Tag Archives: Beer Review

Newsfeed

Schell’s 30th Anniversary Pilsner Series

1 Comment

Schell’s Brewing has been pretty busy these days. Minnesota’s oldest brewery is celebrating tradition and innovation with the announcement of their collaboration with The Current and most recently with the release of Schell’s 30th Anniversary Pilsner Series. Schell’s has long been known for making an exceptional pilsner, but this series expands on that tradition by bringing back the 1984 version and two others brewed to celebrate the occasion. The series is only sold in 12-packs and available in stores this week.

Beer 003It’s not everyday I get the chance to try beer before the rest of the world so this was a fun research project that I wholeheartedly embraced. I’m not going to lie, pilsners are not my style of choice. Not because I don’t like them, but because I don’t give them a chance. I seem to be a creature of habit and gravitate to hoppy beers and am also quite seasonal in my beer drinking, so consider them more of a warm weather beer. This was the perfect opportunity to give pils a chance and try what many consider to be an excellent example (if not the best American version) side-by-side with a progression of the same style.

I recommend everyone hold flight tastings in their home, it makes any evening a festive one. Our special beers were paired with some bucheron chevre and brillet-savarin tripple cream cheeses over crostini. My impressions:

1984        The classic recipe. Very mild in flavor, drinkable with a slight yeastiness.

2014        The current recipe. Well balanced, hop forward which mellows out.

Mandarin     Citrusy sweetness, yet bitter. Perfect for a summer day.

Roggen     More hop character, drier, and crisper than the rest.

Beer 047So what did I think? I loved comparing and contrasting each beer and getting a sense of all the flavors. I see what all the hype is about now. In the past I have encouraged my non-craft brew drinking friends to start with pilsners so they can progress to other styles and get in on the fun. It turns out I’m the one that has been missing out. I will definitely be partaking in more pils tasting especially since these are limited release, but am glad to know that the 2014/current version is here to stay.

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

Elevated Review: Rampant – New Belgium Brewing

Rampant 6 packNew Belgium Brewing, makers of Fat Tire and Ranger, have added a new beer to their lineup – Rampant. Rampant is an Imperial India Pale Ale that clocks in at 85 IBU’s and 8.5% ABV. With a name like Rampant, who could resist?

New Belgium is a 100% employee owned company out of Fort Collins, Colorado. They consistently brew solid, award-winning beers. New Belgium was my first introduction to the craft beer world. I still remember to this day, when and where I was the first time I tried their flagship beer, Fat Tire. I have been hooked ever since, and I have been highly anticipating the release of their first IIPA.

Rampant is a clear, deep copper colored beer, with a fingers worth of head topping it off.

Elevated LogoI am a huge fan of hop aroma in beer. This is achieved by adding hops late to the boil kettle or by dry hopping. Rampant doesn’t disappoint. I immediately noticed an overwhelming scent of orange peel and grapefruit. It also has subtle aromas of malt sweetness and booze. Hop aroma fades fast, so it’s best if Rampant is consumed fresh.

The taste is quite harsh at first. The bitterness mingles with a rye like spiciness and alcohol booziness. This accentuates the hop bitterness even more. Once the bitterness fades, the flavors really start to open up. The taste is quite complex, hitting many of the common citrus tones including: orange peel, peach, grape fruit, floral, and pine. The malt balances out the hops quite nicely, and finishes crisp and dry.

Overall, this is a very interesting and unique take on the style. Rampant lives up to its name, harshly bitter and aggressively hopped. Rather than creating something that had been done before, New Belgium decided to make an Imperial IPA unique to their brewery.

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!