Hudson Baby Bourbon (DISCONTINUED)

Light airy and good floral throughout

Very smooth whiskey. On the palate you can taste caramel and it’s fruity.

Funky bourbon. Tastes like a rum mixed with Tequila. Not a fan

Not the most interesting

For Bourbon, amazing Rec from Emily. Tasted at Schroeder's in SF during Eng/Credit gathering Oct 20, 2022

WHISKIES I DON’T CARE FOR: ROUND 2 George Dickel Bottled in Bond vs Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey (These first two paragraphs are largely boilerplate from my Round 1 review). Lately I’ve been doing several side-by-side tastings. I have plenty of whisk(e)y that I love—probably too much—but I’ve also got some that I don’t care for, so I thought I’d mix it up and try to discern just what I don’t like about them. My mental shelving of them into the “not like” category means that they’ve been in the penalty box for some time; thus it’s instructive to ascertain whether or not they belonged there to begin with. The whiskies I selected for this round were picked randomly; they happened to be two that I recalled not liking. Unlike some of my other showdowns (Islay, BTAC, etc.), this side-by-side tasting has nothing to do with a specific region or type; rather, both of these are simply two that I haven’t drunk much (if any) because I didn’t care for them to begin with. George Dickel Bottled in Bond This bourbon won Whisky Advocate’s Whisk(e)y of the Year in 2019. (A digression: Whisky Advocate is part of Marvin Shanken’s portfolio of lifestyle magazines, which also includes Wine Spectator, Cigar Afficionado, and other industry publications. WA is not about finding “the best”; rather, it’s about marketing, business and “spreading the love around” so that retailers can have something new to push. To be fair, their methodology for the annual Top 20 excludes so-called “hard to find” whiskies. And of course, whisky and whiskey is anything but monolithic, so the comparison isn’t apples to apples. Are there repeat winners, or even repeat top-20 selections? I can’t find any since the list began in 2017. I love Lagavulin; but how is Lagavulin 11 Offerman Edition--not as good as the Lagavulin 16, or the Lagavulin Distiller's edition--the best of that year on any metric? Of course it doesn’t mean that all of their picks are bad: 2020’s #1, Larceny Barrel Proof, is outstanding. 2018’s #1, Nikka Whisky From the Barrel, is fantastic.2017’s #1, Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B517, is great. This isn’t my subjective opinion; it’s empirical statistical analysis. Five years. 100 whiskies. No duplicates. Dickel BiB was #1 in 2019, but hasn’t been able to crack the top 20 since? ECBP B517 was #1 in 2017, but couldn’t again crack the top 20 in the next five years? Off soapbox). As with all whiskies that win WA’s WOTY, this one got scarce for awhile. I found a bottle during the hype and counted myself lucky. Then I tasted it and put it aside. GD BiB has a 13-year-old age statement. Color is a deep, tawny burnt orange. On the nose there is a quite pronounced—and quite odd—note that many have described as “peanut” but I have described as “Flintstone’s chewable vitamins.” I’ve gotten the same note on the only other Dickel I’ve ever had (the regular 8-year-old expression). This time, I am getting more of the peanut aspect, and there is a certain pervasive richness to it. Perhaps this peanut-cum-Flintstone-vitamin thing is just a polarizing thing, like Julia Child and cilantro. Part of me wants to find something positive to say, like concentrated nectar of Snickers, but I just can’t get myself to say it. There’s also a cool spearmint note. The palate is an improvement: it is smooth and rich, with a chocolate-covered-cherries sweetness. The 100 proof shows itself on the back end of the palate, and continues on the finish, with a pleasant (and expected) bit of heat, finishing with lingering vanilla and additional cool spearmint. GD BiB is smooth and rich. So is clam chowder, and I don’t like clams. But if you like peanuts or children’s chewable vitamins in your whisky, you may like it. 2.5 on the Distiller scale. Of course, there are other polarizing whiskies: one that I love is Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Five-Malt Stouted Mash (reviewed 5/19/22). But whereas the Woodford was a special project with a specific goal that was (objectively) accomplished, the GD BiB is just…odd. One more thing. I’m not a Dickel fan based on my experience with two of their offerings (I’m stubborn though, and would surely at least try another if it was given to me). My position became more entrenched when I realized that this distiller offers a spirit aged in Tabasco barrels. I say “spirit” because it doesn’t qualify as a whiskey (it’s only 70 proof). Can any whisk(e)y connoisseur take that seriously? For more info on Dickel’s marketing master stroke with Tabasco, enjoy whisky.com’s Ben Luening’s comments (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wN5CWRHLrk). Skip to 5:17 for the fireworks. Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey Apparently this bourbon is now a relic, having been discontinued sometime in the past few years. It appears that Tuthilltown Distillers, which the label describes as the first New York distiller since Prohibition, has been bought by Scotland’s William Grant & Sons, and the offerings have been revamped. This particular bourbon appears to have been replaced by the “Bright Lights, Big Bourbon” brand. This discontinued bottle is only 375ml, 94 proof, “made with 100% New York corn,” and aged “under 4 years” without saying how long. Had I realized the mashbill, I would’ve included it in my “Corn Whiskey Showdown” (6/29/22). The nose is unmistakably corn and oak. The mouthfeel is nice, with a viscous, syrupy quality, along with corn-syrup sweetness. There is some corn sweetness and a little spiciness on the finish. Essentially a one-man band playing the same note. 1.5 on the Distiller scale.

I’ve seen this at many bars and liquor store shelves for $50+. I’ve always wanted to try it since I see it everywhere and had a chance for a pour at a bar. Starting with the nose, this really wasn’t “enjoyable”. It smelled like ethanol with a sweetness to it that wasn’t normal. I don’t know how to describe it, it was odd. It didn’t make me think it was terrible but more that I was confused on what to expect from the taste. Almost bland if you will. The palate made sense after the confusion of the nose. This was ethanol and just alcohol. No taste really except for a sweetness that lingered from the nose. Wasn’t awful but wasn’t great. Almost like I wasted a pour. So odd. The finish was the same. Nothing stood out. Probably one of the oddest bourbons I’ve had in that I regretted getting this pour. If anyone started a bourbon journey with this bottle, I could see them never going back to bourbon - which is sad. I’d stay away. Nothing to see here.