Tuesday, January 12, 2010

100 beers of 2010: 2/100 - Great Divide Hibernation Ale




Beer Style: Old Ale
ABV/IBU: 8.7%/Unlisted
Serving Style: Poured from the bottle into a Dogfish Head chalice.

Appearance:Hibernation Ale is really nice deep chocolate ruby, tremendously clear with a tan head and nice carbonation levels. The clarity and color is appetizing and beautiful. 4.5/5

Smell: Cocoa, malt, and caramel grains stand out. There are some bitter hops lurking, with a slightly sour mash and vegetative smell lurking in the background. 3.5/5

Taste: The taste belies the smell in some ways. It's malty, sure, with some caramel sweetness evident, while certainly not syrupy. There is controlled bitterness behind the roasted maltiness, and the flavors are well-integrated. There are some vegetative flavors on the finish, but the cocoa helps cover it up. It has a long finish with lingering bitterness. 3/5

Mouthfeel: It's a tough nut to track, here, the high carbonation and good level of IBUs really keeps it lively in the mouth, and balances the malt, but I'm almost wondering if those aspects are a bit overdone. 3.5/5

Drinkability: Eh, to me, it's not a great beer, but if you like the style you might be into it more. It's nothing special, and if Great Divide hadn't made it I'd probably be even harder on it. 3/5

Overall grade: B-

Monday, January 11, 2010

100 beers of 2010: 1/100 - Short's Brewing Company: Good Humans

Recently Short's Brewing Company released about 7 limited-release beers at the same time, some of which had been brewed before and not bottled, some of which were brand new (I think). I grabbed six different six packs for my own sampling and trading on BeerAdvocate. This wasn't the first of the brews I tried, but it's the first one I reviewed in 2010. I neglected to take a photo of this, and can't find one in a decent resolution online due to the relative obscurity of the beer, so I apologize.

Beer style: American Brown Ale
ABV/IBU: Unlisted
Serving style: Poured from the bottle into a Dogfish Head chalice

Appearance: It comes out of the bottle as a fairly opaque reddish brown, with a normal head that quickly disappears. It's nice enough, sure, nothing special, nothing unappetizing. 3.5/5

Smell: A heavy dose of citrus hops hit the nose, I'm fairly sure they are cascade. Some sweet and appetizing herbal aromas are evident. Nice. 4/5

Taste: Not quite as good as the smell, unfortunately. Fairly bitter, with some caramel malts and mild chocolate flavors. It begins with bitterness and sweetness, then a clean finish with the malts. You get some lingering tongue tingle from the hops. 3.5/5

Mouthfeel: Normal. Effervescent, good carbonation levels. 3/5

Drinkability: If you are into this style, I can imagine wanting to have a few. It's clearly the best of the Short's limited releases that I've had, which isn't saying much, but it's pretty good. I wish it tasted as good as it smelled! 3.5/5

Overall grade: B

Friday, January 8, 2010

100 beers of 2010: How I review beer

I should probably mention how I approach reviewing beer. It's not a bad idea to read this guide on BeerAdvocate, but there are certain points I simply choose not to agree with. For one, I'm not a BJCP (Beer Judge Certification Program) judge. I simply cannot objectively review a beer in terms of how well it matches the style, because I'm not experienced enough. I'm not going to quaff a rauchbier and be able to give it a 4/5 for flavor, even if it appears to meet the style guidelines, because I simply don't think those beers taste good (or at least the ones I've had don't). I give high marks on flavor to beer I think tastes good, and I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with that - I'm not professing to give anything more than my opinion when I talk about beer.

So here are the details I'll provide about each beer:
Brewery and name of the beer: obvious
Style: What style does the beer profess to be or appear to be?
ABV/IBU (if available): Alcohol By Volume and International Bitterness Units. It's tempting to look at IBUs as a simple "bitterness meter", but IBUs can be well-masked and balanced by a big, malty backbone. For example, most barleywines exhibit high IBU levels, but certainly don't taste quite as bitter as, say, an American IPA (India Pale Ale), due to their larger ABV (which means more grains were used in the creation the beer).
Serving style: Draft or bottle, what glass I used, where I had it, that kind of stuff.

I think the BeerAdvocate/BJCP guidelines for analyzing a beer make sense, and I use them when I review a beer. This is how i interpret them:

Appearance: What the beer looks like. I weigh how attractive the beer is, and how much it makes me want to start drinking. I value a good depth of color, clarity (even though it's usually just caused by filtering), a good carbonation level (when it fits the style), and lack of haze unless the style calls for it. I don't really care about things like lacing (usually cased by a high amount of proteins, hop oils, and really clean glasswear).

Smell: What the beer smells like. I value big aromas that are appetizing and let me know what's going on in the beer. I get frustrated when a beer has an extremely laid-back aroma, because aromatics are a huge part of how we taste. Even worse than no aroma, however, is a bad aroma - vegetables, sour aromas (again, when it doesn't fit the style), solvents - all these make me actively not want to drink a beer.

Taste: What the beer tastes like. This is, of course, the most important part of a beer. No matter what a beer looks like, smells like, or feels like in the mouth, if it tastes bad it's crap. Like many things, beer has an amazing diversity of flavor - even beers within the same style can have amazingly different flavors. I routinely will talk about whether or not a beer has "integrated" flavors. What I am trying to get at when I talk about this is if all the different flavor components in a beer create a harmonious whole, rather than stand alone as separate ingredients. For instance, I've had two chocolate coffee stouts recently that had similar flavors, but were drastically different in terms of how well the flavors melted together. One was complex, dynamic, and amazing, while the other felt like a collection of parts, a homebrewing experiment taken too far.

Balance is key, no matter what the style. If my taste buds are buzzing for a minute with alkaline flavors (think about chewing an aspirin) after I finish a sip because the IBUs in a DIPA (Double IPA) are simply unmanaged, that's a poorly made beer. If the beer is just a sweet, syrupy mess with no snap of hops to balance it out, it's just as bad. Sure, different styles will have different levels of sweetness, maltiness, bitterness, etc, but balance and integration are key.

I will admit that I overvalue a bit of caramel/honey sweetness in beer and tend to dislike the more mild styles, so bear that in mind.

Mouthfeel: What a beer feels like on the palate. Carbonation plays a big role here, as does the brewery's controlling of unfermented sugars and proteins. The most important thing for me is that the mouthfeel of a beer match the style - I like a lager that has a bit of body and has good levels of carbonation, but isn't going to be thick at all. For an IPA with a nice ABV, I want a substantial body. For an oatmeal stout, a silky-smooth mouthfeel with some nice backbone is desirable. If an 8-9% stout is thin or overly carbonated, it just doesn't make the whole package work.

Drinkability: How much you want to drink the beer. This is my least favorite analytical category on BeerAdvocate. If a beer is good, I want to drink it. Being able to "session" a beer (drink many in a row) isn't at all important to me, I almost never have more than a single beer a night unless I'm out at a bar. I most frequently discuss Drinkability in terms of the beer as a whole - what I thought about it, how much I wanted to keep drinking, how much I'm looking forward to having it again, that kind of thing.


I will then provide a grade for the beer based on my subjective opinion of the beer as a whole. I try to keep my grades uninflated - an average beer is a "C", a good beer is a "B" and a great beer will earn an "A". Not many beers get A's from me, and truly disappointing beers will earn lower than a C. I tend to trade much lower than most people on BeerAdvocate, so keep that in mind.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

The 100 beers of 2010 project

I've decided to make 2010 a year of goals, and one of my goals is to review at least 100 beers in 2010. Right now I have at least 65 unique beers in my collection, and have access to many more brews I haven't tried before - it's time to get drinking instead of collecting, and sharing my thoughts. So follow along with me as I complete this project!

I'll be honest with you and say that I do have my preferences and dislikes, but know that in the past year or more my palate has expanded quite a bit. However, I'm still going to value things like clarity and controlled alkaline flavors more than many would. I like beer with a lot of residual sweetness, and I like big, intense ales more frequently than I do a more mild style, no matter how well it's crafted. But I don't think that taste can truly be objective, and if it were, where's the fun in reading that?

I'll be referencing two glasses routinely that I use for drinking 99% of the beer I have at home, so I'll show you what those look like:



This is a picture I took of the Sam Adams sensory glass holding a bottle of Burton Baton from Dogfish Head. I use it for most beers under 8% ABV nowadays. The shape is superior to the standard shaker pint, as the tulip shape helps capture aromas better, and it's nice to hold in the hand. The glass also has nucleation points on the bottom, which is a laser-cut ring that knocks carbonation out of the beer solution. Finally, the glass is thinner, which is nicer for appreciating the appearance of the beer.



I didn't take this image, but it's the Dogfish Head signature glass. I use it for most high-alcohol beers for no great reason other than tradition. Like the sensory glass, it has nucleation points (in the shape of the DFH logo, which makes for some funny shapes in bubbles sometimes), but isn't as nice to hold in the hand. The slug stem base is pretty cool, I guess.

OK, so you've seen the glasses and know more about my tastes, so here goes.

Friday, October 9, 2009

San Francisco thoughts

Just left San Francisco after my first trip to the bay area. I had a lot of dope beer this weekend, and not all of it local. I ended up leaving with a RR Consecration and Temptation, and a Deschutes Black Butte XXI and a Valley Brewing Uberhoppy.

Thoughts:
Monk's Kettle - ridiculously overpriced, wide variety of beers but I seriously didn't want anything they had on draft (maybe says something about me), dropped $7.50 on a big pint of Pliny (overpriced). Their bottle list was impressive but, again, was extremely pricey. I just don't love Pliny, but I can understand why it's considered a great beer. It's a bit too bitter and dry for me, but that's just my preference for sweeter DIPAs revealing itself.

Toronado - I heard the service sucked but going on Monday night was fine and the bartender gave me a gratis beer and poured me a nice sample of another one without me even asking. I went back on Tuesday and it was a bit more crowded, but I was able to get a table and sit with three other people I knew with no big issue. Great prices - 4 buck Blind Pig and 4.50 Pliny, as an example. Most other domestics were in the $4 range. They had a pretty good selection, but I heard that it wasn't as full a draft list as usual. I had the absolutely amazing Dupont Avec Les Bons Voeux and one of the better beers I've ever had, Firestone-Walker Double Jack [review forthcoming]. I had some other good stuff as well, but those stood out.

City Beer Store - This is a small place that clearly caters to beer nerds. Along with six rotating taps, it features two big coolers stocked with most everything they sell on the shelves and you can open anything for $1 corkage fee. I met an old old internet friend and he dropped some coin on the fantastic Mikkeller/Brewdog Devine [sic] Rebel barleywine ($15 for 12 ounces) and the fucking amazing Avery Mephistopheles Stout (I don't even like stouts that much and think this is a perfect beer). The server was nice and knowledgeable, which helps.

I wasn't actually blown away by SF as a beer town, but it certainly has it's good spots worth checking out. I'm glad to have left with some good west coast stuff, too.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Review: Bell's The Oracle DIPA

Poured from the bottle into a Sam Adams Sensory glass.

Appearance: The beer pours an opaque apricot, and my mildly aggressive pour left a thin head that quickly dissipated. A nice level of carbonation is exhibited. Noting spectacular in the looks department but an attractive color.

Smell: A great nose on this - some peach, some citrus, some resinous hops, some slightly sour funk going on. Very fragrant and inviting.

Taste: A truly interesting beer. I'm reminded of Port Brewing's Hop 15 (or at least what I remember of that) - extremely thick, with a high level of syrupy, effervescent fruitiness. A sharp sour green apple bites through the initial sweetness for a bit, then is drowned with a clover honey finish that eventually gives way to that always unpleasant alkaline baking soda sensation on the tongue due to the IBUs.

Mouthfeel: I love a thick beer with a rich, creamy mouthfeel, so I'm all about The Oracle. The carbonation is quite good, and it's a nice mouthful of beer without being syrupy.

Overall, it's a darn good beer. It's going to rate outstanding and exceptional on the review sites due to it's rarity, but honestly I think I prefer the similar, and better, Hop Slam. The alkaline finish is just distasteful to me and keeps it from being a truly great beer. I'd give it an A-/B+.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Review: GLBC Commodore Perry

Poured from the bottle into a Sam Adams sensory glass. This bottle was only a week or two off the bottling line, as I got it from a buddy who gets me a lot of underfills...

Appearance: The color isn't anything special, really, but it's pours quite clear with a nice head and good retention. A good level of carbonation is exhibited with a steady stream of bubbles rising from the nucleation points in the glass.

Smell: A very nice and strong aroma, indeed. A nice malt mixes with slightly citrus, lemon aromas, and some fresh grassiness.

Taste: A creamy mild sweetness is complemented with a bit of bready malt, and finished up with clean, sweet bitter hop flavors. Everything is well integrated - the sweetness never overpowers the mild bitterness, and the finish is clean on the palate - but still reminding you it's an IPA. I'd say for non-imperial IPA it's one of my favorites.

Mouthfeel: The mouthfeel is fantastic for a single IPA. Thick and rich, but never syrupy, and with a perfect level of carbonation. The mouthfeel perfectly complements the flavors of the beer and enhances the entire package. For the style, I think it's worth a 5.

Drinkability: It's extremely drinkable, due to the great taste and wonderful mouthfeel. I'm nearly done with my glass as I finish this review, actually... and really wouldn't mind another!

One of the best of the GLBC brews, in my opinion. An A- single IPA for sure.