Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey

[Aged In Oak]

Funny that this thread should appear now. I was just on a road trip, and downloaded a bunch of archived episodes of The Whiskeycast to take with me (I just started listening recently). In one episode from last year he mentioned a new distiller in upstate New York for which LeNell's would be one of the retailers. No name was mentioned, and I was going to ask the board if anyone knew about it. I'm assuming this is what he was talking about, unless we're lucky enough to have TWO new distilleries!

[cowdery]

Nope, that's definitely it. LeNell, as is her wont, was probably very instrumental in even getting them to make this product.

I'm pretty sure they also make corn whiskey and have been doing that for some time.

The essential difference between something being called corn whiskey or bourbon is the charred oak barrel. It can be corn whiskey in every other respect, but if you age it in charred oak, it's bourbon, not corn whiskey.

[nov26_2]

I picked up a bottle today and will try to give an opinion soon. Purchased on Clifton, NJ for $36. I honestly didn't think $36 was too bad for a small batch. If it turns out to be bad, I can always console myself by thinking I can spend $10 bucks in tolls just to get to NYC.

[Gillman]

I just had some of the four grain iteration and enjoyed it. It is not called baby bourbon, just Four Grain Bourbon, but it does not seem that old. It has a piney-like taste backed with some good bourbon barrel flavors. I prefer the taste to the nose. I do believe this kind of whiskey hearkens back to the very origins of bourbon, when much of it was not aged that long.

Gary

[MikeK]

I picked up a bottle of Baby Bourbon and a bottle of their Rye while passing through Albany last week. Yes, it is pricey, but I wanted to check out their work and encourage this type of behavior.

It is quite young, but not bad at all. I will get back with some notes after I get through the bottles.

Of course there are way better bottles to drop $35 on, but this is something new and different, and hence fun to try.

Cheers,

[ILLfarmboy]

I look forward to reading your impressions, Mike. If I could buy this stuff from Binny's I would have, long ago.

[MikeK]

Hudson Baby Bourbon
92 proof
2008 – Batch 3 – Bottle 507

Nose: Mint and Vanilla with a (good) muskiness

Taste: Sweet, a little bitey. Has a pine resin/juniper flavor that reminds me a lot of Woodford Reserve. I wonder if this flavor comes from the pot still? Body is light to medium. Faint caramel.

Finish: Sweet, medium length

Overall: A pleasant bourbon. Definitely young, but not bad at all. There are many better bourbons out there for the price, but there are a lot worse ones too, and by distilleries that have been at it for decades. It was fun to try something totally different and these guys might end up with an outstanding product down the road.


The Manhattan Rye has similar impressions, but it had a much stronger and richer nose, and the flavor was also more full bodied, stong, and spicy. A lint of cotton candy.

[Gillman]

I agree about the pine notes, Mike, excellent review.

Gary

[cowdery]

Here's a good place to explore some of my issues with these products. You have tasted this product and like it. Does it matter to you that it was made using no malt of any kind in the mash? The mash was 100% corn and they used commercial enzymes, not malted barley, not malted corn, not malted anything. Just enzymes. Do you care?

Because of the enzymes, and its youth, the European Union won't even let them call it whiskey. Possibly they can use the word Bourbon in Europe but not Whiskey. Do you agree with the EU's standards, or don't you care?

[Gillman]

I do not care (very much) because a ferment can take place without addition of any malted barley. It may not be efficient, but old-time distillers could get a fermentation without malt if they had to. This being so, why would it matter if a boost was obtained with a little chemical help? I don't see the difference between this and chemically treating water, for example, something which craft brewers do as a matter of course where needed. Malting is itself a short-cut, a primitive way to create enzyme in sufficient quantity. The EU's definition of whisky is the result of a specific historical background to whiskey production there. It should not drive what I think of as whiskey in a North American context. I think whisky (or Scotch whisky) must be aged 3 years; straight bourbon is good whiskey after two. Horses for courses..

Gary