Reticent though I am to dampen the enthusiasm here where the community score is running to a 4.6 (with only 4 other tastes, admittedly), I have to be honest and concede that I’m not quite as big a fan of this rye as my fellow tasters. Which is not to say that this whisky isn’t good (stick with me here). It is. It’s interesting, and I might go so far as to say, in the most complimentary of sense, that it’s weird. I first cracked this open last Sunday, watching the Eagles struggle to hold a lead into the half against a strong 49ers team (I’m not a hater, a toast to you San Fran, you played a solid game and earned that "W"), and not to put too fine a point on it but my team’s struggle mirrored my own to get a handle on the nose and palate of this whisky. To my mind, there are three types of basic flavor profiles for rye whisky. First, you have your predominantly sweet ryes, the palate reminiscent of cherry coke, like Sazerac (delicious, delicious Sazerac). Then, you have your ryes that are dominated by baking spice flavors, nutmeg and clove and cinnamon, like Knob or Overholt. Finally, you have those that are herbal, like High West Double Rye, George Dickel, Dad’s Hat, and New Riff BIB. Of course, with some ryes you get a mingling of these types, and what we have here, with Hudson’s Back Room Deal, seems to be a mingling of the first two. At least, I think it’s a mingling of the first two, though there’s also something of the third maybe. The nose is…well, I’d say it’s sweet, but that sweet is imbued with the faint aroma of peat, which to me is coming off as something of a pine scent? Which would add that herbal aspect? Can you see what I mean by this being a difficult whisky to unlock (and certainly one that might not be to everyone’s liking)? And while I like the peat influence and find the nose fragrant and interesting to investigate, the resulting pine if more pine air freshener than it is an autumnal hike through an arcadian New England forest. Would it be better if it was, if it had a fresher scent, something closer to organic? I don’t know. Possibly. But as is, I enjoy it. As I move along my whisky journey, I tend to like the adventure of oddball choices, the anticipating of tasting something experimental that might not work out, or might, at best, have mixed result, or might be successful to an extent but not entirely something that will rock my world eternally (and of these, I would say Back Room Deal is the third of those three). Some people—purists, I suppose—have decried the finishing game as gimmicky (and by finishing game, I suppose they don’t mean sherry casks with their long and storied traditions, but less fundamental types of casks, particularly pointing to the plethora of recent rum barrel finishes). But I can’t help but see it as an exciting way to add complexity to younger whiskies, especially for newer brands that haven’t been around long enough to age their whiskies a decade or more and make a financial go of it. And I celebrate Hudson’s daring choice here (just as I celebrated Sagamore’s Añejo-Finished Rye; though that one was also more successful than the Back Room Deal). As for the palate, the sweetness of the rye is more straightforward, with a bit of baking spice, which is why, earlier in this review, I mention Sazerac. It’s been half a year since I had a bottle of that, but it stuck with me, and tasting this back memories of that. Given the months between the two, I hope you’ll forgive me when I admit that I’m not entirely sure of the accuracy of that comparison (especially when you take into account the peat influence), but the memory made me stop by the local FW&GS to pick up more Sazerac, so a one-to-one comparison is in order in the future. My bias, as far as memory goes, would be to recommend the Sazerac as the better, casual, day-to-day sipping whiskey, especially since it’s $20 cheaper (honestly, the price on the Back Room Deal might be the strongest mark against it; though with a smaller distillery, you're paying slightly more because they can't produce as much as the big boys), but my preference these days runs to the unique, to the unconventional, so I would say that if you’ve enjoyed Sazerac in the past, and you also like peated scotch, this Back Room Deal will be up your alley. So where does the peat fit into the palate? It’s on the back end of the sweetness, emerging as the cherry cola and vanilla fade to clove and cinnamon, mingling in there with a nice spicy finish. My rating here might be a tad below the others, but don’t let that fool you into thinking I’m not a fan. To repeat a few words I’ve used that are characteristic of the Back Room Deal experience, this whisky is adventurous, weird, out there, unique, and I certainly wouldn’t trade that experience. I came out with a win, even if the Eagles didn’t. In fact, the least tasteful aspect of this whisky is the Helvetica font on the label, but hey, they’re trying to tie their brand to the NY subway system to represent the state where Hudson is headquartered. And what better way to say fruitful aromas and full-bodied flavors than reminding people of the NY subway? Fortunately, the liquid in the bottle is strong and good like a Hemingway hero. (And while I gave this the same rating I recently gave Legent bourbon, the Back Room Deal 3.5 is more enthusiastic than that one was. Feel free to disagree. I’m sure plenty of people will. But then, Legent will reach legions more whisky fans, so I feel the need to endorse this one with a post-script. If all of this or any of this sounds good, give your support to an up-and-coming distillery. I don’t think you’ll regret it).