1792 Ridgemont Reserve Drops Age Statement
Posted:
Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:43 pmby WhiskeyCollector
Just noticed 1792 Ridgemont Reserve has dropped its age statement. It used to say on the back label that it's 8 years old but now nothing!
A sad trend that I can only see getting worse.
Re: 1792 Ridgemont Reserve Drops Age Statement
Posted:
Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:53 amby fricky
We tend to panic when an age statement is dropped, since we are confident that younger whiskey will be used and it will be inferior. Personally, I will wait to pass judgement until I have tasted the non-age-stated version. I recall the uproar over Buffalo Trace dropping the age on Weller Antique. After I tried the first non-age-stated version, I thought it was superior to the age stated bottle to which I compared it. In the meantime, one can buy all of the age stated bottles that will fit in their bunker.
Re: 1792 Ridgemont Reserve Drops Age Statement
Posted:
Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:33 pmby 393foureyedfox
it must not be too bad. I overheard two store employees restocking shelves today discussing how they cant believe how much of it they sell
Re: 1792 Ridgemont Reserve Drops Age Statement
Posted:
Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:17 amby Eggman
Howdy,
Bought my first bottle of this well regarded Bourbon this evening. The taste and the nose are good. I'm digging it for $30. It beats Elijah Craig 12 and Russell's Reserve 10 in that price range. YMMV and MHO.