1792 is one of those bourbon brands that I’ve consistently enjoyed, especially when you find the bottles at the right price. The Small Batch has always been an easy recommendation for me, and I’ve had pretty good experiences with several other expressions in the lineup as well. So when I finally got the opportunity to pick up a bottle of 1792 Sweet Wheat, I was definitely curious to see what Barton had done differently with this limited release.
The problem was finding one at a reasonable price. I had seen Sweet Wheat on the shelf before, but the price was well over $80, which was roughly twice what I’d expect to pay. I passed. Eventually, my local store sent out a message saying they had some available, and despite initially deciding to skip it, I happened to be heading that direction anyway. Needless to say, I changed my mind pretty quickly.
The exact mash bill for 1792 isn't publicly disclosed, so we don't know exactly how much wheat is being used here. What we do know is that the wheat replaces the rye in the traditional 1792 recipe. That creates an interesting question: how much of that wheat character is actually going to make its way into the finished whiskey? Wheat can bring additional sweetness and softness, but depending on the recipe and production, it can also contribute some unusual or funky characteristics.
Age Statement: N/A (At least four years for a Straight bourbon).
ABV: 46%.
Mash bill: N/A.
Area of Distillation: Bardstown, Kentucky.
Appearance: Dark golden.
On the nose:
The wheat makes itself known pretty quickly. There's a little bit of a funky character here, but it's not unpleasant. In fact, I find it pretty interesting. There's a light sweetness alongside some cedar spice, cream soda, and sweet buttery corn. That cream soda note is probably the most distinctive part of the nose for me. It has this almost sweet craft-soda character that separates it from the normal 1792 profile.
There's also some light barrel char, along with the familiar bourbon combination of oak, vanilla, caramel, and brown sugar. None of it feels particularly heavy-handed, which makes sense given the relatively young age of the whiskey. As I kept nosing it, I also picked up a light candied nuttiness, somewhere between pecan and walnut. Overall, there's actually a surprising amount going on here for a bourbon at this price point and proof.
The biggest takeaway is that this definitely doesn't smell like a standard corn, rye, and barley bourbon. The wheat is doing something noticeable.
Taste:
The first sip brings a good coating and more warmth than I was expecting from a 45.6% ABV bourbon. There's definitely some of that candied walnut character coming through, along with brown sugar, barrel char, and a nice underlying corn sweetness. The problem is that the palate starts to fall a little flat. There's some wheat spice in the mix, but I also get a bit of astringency and ethanol that I wasn't expecting. There's almost a little Kentucky hug to it, followed by a somewhat bitter ethanol character as the flavors move toward the finish.
The second sip brings out more brown sugar and a candy-like coating, which I enjoyed. There's also a seasoned oak note that I find intriguing. It's not quite musty oak, but there's a subtle oak character here that I don't normally associate with a bourbon at this level. And that's where I find myself conflicted. I like the buttery corn sweetness. I like the brown sugar. I find the seasoned oak interesting. The wheat is certainly unique. But I'm not completely sold on the way all those elements come together.
Finish:
The finish is where some of the shortcomings become more apparent. There's still some sweetness and nuttiness hanging around, along with the oak and wheat character, but the whiskey doesn't maintain the complexity that it showed on the nose. There's a little bitterness and ethanol that keeps it from finishing as smoothly as I'd like.
That said, this is also one of those bottles where every additional sip makes me question my initial reaction. I'll take a sip and think, "It's not bad." Then I'll take another and think, "You know, this is kind of growing on me." It may simply need some time to open up. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a bottle that becomes more enjoyable after sitting open for a while.
Final Thoughts:
1792 Sweet Wheat is an interesting bourbon, but I'm still not entirely sure where I land on it. There's a lot to appreciate here. The nose is genuinely enjoyable, with cream soda, buttery corn, caramel, vanilla, brown sugar, cedar, barrel char, and that unusual wheat funk. The palate has some good moments as well, particularly the candied walnut and brown sugar notes. But it also feels like it's caught between two worlds. It's classic enough to remind you of a traditional 1792 bourbon, but the wheat introduces a funky twist that takes it somewhere else. In some ways, it feels like it's trying to play both sides of the tennis court without completely dominating either one.
I also wouldn't recommend paying the crazy secondary-market prices this bottle has commanded. At its typical $39.99-ish price point, I think it's worth experiencing if you enjoy trying unusual bourbon profiles. I'd probably stretch to around $45, and maybe $50 if I really wanted the bottle and knew I wouldn't see it again. But at $60, $80, or especially $100-plus? I'd pass. It's not a bad bourbon by any stretch, and I actually think there's a good chance I'll appreciate it more after the bottle has had some time to open up. The unique wheat character is interesting enough that I'd like to revisit it down the road.
Rating: C (Average).
Cost: $39.99 for 750ml.
Comments
Post a Comment