Category: Beer

Profiled by Ken Carman

83 BA, 3.7 UnTappd

I must admit: I’m old school. To me this is too much like a double IPA. But it was submitted as a Barleywine, the cans even said that. Oh, I understand: the newer BJCP guidelines over the years have upped the hop level in barleywines, making me miss the maltier, sweet barleywines; like I’ll Have What the Gentleman on the Floor is Having. Making hops a bigger focus in barleywines to me is a mistake. Yes, you have to increase the hops for balance. But if I want “hoppy” I would go DPA. If you want to make a distinction let’s talk East Coast/West. DON’T %$#@ with my beloved barleywines!

Appearance: longstanding big pillow head with a few small bubbles. Great glass coat. A slightly dark yellow with relatively good clarity. Bitter approaches a little too much astringency.

Nose: hint of caramel malt, more pale and hops. A sweet orange-ish and zest-like sense behind that.

The mouthfeel is caramel and slight fresh hop-like sense under the very dominant bitter side to the hops. A tad more bitter than caramel. More caramel malty than most barleywines these days. Hop bitter lingers, fruity orange-ish tangerine mix fades fast, obviously hop driven. More early additions would have helped hop perceptions, less late. The bitter becomes annoyingly astringent after a while. I’d enjoy one glass but not go back for a second. And if I like barleywine I always go back for a second! Higher abv be damned.

Although I prefer the more sweet versions of old, and the astringency is annoying for me; especially in this style, I feel this is well crafted and enjoyable. I would have given it a 4.2 if it had been an Imperial/Double IPA, but even for the newer Guidelines over the years I feel it just a tad overboard. As far as Imperial I understand my comments are a matter of taste. But I stand by my Barleywine concerns. Even if hops should be the focus, this is DIPA focus.

NOTE: Only after I wrote this did I discover the beer sites list it as a DIPA. Not sure what happened here.

3.8

Readers: for now we are using only BA since InBev owns Rate Beer. We may get UnTappd but their site security is done with something that resembles a bad version of Candy Crush!

Welcome to the PGA beer rating system: one beer “Don’t bother.” Two: Eh, if someone gives it to you, drink. Three: very good, go ahead and seek it out, but be aware there is at least one problem. Four: seek it out. Five: pretty much “perfecto.”

______________________________Beer HERE

___________________________________________________________________

 Once again hosted by the marvelous Nathan Baker, this year’s Can Can was, and is, everything that it was last year, only better. This is a competition offering more professional judging than some I’ve been to: BJCP, Cicerones and pro-brewers judging beer brewed by other pro-brewers who can their beer. It’s a big job.
⁦Nathan opens up his house in the Franklin Westhaven community for us. Westhaven reminds me of cross between Seaside on the Florida panhandle and The Villages near Orlando. Unlike either Westhaven inner streets are a tad convoluted. Ms. GPS decided to put our Green Honda Element through its paces.
 Sure glad Ms.GPS is patient. Continue reading “A Beer Judge’s Diary: Can Can II”

Profiled by Ken Carman

Cherry nose with a light pale malt background for the nose. Almost perfumy. Tis pleasing an inviting.

Off white pillow head that fades fast, a little redish. A little hazy, but that could be chill haze. Legs rise fast. Some glass coat.

Firm cherry flavor, less juice than actual cherries. Slightest hint of skin. Ale behind this is light to the palate intensity-wise, but on the lower side of medium. Obviously the cherry is the star here.

Mouthfeel: firm foamy carbonation like foam in a sea wave without the salt. Low side medium body. Quite pleasurable.

The best Ommegang beer I’ve had. They always play a little too safe for me. Almost a wine

90 and 90 BA

Readers: for now we are using only BA since InBev owns Rate Beer. We may get UnTappd but their site security is done with something that resembles a bad version of Candy Crush!

4.3

Welcome to the PGA beer rating system: one beer “Don’t bother.” Two: Eh, if someone gives it to you, drink. Three: very good, go ahead and seek it out, but be aware there is at least one problem. Four: seek it out. Five: pretty much “perfecto.”

________________________________________Beer HERE

___________________________________________________________________

The Topic: The Pour Fool was Right (In InBev’s name I curse.)

 Ken Carman is a BJCP judge; homebrewer since 1979, club member at Escambia Bay, Salt City, Clarksville Carboys and Music City Homebrewers, who has been writing on beer-related topics and interviewing professional brewers all over the east coast, for over 15 years.

Written by Ken Carman

 Early morning in my Eagle Bay cabin, another beautiful Adirondack day, now cursed by my mental state. Really? InBev feels the need to have its claws sunk into a site that rates beer; for some odd reason called RateBeer?
 In the last Fool column on this topic I felt Fool might be being a tad, well, foolish. InBev, unlike A/B, is a conglomerate of many distinct breweries and, unlike the Busch family, they might not feel so inclined as to ruin all those distinct brands just to bring back the mega beer crime families gory days of barely more than one style of cheap adjunct beer.
 Not the slightest bit “foolish” this time.
 InBev shouldn’t have any control over websites that rate beer. This is not a new topic to me, and a firm principle. When the brewer for a brewpub in Nashville wanted to become head of communications for Music City Brewers: a homebrew club, I objected in strong terms to the president. I made an enemy of the brewer, I’m sure, but I don’t care. It’s the principle: the head brewer at one brewery in town shouldn’t be given any control over whom we communicate with, or not. There were, and are, many other breweries in town. If people wanted to say something in print that did not reflect well on his brews they should be able to say that without worrying that the Communications person might stifle them. If the club wants to have meeting at another brewery instead of his there shouldn’t even be the slightest possibility that communications regarding this would be limited in any way; or the perception it had been limited. And I was writing a column for the newsletter, and one local magazine, that, in part, critiqued breweries and what was on tap, or bottle, or can. Continue reading “Brew Biz: Werts and All”