Old Forester 1920 Prohibition Style bourbon is a 115-proof bottle in the brand’s Whiskey Row lineup. The number on its label points to Prohibition-era history, but the useful question for a drinker is simpler: what distinguishes this expression from another Old Forester bourbon, and what do independent tasters actually report? The producer explains the proof and the historical inspiration. Two separate tasting accounts—one from Breaking Bourbon and one from Fred Minnick—offer a more grounded way to understand its flavor, strengths, and limits.
What Old Forester 1920 Prohibition Style Bourbon Is
Old Forester says the bottle commemorates its ability to continue bottling medicinal whiskey during Prohibition. It presents the current expression at 115 proof as a nod to what the company says a whiskey entering the barrel at 100 proof could have reached after maturation. That is an explanation of the modern bottle’s chosen proof, not evidence that the liquid is a reproduction of a particular barrel from 1920. The producer’s product description does not give the current whiskey an age statement or set out a barrel-by-barrel recipe.
The distinction matters because the historical story can easily do more work than the available facts allow. This is a present-day bourbon made to evoke an earlier period, not a surviving Prohibition bottling. Likewise, 115 proof tells readers how strong the finished bourbon is; it cannot, on its own, establish how old it is, how it was selected, or whether someone will prefer its flavor. Old Forester places 1920 among its current whisky offerings, but a product listing does not establish stock or shelf price at any particular store.
Where the Independent Tastings Meet
There is meaningful overlap between the two independent accounts. In a 2017 Breaking Bourbon tasting, Nick Beiter describes a concentrated profile built around dark fruit, chocolate, caramel-like sweetness, barrel char, and spice. Fred Minnick’s 2020 blind tasting notes identify sweet potato pie, cinnamon, sorghum molasses, balsamic, and banana. Those are their impressions of pours tasted years apart, not a promise that every glass will produce the same list of flavors.
Still, the common ground is useful. Neither account portrays 1920 as a light, narrowly vanilla-forward bourbon. Both find pronounced sweetness and darker or richer elements alongside spice. Their descriptions also show why a flavor shorthand such as “sweet bourbon” would be incomplete: Beiter’s account includes char and chocolate, while Minnick’s abbreviated notes reach for cooked fruit and savory-sweet comparisons. These are related impressions, not identical ones.
Where the Reviewers Differ
Beiter spends more time on structure. He finds a powerful aroma with a trace of alcohol, then describes chocolate, char, and sweetness carrying into a long finish. He regards the profile as notably different from other bourbons he had considered in the Old Forester range. That reading gives 1920 a clear strength—its substantial, recognizable character—but also identifies a practical limitation for someone seeking a quieter aroma or less barrel influence. Those observations belong to his reviewed sample, not to a tasting by this publication.
Minnick’s written account is shorter and comes from a different exercise: a blind comparison of bourbons purchased within a defined price band in 2020. His published notes foreground pie, molasses, cinnamon, and banana rather than Beiter’s chocolate-and-char emphasis. Minnick also cautions that the order of his blind tasting might change on another day. The difference is not proof that one reviewer missed a flavor. It shows how much a tasting description can depend on the sample, the setting, and which details a writer chooses to record.
A further 2020 comparison by Minnick puts 1920 beside Wild Turkey Rare Breed. He calls the contest extremely close and notes cherry pie, molasses, and a little banana for 1920. That adds support for the fruit-and-molasses thread in his earlier notes. It also keeps the assessment in perspective: even within his own tasting series, enjoying 1920 did not make it the undisputed standout in every comparison.
How to Read the Proof and the Price
At 115 proof, this is a materially different proposition from Old Forester’s 93-proof 1910 Old Fine Whisky. The comparison is not just a ladder of strength. Old Forester describes 1910 as whiskey that undergoes a second barreling, whereas the defining production detail the company emphasizes for 1920 is its historically inspired bottling proof. Someone comparing the two should therefore avoid assuming that 1920 is simply a stronger version of 1910—or that a higher number makes it better.
Price needs the same care. Breaking Bourbon recorded a $60 MSRP in its 2017 assessment, and Minnick bought 1920 for a 2020 tasting of bottles priced from $41 to $60 at the Kentucky store he visited. Those are dated reference points, not a verified September 2026 MSRP or a claim about what a nearby shop charges today. The independent descriptions can help explain what kind of profile the bottle has presented; neither old price establishes its value at a current checkout price.
There is a simple way to make the comparison more informative without treating anyone else’s tasting notes as instructions. Keep the bottle’s proof and the reviewers’ differing emphases in mind, then pay attention to what changes when a pour is given time or a little water. The site’s guide to drinking bourbon covers approaches to exploring a pour. No published set of notes can determine which flavors an individual drinker will find.
The Useful Bottom Line
Old Forester’s confirmed facts establish a 115-proof bourbon with a deliberate Prohibition-era connection. Independent accounts from 2017 and 2020 both point toward a rich, sweet, spice-bearing profile, while differing in whether chocolate and char or pie-like fruit and molasses receive the most attention. The historical name, high proof, and older price references do not settle how a particular bottle will taste or what it should cost now. They provide context; the reviewers provide attributed observations, including the reminder that even favorable tastings leave room for other preferences.
Sources were checked at the time of publication. Availability and pricing can change.