1792 Ridgemont Reserve Review


1792 Ridgemont Reserve comes to us from the Barton 1792 distillery. When they first released this bourbon a few years ago it carried an 8-year-old age statement on it, but the later releases lost that numerical statement like oh so many others and joins the ranks of no-age-statement bourbons (NAS). Which I don’t have anything against so long as it’s a product that matches the price.

In case you’re wondering, the 1792 in the 1792 Ridgemont Reserve is in reference to the year that Kentucky became a state. This might be one of the reasons why the 1792 Ridgemont Reserve was the “official toasting bourbon” of the Kentucky Bourbon Festival for so long. Before diving into the review I should mention that the Ridgemont Reserve is no longer around and has been replaced by the 1792 Small Batch – consider this a look at recent history.

1792 Ridgemont Reserve Info

Region: Kentucky, USA

Distiller: Barton 1792 Distillery
Mashbill: 75% Corn, 15% Rye, and 10% Barley
Cask: New-Charred Oak
Age: NAS
ABV: 46.85%

Price: $24

1792 Ridgemont Reserve Review


Sharp yet a bit watery, it hits aggressively with acetone notes of butterscotch, maple, dark fruit, toasted corn, oak and light notes of freeze dried strawberries and spice.

The palate comes across aggressive and acidic with hitting notes of dark sweets, oak, dried dark fruit and raw grains. Lighter notes of pumpkin seeds, biscuits and spice leisurely dance through.

Medium fade of oak, dark fruit, caramel and spice that’s drenched in acid.

Off balanced, light body and a thin acidic feel. It’s quite hot and jarring.

The aroma of the 1792 Ridgemont Reserve is sharp yet watery and below average in its depth. The palate gives off this sweet and sour quality with the acid and near cloying sweetness battling it out till the brash acid washed finish. It was hot and harsh from beginning to end and after 3 glasses over the course of 2 weeks it didn’t improve in the slightest. A dram I won’t miss.

SCORE: 72/100 (C-)

  • Nose - 72
  • Palate - 72
  • Finish - 72
  • Balance, Body & Feel - 72


1792 Ridgemont Reserve will not be missed… at least not by the reviewer anyways.



Josh Peters

Josh Peters

I read about, think about, write about, and drink whisk(e)y. In short, it's my passion.
Josh Peters

Latest posts by Josh Peters (see all)

10 Responses to 1792 Ridgemont Reserve Review

  1. Wow, I could understand the hate if you only tried it directly after opening the bottle. When I bought a 1792 Small Batch and tasted it right after opening, I thought it was terrible and a waste of money, and I paid over $50 in Canada. The mouthfeel was the thinnest that I had ever experienced in a bourbon. But going back to it just a couple days later, with some air in the bottle, the bourbon seemed to me to be completely transformed. It had improved noticeably, and over the next couple of weeks I found it to be full bodied, rich, complex. I ended up giving it a score of 90 out of 100.

    • I keep going back to this one to try and even now, with a bit in my glass as I’m catching up on comments, it’s… not good. I like the current small batch more than this one.

  2. I’m with Josh on his opinion of 1792. While I’ve not tried the old reserve product he’s reviewing here, the current small batch is nothing I will be spending my money on. I’ve had the small batch and some barrel selects from local stores, and I found them harsh and very lacking in flavor. I would try the ‘barrel proof’ if someone were to offer me a pour, but I can’t justify buying it myself given my previous experience with the brand.

  3. I always enjoyed the Ridgemont Reserve and the Small Batch. I like the VOB BIB a lot and I occasionally pick up the VOB 86 proof, which is good for cooking. Barton Bourbons = good and affordable.

  4. I have to agree with you on this not being a good whiskey, this bottle was prob the biggest disappointment I’ve had since getting in to bourbon.

Leave a reply

Send this to a friend