Introduction
This week, we’re diving into another offering from 1792: the Sweet Wheat. This is the second in a lineup of five 1792 bourbons we're drinking to end Season 7 of the podcast. Last week, we reviewed 1792 Small Batch.
This is an interesting bourbon, Brad, because it’s not age-stated, and we don’t really know how old it is. It’s a wheated bourbon, so we’re expecting some sweetness here, similar to what we get with brands like Weller or Rebel. But 1792 is also known for its high-rye mash bills, which makes us wonder just how much wheat they’ve used in this whiskey. Is this a high-wheat mash bill or just a touch of wheat to balance things out? We’re not entirely sure, but we’re here to find out.
The following review is taken from our episode "Rope / 1792 Sweet Wheat Bourbon." Click the link to listen to this review in audio format.
Nose
Brad: On the nose, you get the cherries that you normally get on a wheated whiskey, but for me, it turns into more of a dusty peanut note. Overall, though, there’s a persistent note of nail polish remover that I just can’t shake. It’s not terrible or overwhelming, but it does detract from the other aromas. I’m giving it a 6.5/10.
Bob: I’m getting a lot of dustiness and oak on the nose, but the predominant note for me is leather. There’s even a little bit of tobacco in there. Honestly, it reminds me more of some of the oaky Woodfords we’ve tried rather than a typical wheated bourbon. This whiskey is called Sweet Wheat, but I’m not picking up a lot of those classic sweet notes you’d expect, like cherry cola. That makes me wonder how much wheat is actually in this mash bill. I’ll give it a 7.5/10.
Taste
Brad: On the palate, I got some cinnamon, cherry, and vanilla. The peanuts kind of disappear, but there’s a pleasant flavor overall. However, nothing really stands out, and it lacks depth. I’m going with a 7/10.
Bob: This whiskey reminds me a lot of Buffalo Trace, honestly. It’s almost like standard Buffalo Trace, not even necessarily Weller. But then, when I swallow, it gets really char-heavy, almost burnt. This isn’t what I anticipated at all. It’s not bad, but I’d never describe it as “sweet” or “wheated.” I’ll give it a 7/10.
Finish
Brad: The finish is really short and sweet, and it dissipates quickly. I like your note about something burnt because, for me, it almost tastes like a really strong artificial vanilla extract that’s been burnt a bit. It’s just okay on the finish. I’ll give it a 6/10.
Bob: On my second sip, the sweetness comes out a little more, and I do get a bit of that brandied cherry toward the back. But then, that char comes back again, and it almost turns herbal. It’s good, but not what I expected from something called Sweet Wheat. I’ll go with a 7.5/10 on the finish.
Balance
Brad: The balance is there, but the quality isn’t quite up to par. The flavors carry through from nose to finish, but it just doesn’t have the depth I’d hope for. I’m at a 6.5/10.
Bob: I agree that it’s consistent, but it feels like a whiskey that’s been mislabeled. If I didn’t know the name of the product, I’d probably give it a higher score. But knowing it’s called Sweet Wheat and tasting what I’m tasting, I’m going with a 7.5/10.
Value
Brad: This whiskey is priced at $38 in Ohio, but honestly, I don’t think it’s worth that much. If it were a $30 whiskey, I’d probably be at a 7.5 or 8 out of 10 on value, but for $40, I just feel like there are better options out there. I’m giving it a 4/10.
Bob: I actually don’t think $40 is too bad for what I’m drinking. I’d probably prefer this over standard Buffalo Trace, and it’s priced in line with Weller Special Reserve, which this is a little cheaper than. I think it’s a fair value at $40. I’ll give it a 6.5/10.
Final Scores
- Brad: 30/50
- Bob: 36/50
- Average: 33/50 (66/100)
Conclusion
With an average score of 33/50 or 66/100, 1792 Sweet Wheat doesn’t quite live up to its name. While it’s not a bad whiskey, it doesn’t deliver the sweetness or the wheated profile we were expecting. We wouldn’t recommend buying a bottle outright, but it might be worth trying a pour at the bar if you’re curious. For $5 to $7, it’s a decent gamble, but it’s not one we’ll be rushing to pick up again.
