Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey

[snakster]

Didn't want to Hijack BourbonJoe's thread on PVW 20 at shppersvineyard, so decided to start another. On the home page at shppersvineyard.com I noticed the subject bottle http://www.shoppersvineyard.com/tuthilltownhudson/tuthilltown-hudson-baby-bourbon-whiskey-33928.html I searched and found no reference to it. Has anyone tried this New York Bourbon? My curiosity is piqued.

[DrinkyBanjo]

Lenell's carries this, I'm sure you could call her store and ask. I've never tried it and at $32.99 a 375 I doubt I will.

Didn't want to Hijack BourbonJoe's thread on PVW 20 at shppersvineyard, so decided to start another. On the home page at shppersvineyard.com I noticed the subject bottle http://www.shoppersvineyard.com/tuthilltownhudson/tuthilltown-hudson-baby-bourbon-whiskey-33928.html I searched and found no reference to it. Has anyone tried this New York Bourbon? My curiosity is piqued.

[snakster]

Lenell's is no closer to me than Clifton NJ. If I ever get there I may pick it up...just because. Then again, I may not, but it's only money. And I don't think $33 is going to make me miss a mortgage payment. I get the feeling though, that if I did make my way to that store, there are many other offerings (that I can't get here) that would attract my attention instead.

[DrinkyBanjo]

Sorry, I was saying call LeNells to get their opinion on the contents. They have a helpful staff that in fact drinks the stuff they sell and can offer and educated opinion.

[snakster]

Oh okay, reading again, I get it now (sorry). I just visitied the Tuthilltown distillery website. It's a good story. At this point I don't think it's a matter of 'if I get it' as much as 'if I can find it'. Apparently the small batch releases sell quickly. (And I'm all about expanding my horizons)

[Sijan]

I saw this yesterday at LeNell's and also at Canal's Discount Liquor Mart in Burlington, NJ. Canal's number is (609) 387-1541. Both were selling it for about $40 for 375ml, and I knew nothing about it so I took a pass. Please let me know if this stuff turns out to be good, as I may be back up in the NY/North Jersey area again in the near future.

[cowdery]

I think there may be some taste notes in another thread. I seem to recall someone, I think it was Gary Gillman, saying that it tastes like what it is, a bourbon-mash distillate that has been aged for three months, i.e., a very young bourbon.

[Gillman]

I had tastes from two bottles: one was the Manhattan rye (I think it was called), the other was labelled bourbon. Both had a similar, piney/resiny taste and nose. I would think this is a young distillate taste although it was so much like a wood sap effect I wonder if the spirit was absorbing some of this kind of gum from the small charred oak kegs used. It was an interesting taste and I want to support the efforts of a new distiller - the first I know of to release its own-make bourbon and rye in some 50 years. I think in time though a steady demand will likely require an older product (not all that much older, say around 2 years of age plus).

Gary

[NeoTexan]

Is this just a corn whiskey? The discription states, "Hudson Baby Bourbon is made with 100% New York State corn." and "This is honest single-grain whiskey". Or am I reading too much into it?

[Gillman]

Dale, this is not corn whiskey because it was aged, for long enough to be identified as bourbon, in new charred oak. A bourbon can be 100% corn (or a straight rye, 100% rye), provided distilled under 160 proof.

These were so distilled, and while very young, aged for a time in new charred wood, therefore, for long enough.

Gary

N. B. Dale: will we see you and Emily at KBF this year? I will not be attending the Gala but will be there for the Gazebos.

[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! :grin:

[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

[MikeK]

Had a pour of the Manhattan rye tonight. I enjoyed it a lot. Definitely the better of the two, no question.

Now to your question Chuck. My first gut answer is yes, I do care. Tradition is important. If you do it totally different, is it still bourbon? Or whiskey? My second thought is who cares? If you get your enzymes via natural process or chemicals, what does it matter? However, I do recall a discussion on one of the forums a while back that decided that malted barley gave a superiour flavor and body when compared to purely chemically introduced enzymes.

Distilleries (and most businesses) have altered their traditional processes over the years and generally to save time/money, and not always to improve quality. I would not want to see this practice find its way into main stream bourbon distillation and further reduce the flavor of our fine beverage.

[Gillman]

For my part again, just to clarify, I meant to say old-time distillers could get a mash without use of malted cereals, if they had to: not an ideal situation, but if necessary they could. (They could get a ferment without adding yeast, too).

Just to clarify, I found the palate of the bourbon more interesting than it was good. It is a young product, a little feisty and raw. I agree with Mike the rye is better.

I view the first bottlings of the bourbon as experimental. This smalll operation is trying different things and still finding its way. In time it has the potential to release some excellent craft bourbon. This will occur I think if it is able to age bourbon for omeyears rather than months (and rye too).

Gary

[cowdery]

For my part again, just to clarify, I meant to say old-time distillers could get a mash without use of malted cereals, if they had to: not an ideal situation, but if necessary they could. (They could get a ferment without adding yeast, too).

The second statement is true, because yeast are always in the enviornment and if you set out a mash, it will ferment.

The first statement, however, is false. A tub of ground cereal and water will not mash and will not ferment, not in a million years.

And the use of industrial enzymes instead of malt is not inefficient, just the opposite. It is extremely efficient. The enzymes used were developed for the paper pulp industry.

[Gillman]

I was saying that mashing without the use of malted cereals was (no doubt) inefficient, not mashing with the addition of enzyme.

For the statement that a mash can be made without use of malt, I had in mind Byrn's Complete Practical Distiller. At p. 77:

"It often happens that distillers are in want of malt; they are then forced to distill their raw grain without it. To obviate a little the inconveniences of this way of working, they add, during the mashing, a quantity of chaff. They attribute to this chaff a property analagous to that of malt - that of giving lightness to their matter. It has been ascertained that chaff has this property, if not of saccharifying fecula converted into paste, at least to render it fluid, and make it more attackable by the saccharifying agents".

Byrn goes on to state that chaff is sometimes even used with malt.

Gary

[cowdery]

Mashing without the use of malted cereals is not inefficient, it is impossible.

More to the point, saccharification of grain starch does not occur except through enzymes and prior to the development of industrial enzymes, the only source of the necessary enzymes was malt in some form. Or human saliva.

Chaff means husks, insoluble solids that are introduced to help the starches dissolve, which is a necessary first step in mashing, since only starches that have been dissolved can be converted. Chaff cannot aid saccharification unless Byrn's chaff also mysteriously contains enzymes.

"For want of" may mean "not enough," in which case saccharification would be inefficient, but no enzymes, no saccharification and no fermentation. Yeast is powerless on starch.

Cytase breaks down starch cells. Diastase works on starch to sugar conversion. Diastase is two enzymes, Amylase, which converts starch to dextrine, and Dextrinase, which converts dextrine to sugar.

Again, I fear I'm doing a poor job of explaining myself.