Old Forester’s Whisky Row line is nothing if not homage-filled. Introduced in 2014, the series includes four bottles that offer consumers a more upscale (but still available and affordable) way to enjoy Old Forester bourbon. Each expression takes its identify from a key year in Brown-Forman’s brand history and, in the case of 1897, bourbon as a whole. The third entry (today’s review) references a year that most whisky consumers should instantly recognize upon seeing the label.

1920 is the year the Volstead Act went into effect, plunging the United States into a 13-year-long prohibition. During this time, six distilleries earned permits to continue bottling bourbon for medicinal purposes. Brown-Forman, who owns Old Forester, was one of them. Perhaps it’s of little surprise that Old Forester describes their 1920 bottling as “Prohibition style,” especially given their pitch of history. The brand claims that all whiskies at the time entered the bottle at 100 proof, with the angel’s share resulting in a 115 proof whisky after entering the barrel at 100 proof (sounds like those barrels were literally hot). To that end, 1920 comes in at 115 proof.

The entire Whisky Row line recently saw a slight label facelift, so this review is based on one of those.

Nose: The proof and likely youth are apparent with banana oatmeal while some cherry barely offsets the slightly dry (but not bitter) overtones. Over time I get raspberry sauce amidst more dominant notes of maple and dehydrated vanilla. Eventually opens up to a custard-like personality with an ongoing sense of straw or hay.

Palate: First sip lets on hot the way Old Forester typically does. Some upfront cherry and caramel soon give way to notes of vanilla custard, banana nut bread, light brown sugar, and underbaked pastries as it sits.

Finish: Fairly hot, a bit drying, and somewhat waxy. Wood, vanilla, a sprinkling of brown sugar, and a lurking sensation of basil or cilantro. Kinda odd considering the rich profile the nose and palate go for.

My relationship with Old Forester becomes shakier every time I return to them. 1920 was one of my first whisky loves since it brought great flavor with its high proof, an effective combination for an impressionable drinker warming up to higher proof pours. Likewise, I consider their 100 proof non-bonded bourbon and rye whiskies to be fantastic, versatile values, especially for cocktails. My fondness for the brand peaked when I tried a pour of the 150^th Anniversary batch 2 at a bar in Georgia while driving to Kentucky in 2021. It remains my favorite Old Forester product.

After that, however, things tapered off. I tried the 2016 Birthday Bourbon at Bardstown Bourbon Company and immediately thought “This doesn’t seem much better than 1920, if at all.” Then came my introduction to their Single Barrel Barrel Strength bourbon line through a local pick. In short: I was conflicted. I’ve also tried two more barrel picks, one of them apparently selected by the Master Distiller. Both were hot, abrasive messes.

1920 in its current form feels like a representation of Old Forester products as a whole. It straddles the line between the strong value of their budget-conscious expressions and the perplexing fervor of their limited expressions. As with most Old Forester products, it drinks every bit of its proof (maybe more so) and packs plenty of personality. Whether that kind of personality is to my liking is another question, especially when my answer often shifts from day to day. Sometimes 1920 does the trick, other times it strikes an odd mix of off notes.

Taking day-to-day experiences together, Old Forester 1920 is the epitome of inconsistent. It constantly wavers between delightful flavor bomb and hot mess. There are richer notes hinting toward a more mature bourbon, but they’re at ends with the yeasty essence refusing to back off. Neither are dominant, which only plays up the conflicted nature Old Forester 1920 epitomizes. Other than utilizing it in cocktails, 1920 fails to elicit a consistent response from me, which only calls into question its reliability as a stalwart option. There’s definitely a place for it in both bars and collections, but whether it appears in mine is another question.