All posts by Brewbicle

Dan Belfry and Jon Buck are lovers of craft beer and the Co-Founders of Brewbicle, a modular beer cellar system.
Newsfeed, Review

Reviewbicle: Thanksgiving Special

Beer Reviewbicle: Thanksgiving Special

November 2013

Dan Belfry and Jon Buck

www.brewbicle.com

Well it is that time of year when leaves start to turn colors, the air gets cooler, ugly sweater party invites start to materialize, and also when the elusive Turduckin appears from the woods and ends up on your dining room table. To celebrate such a festive season without beer would be unheard of. We’d like to pull together a list of beers that we think will add to your family’s celebration, your enjoyment of your family, and the seasonal meal we hope you all share together.

Knowing that everyone has their own unique culinary traditions we have stuck to some very traditional and stereotypical offerings to make our suggestions. Hopefully you can use these as a starting point and apply as needed to fit in your own celebration of thanks. We’ve also tried to keep this list as local as possible, to show support of our awesome MN craft beer scene.

APPETIZERS:

food beer squareCan range from cheese and crackers, to meatballs, to egg rolls. This pairing, having such a wide degree of accompanying foods, we think would be best to pair according to flexibility and neutrality. We wanted to suggest some things that are, easy drinking, and have a well-rounded character that would go with any and all of the apps out on your table. Plus you’ve got a whole day of eating and drinking ahead of you at this point. Think marathon.

Schell’s Pils – Crisp and grassy, tastes of biscuit, and hints of lemon citrus. Serves as a great back-drop and palette cleanser for a wide variety of pre-meal treats

Lift Bridge Farm Girl – Heavier on the grassy – grainy flavors, and citrus notes but still a good sharp cleanliness and healthy dose of refreshing. This is a versatile Saison as it is not too aggressive in its’ funk or yeast flavors.

FIRST COURSE:

senor wong phoAssuming a salad of some variety, perhaps some mixed greens with some candied nuts and strong cheese such as a bleu or goat. Maybe arugula topped with prosciutto and parmesan. Perhaps something with fruit, strawberries or raspberries and a vinaigrette. All sound lovely and offer different pairing opportunities to kick things off while sitting around the table.

For the nutty/cheese salad:

Odell 90 Shilling – This scotch ale offers a sweet and malty character with a lot of depth and the rich flavor would hold up well to a strong cheese.

Surly Furious – The resinous and fruity character of the hops and bready malts will do wonders with the strong cheese and will stand-up to the all nuttiness this salad can throw at it. Plus it’s a hometown favorite, how can you go wrong?

For the Fruity tart salad:

Indeed Day Tripper – The crisp clean character and friendly presence of hops will balance with acidity and complement the fruits. It will also hold its’ own with some milder cheeses.

MAIN COURSE:

Ah here we are! The main course, likely a smorgasbord of Turkey, gravy, cranberries, mashed potatoes, au gratin potatoes, stuffing, and the infamous green bean casserole. Plus many others, the common element here is most of these things are savory and/or salty in character. They are rich and strong flavors plus you’ve made it to the main event so time to indulge in some stronger and layered beers to match the food before you.
Summit Brewing Biere De Garde
Summit Biere de Garde – With a strong malt profile, amazing biscuit flavors, hints of caramel and faint inklings of cherries this is a well-rounded and wonderful pairing to your main course. Plus at 8.5% packs a decent punch and will get your digestion working on that bird.

Dangerous Man Belgian Golden Strong – Hopefully this is available leading up to the big day, get yourself a growler fill. Then watch as this deliciously complex blend of yeast, hops and alcohol meld in a heavenly manner with the heavy and rich foods on your table.

Stone Arrogant or Double or Oaked Bastard – Dark ruby color, high ABV and a complexity of dark fruit, hops and caramel/toffee make this one another fine choice to wash down that turducken. See if Uncle Eddy isn’t face-down in his mashed potatoes after this beer.

DESSERT

Let’s assume some of our favorites are being served; Apple pie, Pumpkin pie, and French Silk pie (we like pie). Each present a different opportunity.

Apple Pie:

Trappistes Rochefort 10: Let this strong Belgian beauty make friends with your apple pie. The dark fruits will complement that tart apple and if served alamode the cream will graciously carry away the alcohol to the delight of your taste buds.

Backwoods Bastard: Apples, brown sugar, cinnamon and bourbon, our work here is done.

Pumpkin Pie:

Southern Tier Pumking – The quintessential pumpkin beer to accompany the quintessential Thanksgiving desert.

French Silk Pie:

Founders Porter – More chocolaty/sweet and less roasty than most of its Porter counterparts means it will really play up the rich and thick nature of the pie. It will also layer a nice coffee flavor in the mix. Why isn’t there Coffee French Silk pie?

Newsfeed, Review

Beer Reviewbicle: Bell’s Brewery Third Coast Old Ale

September 2013
Dan Belfry and Jon Buck
www.brewbicle.com

Fall is really the start of what we like to refer to as beer season and that undeniable chill in the air brings about an instinctual desire for bigger beers. This is also the time of year for football, chili and some very notable beer releases. One that should be hitting our area soon is Bell’s Third Coast Old Ale. According to the Bell’s website, this is how the beer is described: Third Coast Old Ale focuses on malt, offering notes of burnt caramel & other earthy malt flavors. Designed with vintage aging in mind, the malt aspect is matched to a heavy complement of hops. Sharply bitter at first, this will fold into the malt character over time and balance out the maltiness.

Sounds right up our alley, doesn’t it? We’ve opened a bottle from series #9970 (bottled Nov. 3, 2010, 10.2% ABV) and #11400 (bottled Oct. 12, 2012, 10.2% ABV). It should also be noted that the shelf life is listed as ‘unlimited’ for both of these. As with our selection last month, this seems to be one that has the legs to age for some time and we may very well be ahead of this beers’ prime.

Bell’s Brewery Third Coast Old Ale

Reviewbicle: Bell's Brewery Third Coast Old Ale
The object of our desires, Bell’s Brewery Third Coast Old Ale

Appearance (’12): There is a small amount of beige colored head, which only includes tiny bubbles that float and gather at the edges of the glass. When held up to the light, the color is a deep brown with red undertones, revealing a deep amber sap color. It is as clear as can be on the initial pour and there is no detectable sediment or yeast/sea monkeys.

Appearance (’10): There is very little carbonation visible on this one and the tiny bubbles of the ’12 are far less present here. The small amount that does surface has very little space to congregate anywhere other than at the edges of the glass. The color and clarity are identical to the ’12 and so is the absence of sea monkeys.

Aroma (’12):  With a little agitation the beer reveals some layered aromas, buttery biscuit, honey, a full complement of grains, booze and faint cranberry or cherry in the back ground. The biscuit comes up first and is deep and rich (hence the buttery, though not actually smelling like butter) and warming. Honey is predominant within the sweet aromas, dry and unrefined/raw. The honey notes work well with the floral grainy aroma that follows. Booze and fruit finish things off with a sharp and tart aroma.

Aroma (’10):  With very little carb to agitate and help my olfactory sense, one has to get right up in there to get a good sense of what’s happening. Most evident is a more predominate fruit profile and the biscuit has turned into bread and softer smell of grains. The honey has taken a turn as well, taking on some deeper, sweeter caramelized notes. Still present, but with a diminished role, is the tinge of alcohol.

Taste/Mouthfeel (’12): A surprising amount of hop are here, leaving an immediate bitterness and finishing with a resinous dryness. The biscuit is there for sure, like a club cracker, rich and billowy. The honey sweetness is there too and it’s dry as well, leaving the tongue somewhat raw. The mouthfeel is thin, but booze and bitter fruit linger on the tongue and nose. This is a fairly well rounded beer at this point; however, the bitterness is really making its mark. At this point, we’re not able to determine if the bitter dryness is from hops, sugars or the fruitiness which caps everything off. Either way, it’s a good beer, but clearly has some time to go before it hits a really well rounded profile and has a wow factor.

Taste/Mouthfeel (’10): Ooooh the sweet flavor has really come into its’ own and takes a front seat, by comparison to the ‘12 anyway. The grains really take on a more caramel soaked breadiness and there are no detectable hoppy notes to run interference on the sweetness. Caramel kicks things off and permeates as the malt and grains become present, while the caramel lingers and carries through to the end. It is rich and round and full, and the fruit at the end has really mellowed, finishing in a pleasantly un-bitter way. The taste is thicker, but the beer itself isn’t. Plus, it hangs around in a sticky awesome way for us to enjoy.

Overall Comparison (’12 and ‘10): The ’12, at almost a year old, is still bitter and rough around the edges, but shows signs of potential. We are always to making some educated guesses when trying new beers, or deciding when to open something from the Brewbicle, and these versions showed some signs. This one has a lot of the great hallmarks: sweet, boozy and layered with flavor. While the ’12 probably wasn’t the best beer, it is likely because it hasn’t had enough cellar time, and we can say this with a bit more confidence having had tried the ’10. The ’10, in our opinion, is on the way to great things. The amount of change between the ’12 and ’10 will likely mean that we will hold on to the ‘10s for another 2 years and see what they are taste like, and then decide if we need to drink them all or if we should wait even longer. We are looking forward to the direction this will go and are happy we’ve got some more in our cellars.

Cheers!

Newsfeed

Reviewbicle: Old Stock Ale

August 2013

Dan Belfry and Jon Buck

www.brewbicle.com

After a brief summer hiatus (man it is flying by isn’t it?) we’re back and glad to be opening some more delicious brews and share our findings with you guys. We’ve gone with an Old Ale from North Coast Brewing out of Fort Bragg, California. This beer has an excellent reputation for its ability to cellar well. In all fairness we’re likely opening them before their prime, according to reports we’ve heard, but curiosity got the better of us and we wanted to see where this beer is heading.

Reviewbicle: Old Stock AleThis Old Ale is coming in at a rather large 11.7% ABV for both vintages the label has changed slightly over the years but we believe that the recipe is the same year-to-year. Along with our tasting we’ve decided to bring some food into the equation as well. We have selected a stilton and a cheddar with salt crystals, included also for a palette cleanser were some grapes. All of these were a winner in our opinion and really complemented the beer’s sweetness.

NORTH COAST OLD STOCK ALE

Appearance (’12): There is a small amount of with head which quickly dissipated and clung to the sides of the glass. The color is dark-red chestnut, and decidedly clear. Which was interesting as the older one had a haze present to it. Aside from the haze however the coloring is identical.

Appearance (’10): By contrast to the ’12 there was a haze present in the ’10 but still had the same dark-red chestnut coloring. Lightly carbonated even after a rather aggressive pour there was little head developed and what was there dissipated quickly. There is some lacing when the beer is swirled.

Aroma (’12):  Possesses a very malty nose, and there is a forward aroma of sweet cereal grains with a fleeting fruit. The fruit and gain played second fiddle to the alcohol here however. No doubt it is the front runner here, it carries throughout the different aromas and stings slightly.

Aroma (’10):  The nose is sweet and deep with fruit and caramelized sugars. A wonderfully simple yet powerful combination of plumb and other musty aromas combined with the caramel create a very pleasant nose. Underlying this is a distinct but not overpowering booziness. Really can’t say enough about how good this is smelling just wonderful.

Taste/Mouthfeel (’12): Kicking things off here is a hoppy bitterness which doesn’t last very long but most certainly is there. It abruptly is overpowered by a strong, sappy, dry, sweetness which reminds us of molasses. The sweetness is distinct, but dissipates more quickly than anticipated. The small amount of carbonation lends itself in the hoppy—> sweet transition. There is a surprising lack of flavors that linger, this one finishes nice and clean. This was a rather surprising characteristic to us as we’ve become so used to anticipating that these big beers will stick to your buds but this was a pleasant surprise.

Taste/Mouthfeel (’10): There is no hop bitterness to be found here, the taste skips right into the sweetness, however there has been a fruity development and the dryness has gone away. The fruitiness has married with the alcohol to make a wonderful “booze-soaked fruit cake” kind of flavor. Don’t mean to drudge up negative connotations with the fruit cake description, not at all what we intend. In fact it is very pleasant, more fruit cakes should taste like this. There are layers of dark fruits, cake/breadiness, sweetness and the comforting warmth of alcohol. The mouthfeel is velvety while it is present, this one doesn’t linger either it finishes cleanly and dry.

Overall Comparison (’12 and ‘10): Old Stock has a reputation as a beer that is good to age, and we can start to see why. What starts as a fairly straight forward malt bill and some booze really evolves into a beer with some dimensional layering and great interplay of flavors. The ’12 was kind of flat and lacked much interest in terms of complexity and harmonizing elements. It was on sitting on this guy for a bit that we began to see the benefits of oxidation, different malt flavors coming through and outshining the hops and the booze-burn. What resulted was the alcohol enhancing and rounding out of the beer rather than finishing as an exclamation point on a sweet beer.  This being said we both thought that the ’10 also lacked a little depth, don’t get us wrong it was a good beer and we will continue to stock our cellars with Old Stock Ale, but don’t go into this expecting a bouquet of tastes. Perhaps this will change with time or perhaps our expectations are clashing with the reality that a simple, well-made beer doesn’t need to have a dozen things going to make it interesting. Sometimes it is good to have a beer like this to remind us to enjoy the simple side of life as well.

Cheers!

Newsfeed, Review

Reviewbicle: Cuvee Van de Keizer Blauw

brewbicle logoBeer Reviewbicle: Cuvee Van de Keizer Blauw “Grand Cru of the Emperor”
May 2013
Dan Belfry and Jon Buck
www.brewbicle.com

This is our first outdoor Reviewbicle and with a special guest, MN Beer Activists’ very own Andrew Schmitt. Both of these facts make this a special tasting and one that reinforces the notion that beers are best shared with friends and alongside a grill (weather permitting). We urge you all to consider this when you are amassing cellars, as these beers do no good if not shared and enjoyed with those whose company you keep.

Cuvee Van de Keizer Blauw has a lengthy, but interesting, story on the bottle; I will not re-hash it here, but it’s worth mentioning, as we always like a good story.  It is classified as a Belgian Strong Dark Ale and with a Belgian address on the label, 11% ABV and dark brown color, who am I to argue? As promised last month, we’ll be reviewing a ’09 and ’12 for your reading pleasure and to break us from our ’10/’12 rut.

CUVEE VAN DE KEIZER BLAUW

Appearance (’12): This corked and caged beauty pours a lovely deep henna color and develops a light and velvety cream-colored head, which dissipates quickly and some lacing remains on the glass after a nice swirl. Minimal sediment appears in the glass and has a nice clarity to the body when held up to the light. It is a rich and regal looking beer from the get go, but it could be that the glimmering label is swaying my opinion.

IMG_20130426_193242Appearance (’09): A friendly debate starts when putting these side-by-side about which one is redder. I will spare you the banter and say that they are virtually the same color, as a compromise was made by the tasters, in the interest of maintaining friendships. The head that formed was indistinguishable from the ’12 vintage; it was rather velvety, with a rich, espresso-like foam and was creamy in color, which was quickly fading.

Aroma (’12):  This one starts with a very sweet aroma of mouthwatering candied sugars. Well, I guess it was mouthwatering for those with a sweet tooth. Dark fruits come in to play as well, hinting at plums, raisins and cherry, which was the most forward scent. There’s also a distinctive alcohol burn, as the 11% is not hiding with this guy; it is there and you know that you’re getting into something with some heat.

Aroma (’09):  Three years down the line, the nose has shifted quite noticeably. Our olfactory venture started with lots of fruity esters, as banana and pear stood out to us. The darker fruits found in the ’12 were there but had fallen back slightly and cherry still held the prominent position. Most noticeably behind the development of fruity esters was the drop in alcohol presence and the deepening of the aromatic finish. On the tail end, the earthy notes of tobacco and leather were noticeable.

Taste/Mouthfeel (’12): Taste kicks-off fairly sweet, the candied sugars and dark fruits mingle creating a rich and full flavor that is highly enjoyable and surely fit for an Emperor. However, the mingling is quite suddenly interrupted by the 11% giant in the room, which seems to swallow them up, while leaving the sugars behind. This results in a sweet, if not slightly, stinging finish. The sweet on the back-end bears much more resemblance to toffee and caramel than it does to fruit. The carbonation levels played a great role in the flavor progression here, as its’ soft and smooth bubbles complimented the rich and deep flavors quite nicely. They facilitated a very balanced and enjoyable glass of beer.
IMG_20130426_193721
Taste/Mouthfeel (’09): The ’09 vintage also begins sweet, but less aggressively so, as it is more subtle and rounded. The complexity has simplified a bit, highlighting cherry elements which remain present throughout. The dark fruit flavor doesn’t get pushed away by alcohol this go-around and meets the tail-end flavors of leather and tobacco in a most pleasing way. The contrast of fruit and leather is a great combination and has achieved a wonderful relationship at this point. The carbonation, while visually similar, has begun to wane in the mouthfeel. This resulted in a thicker and arguably more luxurious texture than the ’12 and played wonderfully to the rich flavors found in the beer.

Overall Comparison (’12 and ‘09): Both of these beers are wonderful right off the bat and a good amount of complexity and depth of flavor resides in both. Clearly, these are high quality beers, no matter how you slice either vintage.  The ’12 starts as such a wonderfully complex beer and hits some of the great fruit notes and candied sugars you’d expect from a Belgian ale, and does so despite a strong presence of alcohol. Without a doubt, this is one that could be enjoyed right away. Having it side-to-side with its’ 3 year-old brother leads us to believe that great things are happening for this regal ale. It has all the hallmarks of a good aging candidate and the bottle states it can age for 10 years. The elements seem to be simplifying as time goes on, but don’t confuse that for a diminishing of interest. The simplicity highlights some great flavor contrast and layering which previously were shrouded with elements only beginning to harmonize. In our minds this is a great cellaring beer, and one that we will personally be investing more time in. The bottle is easily available and provides some nice diversity for a cellar, which may be leaning in a one-dimensional stout/barleywine sort of direction.

Cheers!

Newsfeed, Review

Reviewbicle: Two Brothers Bare Tree

By Dan Belfry and Jon Buck

www.brewbicle.com

 photo(3)

We decided to celebrate the arrival of spring with a barelywine that has a little spring in its’ step. This beer is clocking in at around 11% ABV and we were excited to try it! Two Brothers makes some great beer and this smaller (12.7oz) corked and caged offering should be no exception. We’ve got another ’10 and ’12; I swear we have other vintages, so look for them next month!

TWO BROTHERS BARE TREE BAERLEYWINE STYLE WEISS BEER

Appearance (’12): There is almost no head, a half a finger at most, which quickly dissipates into a thin white foam floating around the glass. It pours a golden hue with some red undertones, the clarity is high aside from a healthy amount of Sea Monkeys floating around. It should be mentioned that we had a guest taster this week who didn’t think very highly of the Sea Monkeys, we told her that beer was a sort of dude yogurt, with those active cultures and what not. It’s science.

Appearance (’10): Holy Bubbling Barleywine Batman! This guy’s got some carb to it, and it’s not going anywhere. A thick foamy head forms upon pouring and the foamy pudding lingers and loses little body as we review. The clarity on this one isn’t as high, has a slight haze and larger Sea Monkeys floating around. The color is almost the same as its’ younger sibling.

photo(2)

Aroma (’12): Smokey and meaty are forefront here, which caught us a little by surprise. It was described aptly as beef jerky by our guest taster, and there is also a floral bouquet with a sharp tang to it. We are attributing these to both the wheat and yeast in this brew. A slight alcohol presence bites at the end, but nothing overpowering.

Aroma (’10): It appears that carbonation isn’t going to be the only drastic difference between these two. The nose here is dominated by fruit and flowers, dry and sweet like a cider or champagne. Green apple tartness stands out as the nose evolves when the beer warmed up. It smells great and we can hardly wait to try this guy.

Taste/Mouthfeel (’12): Not a ton of complexity to this tasting. It starts off with strong wheat presence, with a floral tang and some sharp crispness and earthy undertones. It then moves to some sweet notes with a hints of honey and caramel, which gives no hint of an 11% beer, as the alcohol is all but undetectable here. Finishes somewhat dry with some lingering fruit notes. The lack of carbonation lets the sweet and fruit linger which personally I found to be the best part, so I’m okay with that. Barleywine style Weiss beer/Wheatwine isn’t something we’re very versed in, so not sure what the level of carbonation is supposed to be, but this seems a little low.

Taste/Mouthfeel (’10): This one, while also leaning toward simplicity, leads us down an entirely different path. It starts with an assertive sweetness, which is eased out by a green apple tartness, and leads nicely to a path of dry sweetness. While this is reminiscent of a green apple tart dryness, this is decidedly sweeter, and honey marches us to the end of this flavor profile. The amount of carbonation evident in the lingering head isn’t very present in the body. The bubbles were quite fine in the head and had little effect on the tongue and was almost like a cask beer in terms of carbonation. By contrast this was nice, as it let the flavors again linger and move slowly away.

Overall Comparison (’12 and ‘10): These beers landed quite a distance from one another on the flavor spectrum and in terms of carbonation. Oddly, the more recent vintage was the less carbonated of the two. We’re not sure if the vast differences are explained by an off batch from either year, or if this really highlights the amount of change that can happen for this beer over the course of two years. One thing we can say with certainty is that we’ll continue aging this; if the ’10 vintage is any indication, this one is a prime candidate for aging. The ’10 really blossomed in two years, as fruits and honey were abundant and delicious. Both were highly drinkable, don’t get me wrong, but the ’10 was such a gem I would recommend that you hang on to whatever year you have of these. Both are around 11% and I couldn’t have told you they were much above 6%. Kudos to Two Brothers on this one.

Cheers!    

Newsfeed, Review

Reviewbicle: Central Waters Bourbon Barrel Stout

'10 and '12 CW BBS
’10 and ’12 CW BBS

We’re glad to be back for our second month! This is really a great reason for us to start digging in our cellars and finding beer we’ve been saving for one reason or another. The debates over what to open are almost as fun as what we actually drink and, in this case, spilled into the tasting itself (no pun intended). This week we delve into an offering from our beer-loving neighbors to the East, Central-Waters Bourbon Barrel Stout. We have again decided to go with a ’10 and ’12 vintage for this review, which should highlight the development for us. So, without further ado:

 

CENTRAL WATERS BOURBON BARREL STOUT

Appearance (’12): The pour results in a healthy amount of light ivory head, which quickly dissipates and leaves some signs of lacing. There is very little transparency in this one; when held to the light, the color is a Black/Brown body and reveals some red edges.
Appearance (’10): The pour results in an almost indiscernible difference from the ’12 and the main difference that occurs here is in the color. The ’10 has noticeably more transparency, resulting in a lighter brown body and greater red coloring at the edges of the glass. Not sure what might cause this difference, perhaps recipe variation?

Aroma (’12): Vanilla and brown sugar are forefront and are followed by the dark fruit of raisins. The nose finishes with a bourbon smell and even a slight, but sharp, burn.
Aroma (’10): Bready grains kick things off here, with notably less vanilla sweetness; however, there is actually more dark fruit aroma present after the vanilla gave way. The bourbon burn experienced with the ’12 is still there, but not quite as sharp.

Taste/Mouthfeel (’12): Opens up with sweet flavors of vanilla, raisins and plums, but not in an overwhelming way. The sweetness has some real depth and restraint, and it isn’t cloyingly so. The sweet is entirely surpassed by bourbon and an accompanying burn. The bourbon is backed up to by some grains, which give a dark chocolate and decidedly dry finish. There is a lingering burn, as if you had just sipped some bourbon, which we suspect is tamed by the sweet dryness of the malts. The carbonation, while not visually apparent, was more evident in mouthfeel and gave a cleaner finish to the flavors. The body on the ’12 was less viscous as well and between the carbonation and viscosity, it didn’t allow flavors to linger quite as long as in the ’10.
Taste/Mouthfeel (’10): This one starts sweet as well, but more subdued, with little detectable vanilla and a shorter period of fruit flavor. The transition from fruit to bourbon is a lot smoother here, with less distance between the two extremes of the flavors as they meld. The bourbon never reaches the “in-your-face” flavor of the ’12 and has little detectable burn. The dry, chocolate flavor returns at the end, which makes it the flavor that lingers. In contrast to the ’12, a fuller body and less carbonation gives this beer the ability to linger and fade off gradually.

Overall Comparison (’12 and ‘10): Our discussion about this tasting led us to realize some important factors to consider when aging beer. Jon and I differ as to our preference between the ’10 and ’12. Jon favors the aggressive bourbon and barrel flavors present in the ’12, as he likes the assertiveness and contrast with the sweetness that defines the early part of the ‘12’s flavor. However, I prefer the monochromatic subtlety which defines the transition of flavors in the ’10. It should also be noted that Jon is a more versed and avid bourbon/whiskey/scotch drinker than myself. I do enjoy these beverages as much as the next person, but almost invariably order them on the rocks. There is also the factor that I don’t really enjoy these drinks until after the first few sips, as my palette adjusts to the burn that accompanies them. Jon likes his straight-up, and seems to relish in its’ intensity.

This leads to an important question which you should ask yourself before deciding on aging barrel-aged beers, specifically bourbon barrels: will I enjoy it more now or later? Jon and I both liked each beer, that should not be misconstrued, but we favored them at different ages. Jon will continue to age his CW BBS, but may have a few more fresh before putting them away. My plan is to continue my drink one and cellar three regimen, and most likely age them longer than Jon will.

This is what makes cellaring great: being able to evaluate and strategize your cellar contents and tailor it to your palate’s preferences. Although, that could just the beer geek in me talking too…

Cheers!

Newsfeed, Review

Reviewbicle: Surly Smoke

Introducing Reviewbicle, a regular monthly feature by the guys at www.brewbicle.com. Every month Dan Belfry and Jon Buck will feature something from their very own Brewbicle cellar and tell you all about it.
-Andrew Schmitt

Being the designers and creators of Brewbicle, we have a special interest in the aging of beer. It is what
drove us to begin creating the Brewbicle almost 2 years ago and what drove us to start our company
in March of 2012. Aging beer is a wonderful hobby; it is equal parts patience, experimentation and
experience, and can provide the most enriching beer moments when those three things align. And while
this hobby floats on the fringes of the craft beer world, it is quickly growing and gaining interest. With a little self-control you can build a cellar of your own hand-selected gems to enjoy with friends and family.

This article isn’t going to dig into the how’s and why’s of beer aging or cellaring. We will, however, point you to some good resources and information we’ve found to answer your questions. If you want to read
more, go to: http://www.brewbicle.com/beer-cellaring-101.html

For our inaugural Beer Reviewbicle, we’ve selected a Minnesota beer and one that is readily available on
local store shelves at the time of this writing. We’re taking a closer look at Surly Smoke, a smoked Baltic Porter aged in oak, with a comparison of 2010 and 2012 vintage. The 2010, kept in a Brewbicle in Jon’s basement, and the 2012 procured from Jon’s local store shelves have two years between them, which
should provide a nice amount of contrast and highlight development for our taste buds. We started
from the ’12 and drank back to the ’10, which is typically how you would address a vertical tasting from
newest to oldest. Below are our tasting notes:

SURLY SMOKE

photo(3)

Appearance (’12): Mostly black and when held to light, reveals crimson edges. The head is a light cream
color and developed into a substantial head when poured. Redder than the ’10.

Appearance (’10): Mostly black with brownish edges, very minimal head appears even after a vigorous
pour, the head that does appear is darker and disappears quickly. Pretty clearly the less carbonated of
the two.

Aroma (’12): Campfire/smoke dominates the smell; beyond that, there’s a whiff of cherry or raisin,
some sweet vanilla and some traces of alcohol. Smoke, however, is by far the prominent aroma as one
would assume.

Aroma (’10): Again, smoke is present, but more easily gives way to those cherries and dark fruit and a
hit of the vanilla. There is an over-arching presence of a musty odor, not overpowering or offensive, but
present here where undetectable in the ’12.

Taste/Mouthfeel (’12): There is an upfront bitterness, although quickly fleeting and swept away by the
namesake flavor, which permeates and lingers through the rest of the tasting. As the finish begins, a
dryness comes forward. This could be from the oak tannins or from the roasted malt; between this and
the higher level of carbonation, the ’12 finishes distinctly cleaner than the ‘10

Taste/Mouthfeel (’10): Don’t be mistaken, there is smoke in this one too, but by comparison it is more
subtle and not as dominant. The fruit flavors that were only glimpsed before now have a bigger role,
starting almost right away and not leaving until the end when a sweet vanilla finish compliments the
smoke flavor. The smoke and vanilla linger and finish slowly, with less carbonation to cleanse, the flavors remain alive longer than in the ’12.

Overall Comparison (’12 and ‘10): We thought Surly Smoke was great with some age. The things that
appeared were really amazing and the beer that was revealed two years later was delightful. No longer
enslaved and overpowered by smoke flavor, the other elements of the beer got some time in the sun.
We both highly favored the ’10 for flavor reasons, but this does come with a caveat. The ’10 had some
signs of oxidation starting to show and significantly less carbonation. Our guess is that one or two
years more is probably all the further this should go. Additionally, if the Smoke is what draws you to
this beer to begin with, you may very well like this one fresh, but you’d missing what lies beneath and
complements the Smoke so well.

We hope you found our take on Surly Smoke informative and possibly inspirational to squirrel away a
bottle or two to try come the 20teens.

We’d like to thank MN Beer Activists for the opportunity to share our passion with those
who share it along with us.

Cheers!