![]() There’s some nice brown sugar sweet scents followed with a volley of tannins that I guess I wasn’t expecting: worn leather and seasoned oak. Nose: Caramel candies straight from the wrapper, orange and cherry scents with vanilla custard. I sampled these both neat and in a glencairn. I decided a semi-blind comparison was in order, so let’s dive in. While 1792’s Full Proof was verbally said to be made up of 8 year old barrels (according to an early press release), we can probably be assured Benchmark’s Full Proof version is much younger if for the simple fact that it is half the price of the 1792 label ($20 vs $40).Īs I often do, I decided to pit together these two siblings and see if the new Benchmark is a match for 1792’s Full Proof label and if it’s not, then how close does it come? After all, this may become one of the years hottest buys as it begins to hit shelves nationwide. Together, they both use a ryed bourbon mashbill and are bottled at 125 proof, which is the same proof they entered the barrel at. Thus, 5 new labels were born: Small Batch (90 proof), Top Floor (92.5 proof), Single Barrel (95 proof), Bottled-in-Bond (at least we have an age statement and 100 proof!) and the top rung “Full Proof.” One of the most recognizable Full Proof products before this one is ironically produced by Barton’s 1792 brand (both are owned by Sazerac). For years, Benchmark wore no age statement and was watered down to a measly 80 proof.īut Buffalo Trace, not being content until they’re the best at everything, decided that they needed to corner the bottom shelf market even more by introducing new expressions of this lowly shelf turd by invigorating some age and proof into the mix. In August of this year, Buffalo Trace quietly released a revamped lineup of their bottom-shelf staple, Benchmark Bourbon. ![]() When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |