kitzg Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I finally decided to buy a bottle of "Ridgewood Reserve" 1792 last week when I stopped at Liquor Barn. I wanted to be sure and have the original bottling -- especially if they change the labeling. So here I am sitting watching what I'd clasify as a snow storm, checking SB.com, and I decided to do what I rarely do. I usually am not drinking bourbon when I'm in the forum. But I decided to open the beautiful 1792 bottle and pour out an ounce to remind me what it tastes like. Smooth...tasty...distinct! I agree with Bobby Cox that this was a great addition in '03! I agree that the bottle is very nice -- I guess I could say pretty. It is now one of the centerpieces in my collection. I even like one of their promotional pieces that says, "To the great Sate of Kentucky. To white fences, green hills, strong mares..." I do love Kentucky! Here's to a nice bourbon, a great state, and to you Kentuckians... aw, heck, here's to all you Bourbonians! I'm glad I got this bottling. If they change anything to satisfy the dispute with BF I'd say take the word "Reserve" out of the name. I just like to call it 1792! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Greg,I picked up the 1792 during the '03 Bourbon Fest, and I agree that it is one fine bourbon. I'd like to pass along a suprising review done by Malt Advocates WhiskyNotes: they say it is a "heavy hitter, full, richly textured; its aroma is lovely and everything is working well on the palate too until about mid palate where it becomes intensely woody, fiery, out of balance and dry all the way through its finish -- to the point of becoming unpleasant - prelminary score: somewhere in the 70's -- solely because of the finish". I was suprised to see this poor review. I agree with your assesment, and that of Bobby Cox and many others here that this is a wonderful bourbon. I do not agree with WhiskyNotes assesment, but I thought I'd share their opinion with everyone.BTW, they (WhiskyNotes) also reviewed the Evan Williams '94 and they said it is "elegant with lots of finesse" and that it is "subtle and teasing". They gave the EW a score in the 90's. I'm still waiting to see this in NY.Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Dry on the finish, but not fiery or unpleasant. I think I'll send them a note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Ed, I agree that it is definitely not fiery, or unpleasant. Just the opposite. They're entitled to their opinion, but I was suprised that they found it so. As it turns out, I got the new issue of Malt Advocate magazine today. In it, they note that this bottling gives Barton's a specialty bourbon, but they don't relay their "review" in the magazine. They do review Old Forester's Spring Birthday Bourbon, which they rate a 93 and the Fall Birthday Bourbon, which they rate 89. They say the Spring version is one of the top 10 whiskies of 2003. So, they didn't get it all wrong! Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 They do review Old Forester's Spring Birthday Bourbon, which they rate a 93 and the Fall Birthday Bourbon, which they rate 89. How unoriginal... They rated them by the respective proofs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Bob,Just got around to reading your post on the reviews that Malt Advocate gave on the 1792 from Barton. Good Lord!!!! Don't put too much stock on the reviews they give about bourbon!! Usually they are way off base!!!! That is the reason the magazine is called "Malt Advocate", they just don't know that much about bourbon. At least that is my opinion!! Cheers,Marvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts