1792 Sweet Wheat

We continue our series on 1792 bourbons with a review of 1792 Sweet Wheat.  For a detailed history of 1792 and reviews of many other 1792 and Barton products, check out our 1792 page.

1792 Sweet Wheat

1792’s primary mash bill is believed to be 75% corn, 15% rye and 10% barley.  That recipe is believed to be utilized for all of 1792’s bourbons, other than the High Rye and the Sweet Wheat.  We previously reviewed the High Rye, and found that it may not be the improvement of the standard recipe that we had hoped.  Today, we see if the wheated recipe can outshine the standard recipe.

Barton does not disclose the mash bill for Sweet Wheat.  Many believe that Barton merely substitutes the wheat for the rye in the standard mash bill offering, making this 75% corn, 15% wheat and 10% barley.

Sweet Wheat was first offered in 2015 as a “Limited Edition Expression.”  It has been one of the more hard-to-come-by releases since.

1792 Sweet Wheat (91.2 Proof)

Nose:  Hard butterscotch candy; toffee; dry oak; apricot; apple; corn bread; vanilla syrup. Sweet but sophisticated, the oak seems to add some sharp, almost peppery spice.  (3.5/5)

Palate: Thinner than I expected, with a bit more corn; caramel syrup; simple syrup; diluted apple cider; vanilla. Certainly not as sweet as most wheated bourbons, with almost a dryness (not tannic, not chalky, not quite cocoa, yet not quite solely woody either) that seems to be the opposite of sweet.  (2.5/5)

Finish:  Traditional 1792 corn and caramel flavors; some lingering chocolate covered toffee; dry oak.  (2.5/5)

Overall:  I struggle to get this to “satisfied” on our scale.  The nose is a savior here.  While there are decent flavors throughout, this fits within my overall take of 1792:  disjointed.  The flavors on paper read fine, but they don’t always play well together.  (3/5)

Value:  If I’m looking for a wheated bourbon and I have $40 to spend, I’m probably picking up something with a “Weller” or “Fitzgerald” or even a “Makers” name on it 99 times out of 100.  And I’m left with close to enough for a second bottle.  Absent the limited availability of this bottle, I’d be pretty disappointed.  (2/5)

“While there are decent flavors throughout, this fits within my overall take of 1792:  disjointed.”

1792 Sweet Wheat

Scott Hill

Scott is a co-founder of Flight Club and a frequent writer and reviewer on the Club’s blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *