| Don't like ads? | No ads |
The last time Barton released a finished whiskey under their 1792 label was 2015’s “1792 Port Finish.” That bourbon spent about two years in port pipes from an unknown source and came out at a very peculiar 88.9 proof. In 2015, there weren’t many finished whiskies on the market and the reception that enthusiasts gave it must have been poor enough to keep Barton from doing anything like that again.
Five years later, Barton jumped back onto the finished bourbon side of things with their Thomas S. Moore line. Over the next few years, we saw them use casks that previously held Sherry, Merlot, Port, Chardonnay, Madeira and Cognac. While this line wasn’t particularly popular, it did show Barton’s knack for finishing whiskies. Their secret was to finish the liquid for an “extended” period of time – typically 2 to 5 extra years. Danny Kahn told Bourbon Pursuit that they would often put these casks in their palletized warehouses lower to the floor to keep them cool. The low temperatures allowed a more gradual extraction of flavors from the barrels.
But the back label of this bottle indicates that 1792’s finishing techniques for this label are the opposite. It states that the finishing casks were relocated to the top floors of Barton’s rickhouses to “encourage interaction between the bourbon whiskey and secondary cask.” In fact, I just put these pieces together as I was writing this review, but it seems like Barton will use more aggressive finishing techniques for labels like this and will use more “low and slow” techniques for their even newer “Extended Cask” line of bourbon. So does this mean that the Thomas S. Moore line is, errr, finished?
Barton switches the cask finishing back to their 1792 line
Fast forward a decade and Barton surprised enthusiasts with a new line of cask finished bourbons: Extended Cask Finish and Cognac Cask Finish. For the sake of brevity, I’ll only be talking about the Cognac Cask Finish today. The main stats you need to know is that the bourbon was bottled at 95 proof and had a low suggested retail price.
Unlike the 2015 Port Finish release, Cognac Cask Finish has an interesting corporate backstory. Sazerac – Barton’s parent company – owns its own Cognac house called Sazerac de Forge & Fils. That Cognac house supposedly uses grapes grown on their own vineyard and distillery in Segonzac France. The reason why I bring that up is to show that Sazerac controls part of the barrel supply chain, and those French oak casks that once held eau-de-vie didn’t have to come from a broker. We’ve seen this at play with other producers like Campari for Wild Turkey Master’s Keep Voyage and Old Forester The 117 Series: Scotch Cask Finish; just to name a couple.
Cognac barrels themselves are worth a closer look. Most average around 350 liters and built from French oak (Limousin or Tronçais). Another significant aspect of them is that they’re almost all toasted rather than charred. That toast-first approach extracts more vanilla and aromatic compounds in my opinion. The larger size will slow down tannin extraction.
I just want to throw this out there real quick – I think that a big part of Cognac Cask Finish’s hype among the enthusiast crowd centered on the misunderstanding that this release was the second-coming of the Port Finish. This got many “completionists” excited because they have probably been scouring for a 1792 Port Finish to finish their verticals (since it was so rare). I’m not saying that was the case with everyone, but I did see enough comments around the internet where people admitted to getting the two confused.
So enough with the backstory, let’s see how this one tastes. A special thanks to my neighbor Benji for the opportunity to review this bottle. I sampled it neat in a glencairn.
Tasting Notes
Nose: There are a lot of typical Barton bourbon notes on the nose. Caramel and oak. Cinnamon and leather. Vanilla and cherry. There are a bit more fruit notes, but they might still be a result of the bourbon, not the finishing cask influence. I find dried stone fruit (apricots) and some orange zest notes. The faint floral notes (jasmine? lavender?) probably stem from the Cognac cask as do the toasted oak/vanilla creme influence. When I return back to the glass after letting it set halfway through my session, I start to pick up on a faint grape scent – but it’s not much to get excited about.
Palate: At 95 proof, I wasn’t expecting a heavy bruiser of a bourbon. The mouthfeel is more soft than usual, but it borders on being thin. Toffee and vanilla bean flavors accompany stone fruit, leather and a hint of bananas foster. There is a bit of cinnamon and allspice that seem to block some underlying floral notes. After a while, some cognac flavors (sweet grape) rise to the top, but they don’t do as much as I was expecting. Overall, this is still good bourbon with some tweaks.
Finish: A fairly moderate finish in terms of length. If the Cognac cask was supposed to impart more sweetness, I’m not tasting much that moves the needle for me. I still get the underlying bourbon’s classic caramel, vanilla and sweet oak coupled with some cherry syrup. Otherwise, the Cognac cask may be responsible for more of a “French vanilla” influence in the end and maybe a little bit of residual raisin note. It’s a nice finish, but nothing too out of the ordinary.
Score: 6.8/10
I wasn’t particularly blown away by 1792 Cognac Cask Finish – and this is coming from a guy that has normally loved Cognac finishes. I didn’t find much in the way of softer white grape juice notes or the creamy vanilla Flan notes. The whole experience was much more basic than I was expecting. I also found myself thinking that I’d prefer an over-finished bourbon to this. I realize how weird that sounds.
But I know that this has generally received above-average reviews from others in the whiskeyverse. I just think we’re all excited that 1792 seems to be finally doing something new because their standard lineup has gotten pretty stale and the Thomas S. Moore bottles haven’t exactly been flying off the shelves. I’d give this bottle another 6 months, tops, before the hype fizzles out and secondary prices fall.
Final Thoughts
Kudos on Barton for keeping the price of this bottle sane ($40). To be honest, this is a label that they probably could have charged $75 and sold out just as quickly. That’s what makes me hesitant to tell people not to buy one if they see it on their store shelves. I won’t complain if I never have it again, but that doesn’t mean that I will actively discourage curious enthusiasts from getting their own bottle. When whiskeymakers charge decent prices for things, the stakes become lower and risks are easier to take. So go ahead and drop two Andrew Jackson’s for this. I won’t blame you. Just don’t pay secondary prices because it’s not worth it.