Mocha Diablo from Daves Brewfarm

I bought a couple of growlers from Dave's BrewFarm, one has been sitting in the beer fridge awaiting the most auspicious time to drink it's contents, I decided that tonight was the right time to open and imbibe Mocha Diablo.

I took the growler out of the fridge two hours before I was going to open it. It is after all a stout, dark, silky, smooth and promising to be luscious, so cold is not what I wanted, and being a grumpy old Brit I don't get off on ice cold beer, especially stouts, porters, browns or bitters, I like to taste what I drink, I don't chug my beer, I want to taste all the flavours, the good and the bad. Cold beer does nothing to enhance beer flavours, 50-55F is the ideal temperature for imbibing. (Of course that is my opinion, if you don't agree, so what. I decide what is good beer, I am paying and I am drinking it,or in some cases pouring it into the drain).

So I opened the growler, the swing top cap leapt open, no gushing, just a gentle hiss.

I poured it slowly into a Duvel glass, the tulip is the perfect shape to capture the aromas that I was anticipating. As I poured slowly into the center of the glass I watched the beer flow, black with tinges of dark brown at the edges, the head formed dense, tight bubbles of black coffee coloured foam. Delightful. Enticing.

I watched the head blossom and then like a souffle cooling begin to sink, ever so slightly, again delightful to watch. Beckoning.

The nose; my first thought was cold OXO, (it being British beef stock cube that I would drink hot with hot buttered toast on cold winter nights when I was younger), there was a note of beef stock, pleasant, quickly followed by chocolate, dark, like 90% cocoa solids, black, sultry smooth and sensuous, and malt now I am anticipating the taste like a young man about to taste his first woman, I can't wait!

Oh! I am not disappointed. Smooth, so smooth, full bodied, chocolate, subtle, malt with a slight hint of sweet bitterness and then the pepper. Not hot, not overly spicy, warm and tingly, with chocolate. I want more. Now the sip is a mouthful. Swirling over my tongue, brushing against my cheeks, lashing my mouth with spicy chocolate and malt, and then, then there is the sweetness, the luscious syrupy sweetness, it was there all along just lurking not wanting to be the main attraction, the heat, the sweet and the malt come together, perfectly balanced, no indication of 8.8% ABV. The growler is empty. I enjoyed it all. I want more.
Dave I applaud you. You have created a beautiful thing, it is a glorious beer.
But don't try and drive after imbibing this

Is seasonal beer selection too damn much to ask?

Dear Beer Venues of the Twin Cities,

I know you try. Really. And I know you gotta do what's going to keep you in business, not what's going to make me personally happy. But you know, can we kinda plan for seasonal changes a bit? Not just with one tap, but maybe a few? And do "specials" always have to mean what Rate Beer goons think -- bigger, heavier, thicker, more alcoholic?

Case in point, just one of many.  It's hot.  Damn hot.  Currently (5 pm) 96 degrees F in St. Paul MN, with a dew point of 82 F, meaning -- according to my local weather guy -- that it "feels like" 120 F.  It's been like this for a while, will be for at least a while more.

With that in mind, here's a facebook update I got from one great local -- Bulldog Lowertown -- just two hours ago:

"Belgian Independence Week celebrations continue tonight with LaTrappe features including the limited Oak Aged Quad (batch 3)!"

Thanks guys...maybe I can sit at an outside table with that? I'll be a double jerk and complain it's served "too cold" and I can't taste it. But seriously, could we instead maybe celebrate one of the world's great beer cultures with a series of hard-to-get saisons, wits, or other seasonally appropriate beers?

Your pal,
Joe

PS sorry Bulldog - the heat's got me a bit cranky.  Just put that oak aged quad on ice for me willya?

A love letter to Japanese craft beer

While most of my beery pals are off enjoying beery things in San Diego at the National Homebrewers Conference, I'm stuck here in rainy St. Paul. On the up side, I'm enjoying the fact that a horrible schedule and a limit to entry numbers meant that I have absolutely nothing invested in the AHA competition this year. Instead, I'm enjoying my still really insanely good brown porter, my really awfully good English cider, and my pretty good if not quite perfect IPA in relative peace.  And looking forward to that open-fermented Helles, which is now kegged, carbonated and ready to go on tap next, along with a nice schwartzbier.  A lagery July is in order then!

Meanwhile, Mark Garrison has written a nice love letter to Japanese craft beer.  A few interesting points deserve mention, though the full article is definitely worth a read.  First, it's early days yet for the craft beer scene in Japan. Despite the back and forth in the US over whether the term "craft beer" really means anything anymore, it clearly did in an earlier era when the scene was getting off the ground.  So it does in Japan, where beer lovers complain in similar terms about the "big 4" of Asahi, Kirin, Suntory and Sapporo.  Moreover, while craft beer bars are popping up, Garrison reports that a shocking 40% of all craft beer gets to customers through mail order.  That's dedication!

Second, the Japanese craft brewers tend to be also sake-makers (as is true with Hitachino Nest, widely available in the US), so despite the fact that it's still early days in the movement, the quality is quite high. And the brewers tend toward a very Belgian-like relationship with spices and flavorings such as ginger.  My only reference point for this is Hitachino Nest, but if half the brewers are doing this half as well as they are, Japanese drinkers don't know how good they've got it.

An interesting parallel

I don't know much about wine, really.  I do like reading some of the discussions about wine, and I've even posted about it too.  The wine writing for Slate I particularly like because Mike Steinberger often right to the heart of debates in the wine world.

The most recent article is here.  I love it because it's so very parallel to debates in the beer world, but it gives me a bit of perspective since I have no particular axes to grind about wine.  His newest article is about the debate over ever-increasing alcohol and fruit-bombiness in wines.  Steinberger's preferences are pretty plain -- enough is enough.  But in the end, his call is for variety instead of limits.  Sure, let the high-alcohol fruit bombs fly, just so long as there are other choices available.

It's a great point and one that is definitely germane in the beer world, where people like me are always carping that "special" beer is often equated with "high alcohol and over the top flavor".  So I end up championing the more subtle, if no less wonderful, beers that I think get overlooked.  But the point should really be about variety -- let's get a range of different flavors on the bar there!

A couple of points:

1. It's very clear in the wine world that the preference for bigger, bolder, more alcoholic has been driven by the Robert Parker palate, and the ratings systems that tend to favor the wines he likes (and thus the bigger, jammier wines).  It's less clear in the beer world, where just don't have any one central voice or palate driving preferences.  It does seem clear that even more democratic, mass-rating sites like Beer Advocate and Rate Beer tend to reward the bigger, bolder beers in the same way though.
2. Steinberg makes the very good point that actually even in blind tastings, even people who think they prefer more restrained wines actually prefer the bigger ones!  That is, wine makers go big because they are rewarded for it in the market.  Again to the beer world: clearly people do go for bigger and bolder.  
3. Is this an effect (see point 2) driven by those first getting into craft beer, as some have suggested, or is it a general preference? I'm not really sure. Another idea though is that it depends not just on palates but on how much.  I see this all the time in judging at homebrew competitions.  Judges too tend to go for bigger and bolder, even within a given style.  I think that's often because they are taking small sips, rather than drinking the beer as they would in a bar.  To me, a perfectly legitimate question is not just "which do I prefer" but "which would I want to have two of?"

Dave's Brew Farm!

Been meaning to go forever.  Very long, trying month or so beforehand.  But Halvo rented a sweet bus for the SPHBC faithful, and off we go.  I can barely stand up from fatigue.  But I managed to snap a few pics, which become sparser as the evening wears on.

Thanks a million to Dave and Pam for hosting us in the LaBrewatory tap room.  Great spot, and great beer.  Here's the day in pictures.

The bus is cool.  Sort of too classy for the Saint Paul Homebrewers, but we'll take it.

It isn't the nicest day as we get started.  On to Wisconsin.

The entrance of the tap room at Dave's BrewFarm.  Everyone's lining up for beers
before the fun begins.  The beer tasting flight is the way to go.

Dave talking about the beers.  Pam looks on with patience. They are really
nice people.

Some of the new equipment.  Dave is getting ready to push his local (ie, in-house)
production a bit this year.  He says he likes the water on site. I have to agree.

Two growlers to go for me.  The single-hop lager with Perle was great.  I took the Harukazi
on faith since it wasn't one of the tasting flight beers.  Really nice, like many of the BrewFarm
beers it was Belgian-y without being over the top.

Let's capture the moment in pictures.  Best SPHBC president ever.

Open fermenting lager

An actual brewing post!

I've been experimenting a bit lately with open-fermenting lagers. It was a suggestion from Kris (lately of PDBC) that I thought I would try.  He's right, many of the classic German lager beer producers historically did open fermentation in lined tanks. Some still do. Not that I'm an expert, but many have told me this, and New Brewing Lager Beer has a few good passages on it. Good enough to try even though it goes so strongly against the "keep it closed, keep it clean" mentality that's been hammered into my head.

Very simple open fermenting.  Just skim the head.

While I don't have lined tanks, I do have a handy plastic fermentation bucket which fits just about as well in my beer fridge as my glass carboys do.  Just put the lid on loosely without locking it down, and let it ferment nicely during primary before transferring to glass for the longer, colder secondary stage.

What does this do?  I suppose it allows theoretically for better uptake of oxygen during the aerobic phase of yeast growth and development.  But to my mind really the key is that it allows easy access to skim the foam head and braunhefe that develops daily during the very active, high krausen phase of fermentation.

And why does that matter?  Well, try some.  Seriously.   Intensely unpleasant, mouth-coating, lingering bitterness from hop residues accumulate in that head.  What I do is sanitize a long-handled stainless spoon in Star-San, then just skim off this very thick head about once a day during active fermentation.  (By the way, braunhefe refers to the brown-tinged scum that comes up as well -- you can see it in the picture.  The brown color apparently comes from degenerated yeast cells.  The color gets less and less pronounced each day, but the head remains quite bitter.)

And the result?  I have to try it a few more times before I'm ready to have a firm opinion.  At least, I'm convinced of the importance of skimming the very bitter head from my lighter, more delicate lagers.  So far, the helles shown in the picture (now lagering happily) is really good.  If anything, the schwarzbier I made before that might be too clean though.  This technique does seem to reduce overall perceived bitterness in the finished product, and I have yet to nail my adjustments for that.

Good beers cheap: Grimbergen

Trip to Dave's BrewFarm this weekend.  So much fun, even though I was running absolutely on empty from the start.  By the end, the only thing keeping me up was the accordion player behind my chair at the German restaurant... but that's a story for another post.

A second in an occasional series that I always meant to be a little less occasional.... And I've been meaning to do this one for some time too.  One thing that beer nyerds -- excuse me, craft beer afficionados -- tend to fetishize is the Trappist style of beers.  There's the great photos in the brewing books of Rochefort's grand cathedral of a brewhouse, the pictures of monk-robe clad brewers there and at Westvleteren.  And of course the history and lore of Westmalle, the crazy deco ruins of Orval, and so forth.

And there is the fact that many of the classic abby styles of beer are very straightforward, simple recipes that are for many homebrewers awful hard to replicate.  It shouldn't be the case, but there it is.  It seems like there's magic in there somewhere.  (I actually think it's just proper yeast handling, but then again I've never made a dubbel that would hold a candle to Westmalle's, so I should talk.)

Hiding out at Thomas Liquor.
Good beer, budget price.

Anyway, three things should be kept in mind.  One is that, gorgeous as they often are, the Trappist appellation doesn't come cheap.  Chimay has wide availability I guess, but pick up a (small, 330 ml) bottle of Rochefort and it's going to cost you.  Less than it did a few years ago admittedly, but it will cost you nonetheless.  Second, while the Trappist beers are produced actually in the brewhouses of the Trappist monasteries, they are often produced by lay brewers rather than the monks themselves.  Third, there is a whole range of often really very nice "abbey" beers that fall in the same style range that are worth trying.

The abbey beers are affiliated, or licensed by, Belgian abbeys -- just not the Trappist ones.  Generally brewed off-site, this takes some of the "magical" aura away from them I guess.  Still, they can be gorgeous.  Maredsous in particular is one of my favorites.

For some reason, it recently hit me that Grimbergen (produced for the Abdij von Grimbergen by Alken-Maes) was becoming widely available around here, and way cheap by Belgian beer standards.  Like about half the price of cheap Trappist.  The Blonde and the Dubbel are the two I see in bottle shops, so I decided to pick them up and give them a formal tasting.  So here with it:

• Grimbergen Blonde (6.7% abv).  Light golden in color, with a dense white head.  Really full carbonation, but not as outrageous as some Belgian beers, and less central to the overall character as with some Belgian blonde beers in particular.  Bouquet is somewhat restrained, slightly fruity and spicy.  It smells a bit like cut apple, with moderate acidity and ester coming through the carbonation.  In flavor, the spiciness comes across as white pepper along with some restrained sweetness from the alcohol.  Full, prickly carbonation.  There's a hint of apple-like pils malt in the flavor too -- almost like a Chardonnay -- and a little hop bite at the end.  The alcohol to me seems a little to forward for a 6.5% beer in this style.  The yeast-derived spiciness is nice but just a touch high and and there's a little harsh, astringent note at the end that mars it.  Overall, a really nice beer, though not outrageously good.  
• Grimbergen Double (6.5% abv).  Very pretty brown with red highlights, and astounding clarity.  Lowish tan head.  It has a sweet malt aroma, with a prominent caramelized sugar character that's classic for the style. Faint hop.  Fruity esters -- fig, plum.  Full carbonation gives way to hop bite and tannin, then a hint of fruity/spicy Belgian yeast character.  In both the flavor and aroma, there's a floral rose petal note and black pepper, both driven up by full carbonation.  The finish seems hoppier than the initial taste -- this is definitely more bitter than some dubbels.  Really good.

Overall, these beers stack up well.  They are not as good as some of the best in the style -- in particular, there's a bit of a harsh tannic bite in both that I don't see in the best examples.  On the other hand, the dubbel in particular I think is still really good, and at about $2.50 in these parts, well worth having around.  Scenario: you're having a party.  You're known as the "beer guy."  Friends expect you to stock impressive beer, but you're unwilling to throw down $6 per bottle for Trappist beers only to see some fools pop the cap and swill from the bottle.  What to do?  Grimbergen, baby.  That's what.

American pilsners, v. 2

Pilsners get no real love from American beer geeks.  Maybe a bit at the high end -- the ones that aim for the more aggressively hopped German or Bohemian styles.  But even that's a bit of a stretch for American brewers who for better or worse often saw themselves as moving away from the dumbed down mass-market American versions of the style.

Don't get me wrong, I like a PBR now and again, but they are beers to throw down not to savor.  So it was a surprise to find that some of the new American "pilsners" are really kind of tastier versions of this easy-drinking end of the style.  Really for BJCP judges, these would be maybe premium light lagers rather than pilsners proper.  Full Sail's Session Lager is already a favorite of mine in this category, but in tasting a bunch of beers labeled as pilsners, a couple of others stood.  Call them surprisingly tasty not-quite pilsners.

• Red Hook Rope Swing (US, 5.3%)  They call this a "summer pilsner."  It's a really nice easy-drinking beer, though it poses a bit of a conundrum.  It's somewhere between a pilsner and an English-style summer beer.  The beer has a light golden color, with a slight haze and solid carbonation.  In the aroma it has a light fruity ester and almost an orangey hop note -- both very "English" -- along with the clean malt.  It doesn't scream "pils malt" but at least it's a very clean 2-row malt.  Similar profile in the flavor with a clean malt flavor, a hint of orange and pear-like ester, then a quick hit of bitterness.  The floral hop flavor stays into the finish.  This one is not dry as pilsners often are, but has a touch of sweetness without being heavy.  It's a really nice, complex beer but not a traditional pilsner at all.  The website lists the hops as Saaz, but I would have thought Goldings for sure.  Red Hook also say it's 25 IBU and 12.7 Plato, with malts listed as pale, carapils, Caramel and Munich.  Not by far the best as a pilsner beer, but it's a lighter beer with a lot of character.  I'll have to look for this again!

• New Belgium Blue Paddle (4.8%) A summertime seasonal from New Belgium, very refreshing beer and a bit of a surprise to me.  It's one of the lighter of the US pilsners in gravity.  Given this and its very light color, I thought this would be a little low on flavor.  The aroma didn't have very much going on; a faint malt note and that was about it.  But in the mouth there was a nice complex maltiness -- fat German pils malt, a bit of graham cracker like graininess, and a dry finish with a bit of a hop bite.  Again, not the number one pils, but an interesting beer.

By the way, a quick note on two continental pilsners that don't really fit established guidelines either.  Or at least not BJCP categories.  I'm not in favor of ever-proliferating categories like the Brewers' Association seems to be, but I also think that a lot of American homebrewers and beer judges don't really recognize that there are beers that are similar, but not quite the same as, some of these established style.  Two examples here too:

• Steigl Goldenbrau (Austria)  I love this beer.  It's marketed as simply a "lager" by the Steigl brewery, though they add that it's 12 degrees Plato (about 1.048, ie, classic strength) and lightly hopped.  Probably best considered as a helles by BJCP categories, unless you want to add yet another category - Salzburg style lager or something.  Full golden color and clean pils malt aroma with just a hint of sweetness.  Fat, full, dry malt profile that I just can't get enough of.  The touch of bitterness emerges at the end, just drying out the finish.  I think this one is drier and more pils like than the Steigl pils maybe, though I actually like that beer better.  It's an exceptionally lovely, delicate beer.  Which of course means the morons rate it a "B" on BeerAdvocate and a 28 on RateBeer.  I guess it's not a "craft beer."

• Karlovacko (Croatia) 500 ml.  Maybe this would be called an example of an Adriatic Pils or some such?  Just say it's in the Bohemian tradition I guess.  But this bottle has the flavor that almost all of the Croatian pilsners have.  I drank a lot of this stuff when I was there -- about 20 years ago now...good lordy I'm old.  Karlovac is inland a bit, not far from Zagreb.  Did I tell you the story about ingratiating myself with the traveling New Zealand national rugby team at the Zagreb bar since I was apparently the only one around who could figure out the local currency system? Another time maybe... Anyway the beer.  Not everyone will like it but it is typical of the area.  The aroma features pils malt and clean hops with more than a touch of sulphur.  A touch of the "green bottle aroma" which is actually kind of a feature of the beer, even locally, and not entirely unpleasant.  Flavor has the same malty/lagery/sulphury profile as the aroma.  The really full carbonation dries it out a bit.  Maybe 35ish IBUs, but the bitterness seems rounded rather than sharp.

American pilsners, v. 1

Hey all.  Warmer weather is rolling around.  I'm brewing a Munich style Helles as I write, just for something light and malty.  Father-in-law drank me dry on a pretty reasonable pilsner I had just the other week too.

Over the last many months I've been taking notes on a few of the craft brewed American pilsners that I've seen on the shelves.  Pretty scattershot, but it seemed as if there were quite a few new ones that I hadn't tried along with a few old standbys that I have.  It was also interesting to go through some of these beers with a group studying to take the BJCP exam for the first time as well -- it's one thing to suck a few of these beers down at a picnic, and its another to stop and think about them.  So here's my notes on a few, pulled together out of the chaos...call this the first in a short series.

GERMAN STYLE PILSNERS
There are a few American beers that aim squarely for the aggressively hopped, dry German style.  I love them, it's kind of fun to see other homebrewers and craft beer drinkers come back to them and realize how good they are.  While the brewers may put their own spin on it, and in some cases add an "American" twist too, these beers are very much within an established style.  Recognizing that "passion is not an ingredient," these are very good, clean, and refreshing without being boring in the least.

• Victory Prima Pils (US, 5.3% abv).  Snappy aroma - floral with a touch of citrus.  Fluffy and very long lasting head.  This beer is bitter to the level of the classic German pilsners, in the same range as the Schell's. This is one of the more aggressive German style pilsners available to American audiences.  Maybe 40-45 IBUs?  The clean malt makes it seem like more, actually.  The boatload of hops give it almost a soapy finish that some people really don't like.  Really nice beer, though it's lacking some of the malt presence of my favorite continental versions.

• Schell's Pils (US, 5.3%)  Bitter!  Really sharply bitter, at the level that German-style pilsners should be, I'd guess maybe close to 40 IBU based on this bottle, though it seems less on draft.  Pretty floral hop aroma, with a bit of vine-like greenness.  Clean pils malt in the aroma as well, though not the fat, pillowy malt of some German examples. I think I like the draft better -- this bottle is fresh, but has a bit of a steely tang in the finish that mars it a bit.  Not sure if this is from the water or just the hop bitterness contributing this.  I served this one to folks in the beer judging class we're doing and had them judge it blind.  They liked it less than the Victory, but the bitterness of both beers surprised them.

A couple of others worth mentioning that I liked very much but which were new to me.  The Left Hand looks like it's a year round brew.  The Full Sail was a one-off in a series, if you didn't try it you'll just have to take my word for it.

• Left Hand Polestar Pilsner (US, 5.5%) Very light color, straw rather than gold.  Slight haze. Clean malt flavor with a bit of depth to it.  Sharp bitterness, and floral hop on the finish.  This one is not a favorite, but it is a nice change of pace, the floral note is pronounced and makes it really stand out.  For the record, this one is very American in ingredients as well. They list ingredients as Weyermann pilsner malt along with American 2-row, and American versions of German hops -- Magnum, Mt Hood and Sterling.

• Full Sail "LTD Edition Lager" (US, 5.6%)  This was apparently #3 in their limited series. Full Sail's "Session" beers -- the lager and the dark -- are two of my favorite easy-drinking everyday lager beers.  This one is aimed squarely at the German pilsner style.  This can get lost in all the description so I'll say it clearly -- this one is REALLY GOOD.  Full gold color, relatively deep in color actually.  White head that settles quickly.  Full, rich, malty aroma even as soon as the bottle cap comes off.  Clean but fat lager malt with a hint of floral hop.  Maybe even a bit of American hop sharpness?  In the flavor, the bitterness sneaks up.  It comes a second after you expect it.  Very firm bitterness -- it's listed as 35 IBU, and I guessed about 40 based on the bite in the finish.  It has a bit of sweetness actually but the hops and carbonation make it finish dry. A little "soapy" in the finish from the hops.  Interesting that it tastes American -- the malt is fat but not "Euro."  Seems like I was right on that; website lists 2-row (presumably American), 35 IBU and Sterling hops.  Really nice beer.

Firkin Fest 2011

So Firkin Fest, or I should say Firkin Fest the Fourth. At the Happy Gnome. Once more I had the happy duty of serving as a judge -- this time with a LOT more beers on than the first year, when I also did it. (Life has intervened in cruel ways for the middle two years -- and nearly did again.)

Some of the beers were great. Some were not so great. But since the judging teams got them blind, I can't always tell you which were which. So I will narrate this in pictures. (The full list of beers is here though, and more picks and people's choice winner announcement are here.  Plus Michael Agnew has the overall recap here.  So far I haven't seen the judge's winner list posted yet officially, so I will stay mum till I do!)

1.  Synchronize  the pastel silicone sheathed electronics.  It's 11 am and nearly time to start judging beers before the crowds press in.  Early "VIP" entrants start coming soon and by 1 when the regular tickets get you in, the line is wrapped around the block.  Good thing too -- this is one of the beer fests that actually pays for the beers instead of begging brewers for donations.  Good for you Happy Gnome!

2.  Looking at the tent before it's jammed with people. There are about 80 firkins of beer. A "firkin" is a cask of medium size, and as the beer geeks know they are traditionally conditioned in the cask, and served from the cask by gravity dispense (like here) or via handpump. It's 30 degrees out today (see chunks of ice), so they're not warm.

 3.  Two of the British beers here, ones I'm looking forward to having.  (Incidentally, both were quite clear -- unlike many of the local beers).  Thornbridge's Jaipur I have not had before. Really nice, very drinkable, and surprising in its astringent, tannic bite. For American tastes, it is quite dry for an IPA and not smashing you over the head with fruity hop. The Bitter and Twisted is a great beer that I love in the bottle -- very unique lemony hop character that I will have to write about soon. Both really lovely beers.

 4.  Twenty for me, one for you. No, actually in the foreground are the pours I'm tasting, the other half Fletty's tastings of the same beers. We have three judging teams, and there are a lot of beers to get through still.

 5.  It's not very formal, but we do actually have a plan, and though no one ever believes it, there is work involved.  We divide the beers into dark, not dark, and eclectic categories.  So porters and stouts (mostly), pale ales and bitters and light beers and even some lagers, and then everything with blueberries, maple syrup, mushrooms, oak, and whatever else.

6.  One big issue is just the drinkability, but another important one for a cask beer festival is the condition of the beer -- carbonation, clarity, and whether this method of serving compliments the beer or brings out interesting things in it.

 7.  Curt is an extremely friendly guy.  Just at the moment he is telling me to put the damn camera away and get on with the judging.

 8.  More "not dark" beers to do in various degrees of not-darkness.

9.  Also plenty more dark ones!

"Hoss" Rye Lager

5pm Saturday, nice beer

Hoss Rye Lager
Great Divide Brewing Company (Denver, CO)
(6.2% abv, my bottle was $1.87 at Ale Jail in St. Paul)

Picked this one up the other day just on a whim.  It's not what I expected and its kind of a neat idea.  Definitely worth trying!  Instead of going down the usual road of building up a rye pale ale, Great Divide instead put together what amounts to a rye Maerzen.  So it has a malty, rich body from the Munich malt that plays well with the spicy rye notes.  At the same time, the rye livens up the malt and keeps it from being overly heavy and full.  This is actually a really nice O'fest style!

By the way, the bottle says it pairs well with veal bratwurst, barbecue chicken, carnitas tacos, Camembert cheese and German chocolate cake.  I don't know about the cake.  But the rest, yes.  It's a good beer to serve with food.  I'll buy more!   Good idea, Great Divide.

Wine descriptors and BS and figuring out what I think

Should we really try to emulate the wine world in our descriptions of beer? It's an endless debate and I admit I go back and forth on this. The question was brought up for me again by an interesting article in Slate (here) which calls out the wine world for very clearly being influenced by price more than actual flavors in the descriptions.

I'm getting cassis and flint.

The sharpest critics call the high falutin wine descriptions out as bullshit and I can't say I completely disagree.* It's also elitist -- it's a pose as much as a position; it's meant to signal the author's own refinement and sensitivity as well as to demarcate those who "get" such descriptors from those clods who don't or can't or never had the chance to compare "truffle" and "graphite" or "black currant" and "fig". And it's also funny and slightly ridiculous and everyone knows it. (Soupçon of asparagus anyone?)

Still, I'm not quite so sure beer folks should throw out the idea of building better descriptors. I also prefer the more technical definitions of a beer, at least at first -- I want to know if it's dry or sweet, bitter or malty, thick or thin on the tongue. But "bitter" doesn't say much about the actual character of the flavoring hops -- are they like blackberry or pine tar, or are they like a squirt of grapefruit up your nose? And what about the character of the malt? Sometimes "fig" actually is what it tastes like!

I guess when it comes down to it, I think problem in the wine world is the pretension rather than the actual descriptors. Most beer descriptors are pretty direct and unpretentious -- even when we are talking about the non-mainstream beers.  Almost everyone know what grapefruit tastes and smells like, right?  And pine tar?  And more than once I've heard things at competitions along the lines of "this beer smells like apple Jolly Ranchers, doesn't it?"**

But sometimes the more exotic descriptions are actually apt and probably they are worth keeping.  There is a difference between black currant and fig, and beers can sometimes have either of those flavors. And if you've never had either -- well, maybe it's time to live a little.  Sometimes water character can lead a beer to taste "flinty" or even "gravelly". And no, I don't go around licking gravel, but your nose can and should pick up those "flavors" and sometimes you're sitting there trying to describe a beer and they seem right. And if someone describes an aroma in your beer as "sultana" instead of "raisin" or "white grape" or something, then maybe ridicule them for being obnoxious. But immediately after that, try your beer and see if just maybe they're on to something.

(I thought this was going to be a short post! By the way, Pete Brown has an interesting writeup of a wine/beer pairing comparison where he ends up favoring the wines, at least for some dishes. It's here if you haven't seen it.)

Notes:
* Personally, and this is just me, but I would prefer a different methodology for both of these. Instead of figuring by probability of a word for expensive or inexpensive, for example, why not use the data to build a vocabulary, and then cluster (or some similar relational method) by co-occurence?  Then test for differences across the price? That way, you can talk about types of descriptor. And you can test whether the differences actually compare with differences in the taste of the wines.

** I've also myself described some beers as smelling "like banana Now-And-Laters," especially the American beers that try for a Belgian thing without really handling the yeast well.  Actually the wikipedia list of Now-And-Later flavors is a good, non pretentious place to start with white wine descriptors too!

Brew Dog Hardcore IPA

Another snowstorm here in bee-uutiful St Paul today, so everything on the agenda is cancelled. Now the kids' playdates are over, it's time to drink a beer.

Brew Dog: They are hardcore

I recently wrote a bit about Brew Dog and said something stupid to a friend about not being able to get it here. This friend reminded me that you can...for a price. It ain't cheap, but I thought I should give it a shot, so I picked up the Hardcore IPA, and I'll try to get some of the others soon.

4 hop cones???

The beer is listed as an "explicit imperial IPA", with 9.2% abv. There is an odd bit of marketing on the back for an IPA -- the lads at Brew Dog (sorry, that's "two humans and one canine companion") set out to impress with a listing of all of the stuff that went into the beer, including (they say) 2,204 grains of Maris Otter malt, 9.9 trillion yeast cells, and....4 hop cones.  Umm... do they mean four varieties?  Or does "hop cone" have a different meaning in the UK that I'm unaware of?

As for the beer itself, it's very fruity/malty in aroma, with background hops. It actually comes across in aroma more like what Americans tend to think of as "barley wine" rather than "IPA", though admittedly there's a blurry line between them sometimes. The malt side of the aroma is plum/prune/toffee, with a sort of dried apricot ester. The hops are like orange, apricot and pineapple more than the punch of grapefruit/pine that typically mark US versions. It's definitely more "IPA" in flavor, with a big bitter kick in the teeth right up front.  It's a big beer but it's nicely attenuated. It's a bit full in the mouth but it's dry enough to actually drink a bit of it. Malt stays in the background in the flavor though again its a fuller, richer malt profile than many of the US versions. Nice, though I'm not sure it will bump Maharaja out of my fridge.  (Wife adds "This is good.  Mmmm-mmm-mmmmm.")

Beer for thought

What can you say when someone gets it so right?

Friend-of-the-little-beers Stan Hieronymus takes on the ranking mentality of Beer Advocate and Rate beer. The beauty of what he's writing comes in using a recent piece by Malcolm Gladwell (on the stupidly one-size-fits-all way of doing college rankings) to make a similar case for beer. It's a different take on the whole "style" debate.

(Stan's post is here.)

What's less clear is how one could do a better job. Pandora's music algorithm is one model Stan thinks about.  But that's a pretty formal way of going about it! I think a more "wiki" way that is more tied to description than rating might work too.  Think of the difference between book reviews and the star ratings of books on Amazon.  Star ratings (even with short opinions attached) are kind of dumb for products like books--or beers--which people can approach in different ways and for different reasons.*

As Stan says, how do you compare a pils to an Imperial stout? Well, one way is to have knowledgeable people approach both on their own terms. Read and decide for yourself. Some movies and beers are objectively bad and people will likely agree. Some are good in different ways and will appeal to different people. My own model for thinking about this is Roger Ebert, who likes some movies I hate, and hates some movies I like. But I always like reading his opinions and get something out of it.

This is something he has written on, though I can't find it now.  But a good example is his passionate takedown of 3D.  Whether you agree or not, you know exactly what he thinks and why.  By the way, I think his is also a good model for "best of" lists, which I think have their place.  Yes, they are idiosyncratic, and that's a good thing. Make a passionate case, let others make their own passionate case for their own choices. If only more beer reviews were like that!**

Whatever you think on this, be sure to check out Stan's blog and the discussion underway there.

Notes:

* I think about this a lot because in my real job I do a lot of book reviews for academic publications, and I am on the editorial board of a book review journal.  In that capacity I worry a lot about the very anodyne, paint-by-numbers approach that most academic book reviewers use.  There are reasons for this, but it absolutely kills actual, engaged intellectual debate.  Which is the whole point.

** If only more book reviews were like that!  

Bigger and friendlier?

This week I was thinking a lot about two stories that came up in the news. It got me wondering whether there might be an emerging "normal" trajectory for brash new startup breweries. Likely I'm full of it, but bear with me.

The first story was the news that local favorite Surly Brewing is planning and hoping to expand...a lot. Since starting up five years ago, they have grown quite a lot, and frankly part of their early marketing plan seemed to be to create huge word of mouth with big, brash, aggressive beers but rely on the scarcity of their supply to make them seem even rarer and more desirable.

The big, brask, aggressive part is easy to see -- call yourself "Surly Brewing" and label your beers things like "Furious" (their ridiculously hopped IPA)* or "Bender" (sort of a big porterish beer, my favorite of the lineup). While I don't know if scarcity was part of the plan or just a happy accident, it worked for them. They've had huge year-on-year growth, and a big expansion already, but the market is apparently nowhere near saturated with Surly beers.

So now comes the news that Surly is planning a new, $20m expansion which would include an entirely new brewery.  Along with this, Surly is lobbying the Minnesota legislature for a legal change that would allow them to open a pub and restaurant in the complex, which they envision as a sort of destination spot along the lines of New Belgium or Stone I think.

The other story comes from the UK, where punk-rock themed brewing bad boys Brew Dog released a super-insanely high alcohol beer, clearly to compete with Utopias in the just-coz-we-can category. (It's 32% and they call it "Tactical Nuclear Penguin".)** But British beer blogger Mark Dredge this week also had a nice writeup about going up to Scotland and hanging out at the Brew Dog-run pub.  ("Aberdeen is not as crap as I expected it to be") he begins.

But the story quickly runs to two points. Point one: despite the adolescent-with-attitude posturing that is clearly central to Brew Dog's brand image, the pub was nice. Not a punk rock hovel but "edgy" in the way that high-end hair salons are "edgy."  And clearly a departure from the dim, dingy and depressing spots that make up most of Aberdeen's pubs, apparently.

Point two: their signature IPA (named "Punk" no less) has been reformulated.  It was one of the beers Dredge championed before, but it now is slightly lower in alcohol, a touch sweeter, and definitely more approachable and quaffable.  Dredge is impressed.

So there you have it.  Two breweries that started up with great success and widespread acclaim, both trading on their edgy, brash attitude, outsider status, and focus on "extreme" beers.  Both, in a matter of a relatively short time, becoming quite successful -- so much so that they are no longer really outsider beers but breweries catering to a relatively large and increasingly mainstream audience even as they do the occasional stunt beer.

Where exactly is the tipping point?  And is it that the breweries have changed their attitude and approach or have the extreme brewers just dragged the mainstream over toward themselves?  I don't know.  But I will say that it's interesting to watch the bad boy brewers who start out screaming NO COMPROMISES start to mature into ... what? Semi-responsible semi-adults?

Notes:
* Surly refuses to call it simply a double IPA, as apparently that doesn't cover it.  Nor have they seemed open to calling it a "triple"  or something like that.  Perhaps in deference to them we could call it a trans-dimensional IPA?  Or is that too restrictive?
** Clearly, Surly is not alone when it comes to bombast.

Old Hooky

Image from Hook Norton.

Quick update.  I posted a few weeks back about the Hook Norton beers that I got my hands on at the time.  Since then I was able to find another, Old Hooky, a 4.6% beer that's kind of in between styles -- kind of dark and fruity for a bitter, surely light in gravity and mouthfeel for an old ale.  It's nice though!

Like many of the Hook Norton beers that I had, this had a slight haze -- they must use a powdery yeast, since I was careful not to rouse the lees in any of the beers.  The aroma is a really nice convergence of hop, malt, esters and sugars.  In all, it's a big fruit basket smell of oranges, dates and pears.  The flavor is likewise very fruity with a luscious, full, almost creamy mouthfeel.  It's really an incredible feat for a 4.6% beer.  Hop bitterness pokes through, but it's a very layered flavor experience -- malty, then bitter, then malty-bitter, then fading into an even finish, tailing off into bitter again.

It's a great beer and thankfully the bottle I got at Ale Jail seems very fresh.  I think Hooky Gold remains my favorite from the brewery, but this one is really well worth looking for.  For whatever reason, the British beers do not get to most of us midwesterners very often and they surely don't get her very cheap.  I think these large bottles of Hook Norton (1pt, 9 oz) are a bit over $5 each.  But if you haven't had many of the honest-to-God English ales, or if you haven't found many of them fresh, this is well worth it.

Any other Hook Norton beers you all have seen around that I should try?

By the way, two final thoughts just because they popped into my head:

1. The British beers don't travel well.  Some are really crap when they get on bottle shop shelves.  There aren't many even then.  Rejoice when you can find some fresh and then share and evangelize about them so people know what they are supposed to taste like.  You would not believe the number of BJCP beer judges who don't actually have much idea what a real bitter is supposed to taste like, simply because they've never actually had one! 
2. I've been lucky enough to have several, but even so, I remember getting interested in Hook Norton from reading the descriptions in this book, which fascinated me when I first got into brewing, but which frustrated me too.  Wheeler's so long on good description for so many beers, but the recipes always were all variations on the same thing.  Old Hooky he describes as a "rich and complex vinous strong ale" with a "complex balance of grain, fruit and hop bitterness...Deep bitter-sweet finish with raisin notes."  Actually, that about sums it up.  The recipe seems pretty close too -- he suggests a mix of UK pale and mild ale malts with crystal malt and flaked maze, and black malt and a good dose of sugar to round it out -- he suggests white, but I'd suggest at least caramelizing it first.  Oh, and Challenger hops.  For sure Challenger hops.  I'll have to brew this soon.  Wonder which yeast might get me closest to the Hook Norton strain?

Okay.  Not so quick.  Still.  Good beer.

Fresh beer, fresh year

Hola Amigos!  Long time since I rapped at ya.

Been meaning to update but a lot has been going on, especially the Upper Mississippi Mashout last week.  I'll post about that soon.  Till then, a few things in no particular order.

1. While the Mashout was fun and adventurous, I'm really kind of bummed that I did not get to the Muddy Pig for their hoppy beer festival.  The idea is great -- they devote a substantial amount of their really substantial tap space for a certain kind of beer (here hoppy beers, duh) and offer smaller servings of them so you can sample your way though a bunch.  I went to the stout fest last winter and it was really great.  Particularly since there are a lot of the more brutal American and Imperial styles of stout that I'd much rather have a small pour of than a large one.  I think everyone I was around this weekend was sick of me saying "boy, I wish I could get to the hoppy beer thing at the Pig."  So...anyone go?  Any standouts I should look for?
2. I mostly keep personal life off the blog.  It's not facebook, man.  A-non-a-mouse.  But I have been waylaid with the problem of helping my mother move yet again.  This is only relevant because for the last few months she has lived extremely close to the Happy Gnome in St Paul.  And I'm realizing while this has been a hell year from hell, I have really liked slipping away for a pint or two.  Because when the going gets low, the low go for a beer.
3. Speaking of the Gnome, they still have on tap the Dark Horse One Oatmeal Stout.  It's really really really good, and if you have not had it, go out and get it while you can.  Limited...looks like DH are planning to do a set of five stouts, though I have not had the others.  This one says "chocolate, coffee and caramel flavors" in the menu blurb, but it's really also plum, raisin and "sultana" as a pal of mine would say.  Yes, it's good enough for a trip.  Get it.
4. Speaking of a pal of mine, one of the goals of this blog was not just to get down my own ideas but to also give a forum for the community of folks I'm already connected to.  Lots of those folks have lots of ideas too.  I wanted to get this blog off the ground -- not that anyone's reading it, but you have to start somewhere.  But expect to see other voices beginning to chime in here over the next month or so.



Pint and lunch and empty bar at the Gnome

5. And speaking of getting down my own ideas, I've got a few beery thoughts that I've been stewing on recently.  I've resisted doing a "mission statement" like some bloggers do since I have to be disciplined enough in my professional life that I don't really want to do it here. But I do like the blog format and I am committed to actually saying what I think here even if others aren't likely to like it.  So here's as close to a mission statement I'll get: this blog will be beer related.  I promise that I'll try to think though things before I commit them to the blog.  But it's a blog after all.  If I say it I mean it, and I'm happy to talk with you about it further.  Too cryptic?  Anyhow as my buddy Jim Anchower would say, Adios.

Geary's

Well where the hell did that year go? No idea. The year was mostly crap punctuated by some nice moments. Coincidence that most were beer related? But let's not get philosophical. I was going to, but I decided to wait another week to post just so the moment would pass.

I've been meaning to try beers from Geary's since they've become more readily available around the bottle shops in my area. D.L. Geary Brewing is located in Portland, Maine. It's one of the family owned breweries profiled in Brian Yeager's Red White and Brew -- actually one of the more interesting stories in the book. As for the beers, I've had their flagship pale ale many times on the East Coast, but have not had the chance to try their other beers.  Mostly they do English-style beers, or at least on the more English side of the line in the styles that have (now) both American and English roots.

Geary's London Porter (1.045 OG, so roughly 4.5% abv).
They list this as using their "Hampshire ale yeast".  The website lists the malt bill as pale, crystal, chocolate and black malts, with Cascade, Willamette and Goldings hops.  (Aha...wait you say.  English style but with Cascade?  Believe it or not, I've used almost this same hop mix in my porters for years, and it comes out really nicely.  My inspiration for this was Summit rather than Geary's.)  The beer has a nice, fresh, estery aroma, a hint of chocolate, and a touch of alcohol despite the modest gravity. It's a dark-but-not-quite-black "porterish" color with a low, off-white head.  For some reason, my notes say "better flavor balance than the pale ale I think" -- which is odd, since I haven't had Geary's pale in some time.  But thankfully I got more specific -- no hop flavor to compete with the chocolatey malt, and the brown-sugar sweetness of the aftertaste.  It's a very flavorful beer, but the mouthfeel is lean -- full on the tongue and then thinner after you swallow it with just a touch of coffee roastiness.  Really nice -- one of the best porters I've had.  (I see on their website they are touting the fact that the New York Times tasting panel voted it the best porter in the world.  I think they are bozos mostly, but on this they at least picked one that won't disappoint.)

Geary's Hampshire Special Ale (1.070, or about 6.5-7% abv).
The aroma of this one is big, fruity-orange, what some British writers call "juicy" -- like a really extra huge version of Fuller's.  Obviously it uses the same yeast strain as the porter, though it comes across much differently here without the chocolate notes from the malt.  This beer is deep copper in color, with an off-white head.  It has some sweetness up front but a long, hoppy, bitter finish.  It's a very layered beer in flavor -- sweet, then bitter, then drier on the finish.  It's not at all cloying despite its strength.   Geary's website lists the malts here also as British pale, crystal and chocolate, but the balance is much more to the pale and with only a touch of chocolate at most.  I wouldn't have thought there was any just tasting it.  Hops are listed as Cascade, Mt. Hood and Goldings.

Geary's Wee Heavy (1.080, or about 7.5-8% abv).
This one's big.  It's also the only one of the range that I wasn't sold on.  The aroma is really, really nice:  plums, raisins and rum-raisin, a rose-petal note from the alcohol, a hint of pepper and spice cake.  In other words, complex and wonderful.    It's deep brown color with some red highlights, but browner than I expected.  Very low head.  But it also had a much bigger blast of hops than I expected. The website, which I see now, says "mellow hoppiness." Uh... actually it's quite bitter.  Puckering on the finish really. Almost harsh.  Some sweet malt peeks though and a hint of roast, but mostly the harsh/earthy hop finish. I would have loved less bitterness, though of course it might have seemed too sweet then.  But not to be an ass, but that's the beauty of the style isn't it?  It's supposed to be malty-sweet without being cloying; the classics have figured out the balance, right?  Anyway, taken on its own terms, ok but challenging.  Best to think of this not as a Wee Heavy but as a less huge version of a UK Barleywine.

Anyway, let me know what you all think.  Anyone see any of their other beers around these parts?