Tag Archives: Brewbicle

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!

Newsfeed

Under the Tree and Into The Cellar

By Dan Belfry and Jon Buck

BrewbicleNot so long ago our hobby of beer aging transformed into our passion and that’s when we both slowly began to amass beers in our respective basements. We kept them in what everyone starts with, discarded cardboard boxes from the liquor store. These boxes became unsightly and it was difficult to find the specific beers that we were looking for. Furthermore, they were equipped with flimsy handles, untrustworthy bottom panels and stacked upon one another precariously. We quickly realized that there had to be a better way to store our growing collections of beer.

As we researched options, we found several things that didn’t quite do the trick: expensive and cumbersome refrigeration units, wine racks, shelving units and other homemade solutions. There wasn’t anything out there that was specifically designed with the beer collector in mind. After finding nothing to suit our needs in the market, Jon and I began designing and prototyping what would eventually become the Brewbicle.

At the time we had no intention of bringing these to market; we were making these for our personal beer collections and our mission was simple: to safely and properly store our beer until we were ready to drink it. When we made the first round of prototypes, some friends became interested and wanted a couple for their personal cellars. We made them and began an informal market study and gathered feedback. After about a year of modification, we saw it was time to get Brewbicles out to all the beer geeks who would find themselves in similar situations.

As they are modular units, Brewbicles will easily stack and grow with your cellar. They are sturdy and will hold your beer safely and securely for as long as you want to age it. Brewbicles hold bottles upright and in a light-free environment, which is important to proper aging. Perhaps most conveniently, they have an inventory system that allows you to identify exactly which beer is stored where, when it comes time to open what you’ve been so carefully maturing. Brewbicles are designed to be space conscious, with less of a footprint than a case of beer and the ability stack safely. They are meant to be stored in a cool place, such as a basement or an interior closet to keep your beer at a consistent and cool temperature.

Brewbicles make a great holiday gift for that special beer geek in your life who will think of you every time he or she places their treasured beer into its’ tailored home. Plus it is made by beer geeks; we are truly passionate about our product and have designed the Brewbicle around beer, and its’ aging.
Brewbicle Benefit List:
– Modular and stackable
– Light-free and upright storage
– Heavy-duty construction
– Integral Inventory system
– Holds 25 – 12oz bottles or 16 – 22oz/750mL bottles
– Customizable
– A one-of-a-kind gift that will be remembered

Brewbicles are made in locally Minneapolis and have been sold all over the country. Visit www.brewbicle.com or write info@brewbicle.com for more information. Dan and Jon are happy to answer any questions.