1792 Sweet Wheat

🌾 Barton 1792 Sweet Wheat @ 91.2 🎻🌾 Let the music play and pour the wheat 🌾 🎻 Back for another round of spirited discussions where the drinks are genuine, the conversation is light, and the tunes are… vintage. Tonight, I opened a bottle I had my eye on for some time—1792 Sweet Wheat from Barton 1792 Distillery—and to match its name, I'm playing a recording of classical music from the 19th century. Because, let's face it, nothing screams "historical significance" like loud noises and classical music filling your spirits room. It's the closest thing I own to 1792 that doesn't involve old-fashioned clothing or duels. 🔫 Now, if you're familiar with my tastes—and you should be by now—I have a fondness for bourbons made with wheat. I mean a fondness like a soft, fluffy biscuit at a community gathering. Barton's 1792 range already impresses me with their Small Batch—a solid $30 pour that stands up well against Elijah Craig Small Batch or even Evan Williams Bottled-in-Bond when you're on a tight budget… go for it!!! 🎖️ But tonight, it’s Sweet Wheat’s 🌾 time to shine… or at least offer a gentle glow. Let's get the details: • Proof: 91.2—a gentle introduction. • Mash bill: Corn, wheat, malted barley… the precise amounts? That’s Barton’s closely guarded information. • Finish: You'll need to observe… so let's dive in. 🥃 First Taste: "Hello there, wheat." It's smooth, sweet, and gentle on the tongue, like a soothing melody. But is it too subdued? There's sweetness, certainly—but mild. It's as if the flavor volume was intentionally kept low. 🥃 Second Taste: Still calm, still pleasant… but not much else to report. Imagine less of a grand musical climax and more of a quiet ambiance in a spa. It’s consistent, no doubt. Just not impactful. 🥃 Third Taste: Alright, it’s smooth. Perhaps excessively so. Like a courteous acquaintance who visits, praises your pet, and then departs before the main course. No unpleasant tastes, no heat, no fuss… it just fades away. Final thoughts? Sweet Wheat is like a shy spirit—pleasant to be around, but don't expect it to lead the interaction. If you're new to wheated bourbons or just starting your whiskey journey, this could be perfect for you. If you prefer more intense, complex flavors? You might find it lacking. However, it does make for an attractive bottle to display, especially if you're collecting the 1792 line. 🎧 So, play some of your own music—perhaps something energetic—and pour a glass. Or even better, watch the video review (you are watching, right?), click that Like button, hit Subscribe, and pass along the Share button as quickly as possible. And naturally, I'd be interested in your opinions. Leave a comment: Have you experienced Sweet Wheat? Which is your favorite from the 1792 range? And if you desire a sample, well… you know how to reach me. 🍻 Until our next encounter, stay true to your preferences, stay curious, and keep those records playing. Salud! — A reviewer 🥃🎶 - BBBB -

1792 Series (10 of 12**): Sweet Wheat **Note: I might have just legally obtained a 225th anniversary edition. Did you know: Rye products in the culinary world are known for being dense and sour. Wheat products are often perceived as bitter or bland. I believe this applies to bourbon as well. If my hypothesis is correct (and frankly, I'm probably wrong), this would create a grain-based distinction when comparing wheated bourbons to ryed bourbons, as 'bitterness' is a tactile sensation. You can counteract sourness with sweetness, but bitterness requires adaptation, something I've encountered before with overly oaked or high-proof spirits. More on this later. Nose: Caramel apples, dust, lemon. Mild strawberries. Body: Maple syrup, brine, sweet cream, strawberries. Butterscotch. Very smooth. Finish: Mocha, heavy cream. Cherry. Be cautious, as the combination of brine and mocha can lead to an unpleasant bitter taste, overshadowing the sweetness. If you're experiencing a harsh bitter note, try swirling the spirit in your mouth. A few Kentucky chews helped me uncover the sweeter notes by the end of my pour. I've heard Weller products or combinations thereof are referred to as 'poor man's Pappy.' A successful recipe I've seen involves mixing 2 parts W12 with 3 parts OWA. This does a reasonable job from a flavor profile standpoint, but it overlooks the fact that neither W12 nor OWA are budget-friendly. I'm not saying this Sweet Wheat is either, but it's more affordable and easier to find if you know where to look. It genuinely aligns well with the PVW15 flavor profile. It's not Pappy, but to me, it's as close as the Weller cocktail. If you enjoy wheated bourbons, you should try this. It's less refined compared to more expensive wheat bourbons, and frankly, it tastes a bit harsh even next to my regular wheater, Weller SR. However, if you can adjust your palate, they've truly captured a fantastic strawberry and cream combination that I've previously only enjoyed in PVW15, a special Old Forester pick, the Weller cocktail, and a specific bottle called Chessman. While Sweet Wheat was the least polished version of this flavor among this group, it still offers good value if you encounter it. I'm eagerly anticipating the next bottle in line: 1792 Port Finish

Score: 15/23 Nose: The primary note is banana bread, with sweet banana, baking spices, and bitter, oily walnut. It's a delicious aroma, with faint traces of vanilla and wood, but overwhelmingly like smelling banana bread. Palate: Soft, gentle, and sweet, featuring baking spices and subtle banana. It has medium viscosity and a touch of minerality. The spices provide a lovely rich sweetness, with occasional notes of chocolate, making it remarkably similar to drinking banana bread. While not incredibly complex, its balance is excellent, making it very drinkable and not at all one-dimensional. Finish: It maintains a soft, cake-like sweetness, with a bit more grain emerging. There are hints of banana. Not much happens here, but it perfectly captures the essence of banana bread in whiskey form. - Conclusion - I've typically not been a fan of wheated bourbons, with William Larue Weller being a notable exception. I usually find them rather dull. This one changes my perspective by offering a distinct flavor profile and pleasingly soft drinkability. This is a strong contender against Elijah Craig Small Batch (15/23), and I slightly prefer it due to its increased nuance. However, the Elijah Craig is more indulgent. Compared to Russell's Reserve 10 (15-16/23), this is a more indulgent, less refined offering. The Russell's seems closer in quality to this than the Elijah Craig. Choosing between this and the Russell's would be difficult, but I'd lean towards the Russell's. With that in mind, I'm giving this a 15. Still, I really enjoy the banana bread flavor here. It just ends up being a little too soft. I could see myself upgrading this to a 16, but for now, it's a 15. For a considerable time, I truly believed I would award this a 16. It's almost there! I adore the banana bread aspect, but it's just shy of earning that 16. As much as I appreciate its success in capturing a single concept, it doesn't quite match the quality of drams that skillfully combine diverse elements. Thank you to a friend for sharing this one!

I got this bottle for $50, so I couldn't resist, even though it wasn't high on my list of whiskies to find. The aroma is quite faint and needs some swirling to bring out much. Yes, it's sweet, and yes, it's wheated. There are hints of light fruits, some notes like peanuts in the shell, and not much else I can detect... it's very delicate. After one sip, I can already tell this might be the sweetest whiskey I've tasted in years. There's not a lot happening here... it's straightforward, but it is enjoyable, to be fair, even if it doesn't challenge the palate. There's a splash of tropical fruit, faint vanilla, and while I'm sure it was aged in wood, there's no discernible oak influence. There's a bit of initial heat that quickly mellows, and then the finish is quite abrupt as well. I'm completely satisfied with this bottle at its suggested retail price, as I've generally liked the 1792 line more than most people. However, anything over $50 would have left me feeling let down, and I'm also glad I never spent $15 or more for a small serving at a bar. I'll keep this one on hand for guests who want to try something different.

Finally trying this bottle, which I acquired in early 2022. For context, I also managed to get a 1792 Full Proof and a 1792 Aged 12 Year – that was a fortunate day. Enough reminiscing, let's get to the review. The aroma is very mellow and sweet, with faint fruit hints... quite subtle. On the palate, it's light, sweet, followed by notes of chocolate, fruit, and soft grain. Considering its proof, I've encountered wheated bourbons with a stronger kick, but this is enjoyable. It makes for a pleasant sipping bourbon, suitable for a cocktail party where one can casually socialize. I'm being generous with a 4-star rating; the excitement of finding it was slightly more rewarding than the actual drink. To be clear, I've had other wheated bourbons that are just as flavorful, if not superior in my opinion. Larceny and Makers 46, for instance, are readily available and, to me, offer a better flavor profile. Nevertheless, if you're a fan of the 1792 brand, acquire it if you have the chance.

Glass: Glencairn, allowed to rest for 15 minutes. Appearance: Light to medium amber. Nose: Vanilla and apricot, with some raisin. Palate: A sweet corn flavor that transitions to notes of clove and baking spice. Finish: Medium in duration with minimal heat. With water: A touch of dry oakiness emerges. Overall: Rated 6 out of 10. I had been looking forward to trying this expression for a long time. In a market filled with Sazerac-produced wheated bourbons, this one doesn't manage to distinguish itself. For a similar or lower price, Buffalo Trace or Eagle Rare are superior choices and more accessible.