Rating: B

Archived Posts from this Category

February 4, 2009

First Tuesday Beer Club

Posted by amm002 under Beer Events, Rating: A, Rating: A Minus, Rating: B, Rating: B Plus, Rating: C Plus | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
[8] Comments 

I felt a little like we crashed the study party when a handful of us walked into Acadia Cafe on the West Bank of the U of M campus last night for our inaugural First Tuesday Beer Club meeting. Undergrads seated around pub tables with open books spread about, quiet conversations about the day’s lecture. A relaxed and scholarly environment mixed with the faint smell of hops and quality craft beer.

Calling our rendezvous a “meeting” might be a little formal. The small group was really a spin-off from a larger wine tasting circle, consisting of seven guys who realized that they all maybe enjoyed drinking and talking about beer slightly more than they do wine (maybe I’m just speaking for myself). After our last wine event, we decided to meet up at Acadia to test drive a few of their offerings, informally calling our gathering the First Tuesday Beer Club. But unlike the more rigid and structured wine events where scoring and extensive tabulations took place, we were just going to drink good quality craft beer and nod our heads in approval when we liked something. Maybe a few grunts mixed in for good measure.

We started the night with Surly Mild. I’d actually never seen this one on tap before, and was very eager to give it a shot. The menu described it as an English-style dark mild ale that resembled a malty version of iced tea. And that really wasn’t too far off. Given it was Surly, I was very surprised at just how little was really going on with this one. Barely noticeable aroma (save for the small hint of toffee), relatively nondescript taste, and thin mouthfeel. What immediately came to mind after taking a few sips of Mild was “session beer.” At 4.2% ABV, there’s no way anyone was going to have four or five or twelve of these and be in any danger of stumbling home. While this is probably a good stylistic example of a lighter English-style ale, it’s definitely the least favorite Surly offering I’ve had (Rating: C+).

The rest of the night went something like this:

Southern Tier Gemini Double IPA (far and away the crowd favorite – Rating: A-)
Rogue Yellow Snow IPA (so-so, pretty drinkable but compared to Gemini a little lower on the IPA scale – Rating: B)
Anchor Bock (very good…I’m not a big lager guy so I was pleasantly surprised – Rating: B+)
North Coast Old Rasputin (I’d had this in the bottle before, and was even more impressed with it on draught – Rating: A)
Saison Dupont Organic Farmhouse Ale (ick…something medicinal and uninviting about this one – Rating: C+)
Bell’s Sparkling Tripel 2007 (solid example of a Belgian tripel…yeasty up front with a nice, sweet finish – Rating: B+)
Bell’s Cherry Stout (enjoyable, nice way to cap off the night – Rating: B)

We each had our share, and ponied up the $8 per guy to settle the tab (seriously…I think they must have forgotten to put a couple pitchers on the bill). Next stop on the First Tuesday beer tour…The Muddy Pig. See everyone there.

 

January 2, 2009

Christmas with DFH, Sam and Alpine

Posted by amm002 under Rating: B, Rating: B Plus | Tags: , , |
[2] Comments 

dsc01019Better late than never.

Over the Christmas holiday, I sampled several unique craft beers, including Dogfish Head Theobroma, Sam Adams Chocolate Bock and Alpine Boris Imperial Stout. All very different in their own ways, but all respectable in quality and flavor. I figured I’d pull the reviews together in one round-up to help with my backlog of posts I need to get out on stuff I’ve been enjoying recently.

First up is DFH Theobroma. For those that aren’t already aware of the backstory on this one (Discovery Channel recently chronicled DFH Theobroma on their “How It’s Made” show focusing on beer), here’s what the DFH website has to say: 

“This beer is based on chemical analysis of pottery fragments found in Honduras which revealed the earliest known alcoholic chocolate drink used by early civilizations to toast special occasions.  The discovery of this beverage pushed back the earliest use of cocoa for human consumption more than 500 years to 1200 BC.  As per the analysis, Dogfish Head’s Theobroma (translated into ‘food of the gods’) is brewed with Aztec cocoa powder and cocoa nibs (from our friends at Askinosie Chocolate), honey, chilies, and annatto (fragrant tree seeds).”

Beer Advocate classifies this as a chile beer, although there’s a hell of a lot more than just chile going on here. Knowing this is a cocoa-based beverage, I expected it to be chocolatey and creamy, but this wasn’t at all the case. Initial aroma was something like grape soda. Very strange. The longer you lingered on the aroma, you eventually picked up some of the cocoa qualities, but it’s pretty faint. Coloring was something like an IPA, again not at all what I expected. The taste was relatively sweet, and the chile did come through in the finish, giving the back of your throat a hot sensation. Then again, that could be from the 10% ABV. Very heavy mouthfeel with lots of prickly carbonation, reminiscent of a strong, hefty lager, even though this is an ale. Overall impression…a very innovative beer with an interesting story, but not something I’d enjoy drinking all the time.

Rating: B   

dsc010222Next up is this year’s iteration of Sam Adam’s Chocolate Bock. First off, very cool bottle. Helps set up the expectation that what you’ll be drinking is on the high end of the Sam Adams artisan spectrum. And while Theobroma is representative of an ancient culture’s use of cocoa, this one is much more what today’s palette would expect with a chocolate-infused fermented beverage.

Poured with a nice fluffy head, giving way to a toasty, caramel malt aroma. Somehow the hops found a way to break through the malty clutter, coming through just a bit in the nose as well. Very dark coloring, like a heavy stout. But looks are deceiving. The mouthfeel is actually light and smooth, with pleasant notes of chocolate malt, caramel and butterscotch throughout the taste.

At 5.6% ABV, Sam Adams Chocolate Bock 2008 turned out to be a nice, refreshing lager.

Rating: B+ 

dsc010241And finally, Alpine Boris. I picked this one up from South Bay Drugs in San Diego, hearing decent things about this Imperial Stout that’s been barrel-aged and infused with coffee.

Poured with a small head that quickly dissipated. Very dark and opaque. Definitely picked up the barrel-aged qualities in the nose. Hints of bourbon or whiskey, mixed with dark fruit maltiness. Maybe vanilla.

Unlike some other Imperial Stouts I’ve enjoyed (like Surly Darkness or Oskar Blues Ten Fidy), there was a distinct astringent quality to this one. Pretty bitter, but I think by design. Could be from the coffee, I suppose. That aside, some nice dark fruits and roasted malts permeate the taste, masking the 10% ABV. Overall, a pretty decent Imperial Stout, but certainly not world-class.

Rating: B+

 

December 1, 2008

Lagunitas Cappuccino Stout

Posted by amm002 under Rating: B | Tags: |
1 Comment 

dsc009401Monday. Back to the grind after a long and relaxing holiday break. My day wasn’t actually that bad, all things considered. Only about 400 emails to wade through and a handful of obligatory meetings. All made that much more bearable by a great little surprise sitting on my desk when I walked in…a sixer of New Glarus for my birthday, compliments of my very thoughtful boss. I’m really looking forward to trying each one.

But on to the beer at hand…Lagunitas Cappuccino Stout. I’ve never had Lagunitas before, mainly because they’re based out in California and only recently started distributing here to Minnesota. I’ve had this one in the beer fridge for quite a while, and tonight felt like the kind of evening to warm the bones with a hearty coffee stout.

Poured with minimal head into a snifter, and a very interesting ruby red coloring. Definitely not as dark or thick as I was expecting. A nice, rich malty chocolate aroma coupled with notes of coffee thanks to the Colombian beans used in the brewing process. Actually kind of reminds me of Surly’s Coffee Bender.

I let the glass warm up just a bit, and it had a nice, smooth taste through and through. Just enough bite with 30 IBUs to balance out the malt. A little thin in the mouthfeel, however, but that’s fairly typical of many stouts I’ve had. Didn’t really pick up much of the 8.29% of ABV, pretty well-hidden.

According to Beer Advocate, this is supposed to be an Imperial Stout, but I don’t agree. Too light in color and a tepid mouthfeel that prevents me from really going with that description. But a decent enough beer. 

Rating: B

 

November 3, 2008

Home Brew Review: The Captain’s Oatmeal Coffee Stout

Posted by amm002 under Home Brewing, Rating: B | Tags: |
[3] Comments 

So this one has been hanging around for a month or so, and I’ve yet to give it a proper review. It took a little longer than I anticipated to condition in the bottle. The first one I cracked after two weeks revealed little more than a bubble or two, even after vigorous aeration in the glass. I gave it a couple more weeks, and a few good shakes of each bottle to rouse the yeast every few days, and my second bottle popped open with that beautiful sounding PFIFF. 

After having a couple of these at very cold temperatures, I decided it was better appreciated at just slightly cooler than room temperature, maybe 65 or even 60 degrees. The normal cold setting from the beer fridge seemed to overshadow some of the subtle aspects of the beer, and didn’t allow it to really open up. Kind of like adding a splash of lukewarm water to a nice single malt scotch to let the aroma and flavors blossom a bit (something I’d never personally do, but some people swear by it…would you add water or put ice in a fine wine? It’s neat or nothing for me.)

The Captain’s Oatmeal Coffee Stout poured with a decent two finger head, and I immediately caught the defining aromatic characteristic of this beer…Starbucks Breakfast Blend coffee. I added 16 ounces of the stuff in the primary just before fermentation. And I think it came through pretty well, just what I was looking for. Not too heavy, but enough to know it’s there.  I also get some faint notes of chocolate, thanks to the small bit of chocolate malt in the recipe. If you really focus on it, you can also pick up a hint of alcohol in the background (this one comes in around 5.5% ABV). 

The taste is pleasing. Smooth throughout, pretty malty without much hop bite (only about 30 IBUs). Very “clean” and roasty. The oatmeal kind of coats your mouth with its velvety texture. It’s really more perceptible in the aftertaste than in the initial taste itself. While the oats are certainly there in the texture, mouthfeel is a little on the thin side, however, but I can live with it. I’m certain it’s because I topped off my primary with a half gallon or so of tap water to get my batch to five gallons before I pitched the yeast. I should use some carapils or malto-dextrin next time I make this to add some more depth.

Overall, I think this is a very drinkable stout. Not a masterpiece, but I’m already getting requests for more.  

Rating: B

 

October 28, 2008

Sierra Nevada 12th Release Harvest Wet Hop Ale

Posted by amm002 under Rating: B | Tags: |
[4] Comments 

Every time I drink something from Sierra Nevada, I always feel like their beers from one to the next don’t taste that dissimilar. Maybe it’s because everything I’ve had has been in the same general style vicinity…their Pale Ale, Celebration Ale, Anniversary Ale, and now the 12th Release Harvest Wet Hop Ale. It’s not that they make bad beer. I mean, give me a break. They basically started the craft beer revolution. On the contrary, all their stuff is usually pretty solid. But also pretty “safe”, in my opinion. Maybe I’ll change my opinion if I try some of their other stuff, like their Bigfoot Barleywine.

This one pours with an interesting orangey color. Pretty good head. Decent hop aroma, which is what I’d expect from a wet-hopped ale.

So what about this wet hopping…the 12th Release is one of three offerings in their Harvest Wet Hop series. Could I discern a noticeable difference from the wet hops? Not really. I was expecting a little more aroma and hoppy bitterness given the lengths they go on the bottle to describe how they fly in fresh hops from Yakima, Washington picked the day before, and dump them right into their awaiting kettles. Kind of like those over-priced sushi restaurants in the Midwest that make a big deal about exotic fish flown in on ice that were caught the day before somewhere in the Pacific. Because after all, who wants Walleye Sashimi?

Overall, pretty balanced taste with a prickly amount of carbonation. It’s fairly hoppy to be sure, but nothing that legitimately stood out compared to their year-round Pale Ale, despite their best hopping efforts. Sorry Sierra Nevada.

Rating: B

 

October 16, 2008

Stone Cali-Belgique IPA

Posted by amm002 under Rating: B | Tags: , |
[5] Comments 

My first Stone review from the recent South Bay Drugs & Liquor delivery. Stone Cali-Belgique, or as it’s referred to on the bottle itself, Stone Cali-België. I think everyone outside of Belgium who doesn’t speak Dutch refers to it as “Belgique” because they can’t figure out how to type umlauts.

Interesting combination of what tastes like a classically yeasty Belgian Golden Ale with a strong and bitter IPA. I kind of like it. Starts off like it’s going to be sweet, like some Belgians, but finishes mouth-puckering dry. You get that “grape skin” tartness on the back and sides of your tongue. In small quantities, that characteristic is fine (and desired in an IPA), but too much is astringent. This falls somewhere inbetween.

Overall, the IPA definitely takes over this one. Distinctive citrusy hop aromas and tastes, but not as much as you might expect in an IPA. If you’re looking for a hop bomb, you won’t find it here. I suspect the Belgian part of this beer tempers it a little.

This is a pretty drinkable beer, light mouthfeel and somewhat refreshing. I have a feeling this isn’t one of Stone’s best, but I like it just fine.

Rating: B

 

August 26, 2008

Goose Island Nut Brown Ale

Posted by amm002 under Rating: B | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

I have to be honest. I debated for a while on how I felt about this one. I think the problem is that it’s a pretty big departure from most of the beers I’ve been drinking. Not very hoppy. And very rich and roasty. So, in other words, take this review with a grain of salt.

The aroma of this beer envelopes you from the start. Filled with coffee, chocolate and a dash of honey. There’s something inate about it, like you’re genetically predisposed to enjoy the sweet smells. Lightly carbonated, which seems to be fairly typical for most of the Goose Island beers I’ve enjoyed. Not a great deal of head, but what was there is a light ruby brown. The beer itself is a very nice, dark chestnut. Little to no lacing.

Now, here’s where the debate for me comes in. Once I finally got past the incredible smells, I took a slow sip, and was underwhelmed with how almost watery and tepid the brown ale came across. It’s incredibly smooth, but it’s a letdown after the robust aromas. I expected a bit more. About 30 IBUs, which you can hardly notice. Relatively weak mouthfeel. I notice on BeerAdvocate.com that many reviewers call this “a great session beer.” I’m beginning to wonder if that is code for passively likable and non-offensive (read: lacking inspiration). But I really can’t pan the beer, because even though it didn’t live up to my expectations, I recognize that most people would really enjoy this. Would I have this again? Ehh, why not. But I wouldn’t go looking for it.

B

 

« Previous Page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers