to higher proof expressions.

[squire]

I think 1783 would definitely be improved by moving the proof upwards.

[Flyfish]

I've tried the current versions back to back. 1783 is a more refined pour without some of the raw edges of the black label, but they are very similar.

That's my experience as well but, at only about $1 more, I'll go for the 1783 everytime.

[Brisko]

We just got 1783 in our market and I've been tasting them head to head over the past couple of weeks. They are very similar but 1783 has a much nicer nose. Also a really noticeable spice flavor, nutmeg I think. I can't remember another pour where it was so prominent.

The price gap is a little wider here, about $5 difference on a liter.

[squire]

Liter pricing seems to be the wild card in other areas as well.

[Flyfish]

Liter pricing seems to be the wild card in other areas as well.

I recently bought a liter of WT101 at an Iowa Costco for $22.89. The OH price for a liter is $33.95. That's an outrageous spread.