Category: Beer

Profiled for professorgoodales.net by Ken Carman

Did we get a bad bottle? Perhaps.

Clarity good, urine color, big foamy head that lasts, some orange and tangerine in taste. Spicy hops with a hint of grapefruit. Taste is pepper dominant: this seems more than hops, more phenolic. The longer I drink it the more pepper in taste, mouthfeel, nose: nothing else. Hard to even tell the body, though I’m guessing it’s light side of medium.

Imperial? Eh, not so much, but if pepper were less maybe I could get a better sense. Visual is best part of presentation.

Millie and I thought, ”Maybe we’re just getting burned out.” We’d had a couple that night. So we saved what was left in the bottle: more than half, put it in the fridge and reopened the Grolsch we put it in 3 days later. Wrong. It was so pepper we tossed out what was left.

How does one get into mouthfeel or taste when all you’re getting is pepper? That first fruit sense gives me an indication there’s more here than met the palate this one time. Yet I would have the same comments as I had with this breweries Anubi… Imperial? Eh, not so much from what I could sense. If the hoppy part of the extra hops you get in an Imperial were pepper, well maybe they should have had a more complex hop bill.

I suspect not. Probably infected. But I’ve been disappointed twice by the same brewery.

85 at BA, this too had mostly threes but a few super high scores. In fact, here’s a brief quote from one…

“I won’t take it as general to this beer, and probably you that are reading this don’t have too…
But my first bottle was in some way contaminated… It smells like horse’s shit and the taste goes the same way…”

A 95 at Rate Beer? Almost all 3 point somethings with one 2: who also thought there was something wrong with his bottle. But a few super high scores. Anyone else see a pattern here?

I think, with this one, I’ll give it a break. I think they DO have a contamination problem, but I won’t buy another: especially since this it looks like this is the second time it looks like some folks wanting a higher score may have hacked BA and RB. But I’ll give it a 2 just in case I’m wrong and in case we got a bad bottle.

But if this normal then one almost be more than it deserved.

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.”

The Topics: Consensus Judging and Online Exams vs. Legacy

Ken Carman is a BJCP judge; homebrewer since 1979, club member at Escambia Bay, Salt City and Music City Homebrewers, who has been interviewing professional brewers all over the east coast for over 10 years.

 In a previous edition of Brew Biz I discussed a different way to score as judges. This edition I would like to discuss two possible changes in judging and how to rank judges…
  I have been considering a comment I made about how the brewer who enters his or her beer often doesn’t understand how a consensus score was arrived at. Maybe one judge’s score sheet has comments that totally conflict with the other score sheet. As we all know judges have different palates, different talents and perceptions. But in the end we not only have to be at least 7 points from each other, but through that process and score adjustment, come up with a consensus score. Continue reading “Brew Biz: Werts and All”

Courtesy manchesterpubnyc.com

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales.net

Nose: agave sweet with some wheat in the background: bready but not toasted in any way.

A bit hazy, 2srm, light gold or urine colored. Poor head retention for a wheat that fades fast into just rim of glass with tiny bubbles. Very white: like fresh fallen snow.

Mouthfeel: wheat proteins provide a fullness: surprisingly solid, bready fullness: sweet wheat bready. Low abv sensed. The main start here, both in MF and taste is the wheat, agave second that backs it up with a nice hint of sweetness. This sweetness increases as it warms and starts to dominate.

Taste: more of the same with great balance between the agave sweet and the bready wheat. This is what some call “lawnmower,” and if I liked the term it would be “craft lawnmower.” I prefer “light quaff.” Tis simple, but it is exactly what it’s supposed to be.

This one is tough for me, for it really isn’t outstanding enough to get a 4, but spot on enough to not be given a 3. I’d give it a 3.6, but since not possible: 4. Don’t expect outstanding, just no problems noticed and exactly what you’re probably looking for as per the name. Lacks complexity, but sometimes I think less beer geeky quaffers are looking for simplicity.

39: RB, 56 style, BA: 77.

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.”

Courtesy beerpulse.com

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales.net

This is supposed to be an Imperial Coffee Porter? Coffee, I get: almost espresso, but not quite. About 30 srm, black, but clarity for that srm good. Low side of medium body that clings, along with the coffee, to the roof of the mouth. Imperial? No, not really: one would expect more body and at least the slight sense of a higher abv.

This has a long lasting, tan, pillow head. The presentation was pleasing, for a robust with coffee. Well, perhaps a tad too much coffee for balance. Malt bill seems rather simple: pale, hint of chocolate, maybe splash of roasted barley… in no way as complex as even just a robust porter should be. I can only give it a 3. Nice. Pleasing. But, frankly, I think the consumer would be looking for, um, Imperial Porter?

86 at BA. Looks to me like they may have been hacked. A lot of lower scores then a few super high. I always find that suspicious. Rate Beer was even worse. A 97 yet I noticed quite a few in the 2 point range. A few jacked it up high… that’s even more suspicious.

Seriously, stop hacking the ratings folks. Thank God you can’t touch us here at PGA.

The nose is the best part. Anubis does smell like a robust: not Imperial, porter should. And the rest, well, OK, but not impressive enough for the style it’s supposed to be.

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.”

Profiled by Ken Carman for PGA

Also known as New Belgium brewery.

Nose in bottle: curry and coconut, some wheat but very, very soft: almost no nose in the glass. Odd how that can happen sometimes: it wasn’t open very long.

Appearance: nice pillow head that lasts, probably due to wheat. Hazy due to wheat proteins. Light yellow, perhaps a 2 on srm scale. Clarity? Hell, no, but not expected.This is what a wheat beer looks like. And also tastes like a perfect wheat beer should, with an additional, nice stab, of curry. Once again Lips of Faith redeems themselves, however the coconut is far more subtle than it should be. Nice, solid, wheat sense that lingers all the way down: kind of like Wheaties without the toast, or as much sweet: slight at best.

Mouthfeel is wheat protein fullness. Curry on the roof of the mouth, no coconut. Wheat and a hint of pale malt.

Taste: wheat, curry, some toasted coconut. Nice wheat, slight bready, in the background. Very soothing, mostly balanced, quaff. Like liquid wheat bread only with curry and hint of coconut. I could see myself sipping this watching the sea under a palm tree.

78 on BA, 80 RB.

This could use a hint more coconut, but otherwise would do well in any competition. Otherwise perfect balance-wise: just needs a hint more coconut.

This is one of those, “gee I wish I could give it a 3.8” beers, “but I really feel a 3 is not quite right…” all due to the annoying fact the coconut sense is not quite there, except in the nose and so far in the background in the taste hardly worth mentioning. So, a 4.

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.”

Courtesy johnnypm41.blogspot.com

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales.net

Did we get a bad bottle? Nose in bottle is soapy, pepper, some sweet with some malt otherwise way in the background. Hops in nose? Ah, NO. Hint of corn: DMS, in nose, and butter: diacetyl.

Great clarity, at a golden srm of about 3 or 4. Great puckered pillow head that lasts and lasts. Nice legs.

Yes: I’m referring to THE BEER, perv!

Mouthfeel: pepper phenols, moderate body that lingers, few hops for style: little bitter, more fruity as in hint of orange and grapefruit. Slight corn: DMS, and butter: diacetyl. More corn, diacetyl is more a slight slickness.

Taste: an easy quaff and this might made a somewhat accurate Belgian with pepper phenols. It is not even an IPA. Imperial? Uh, NO. Pale malt is obvious base, no carmelization noticed. Almost honey-ish, but I think this is more just the pale malt. Hardly even an IPA. Slight corn in taste too: DMS.

BA: 63, RB: 15, 0 for style. Both listed as Minhas Brewery, rather than Rhinelander. This, according to Wiki, is basically the old Joseph Huber Brewery. As one reviewer wrote for BA: “they’re trying to slide under the craft radar through their affiliate breweries.”

I simply can’t even go with a 2 here. 2 would be too generous, IMO. They missed the style, they missed the intent of any brewer not to bottle defects and, less important but noted: I’m annoyed at the continual attempt to disguise bigger brewers as craft. This one has apparently worn several suits in an attempt to dress themselves out as craft. Doesn’t figure into the score but here: will be noted.

You know, Matt Brewing rebranded themselves as Saranac years ago, but I give them credit for many serious, respectful, successful attempts, and successes, at being craft-like. I respect that, and only use “like” to reference size of the brewery. Personally, if this is what it’s supposed to be like, I’d fire everyone who made the decision to let it out the door. If I were going to include all that in the score on this review I’d go below 0. But that wouldn’t be professional, and the professor might never let me write here again.

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.”

Written by Jerry Buckley for Professor Goodales and The Brew-Score

At our most recent home brewers’ outing, my editor: Ken Carman, asked me to write another article for his on line journal. When I protested that I was stymied as to any interesting topic I might bring to light, I was jostled into gear when Ken suggested I write about “whatever” it is that inspires me to brew my own quirky concoctions. I’m that guy in our homebrew group known for “doing something stupid” to each batch. And no, I never was very good at dot-to-dot, paint-by-numbers, or coloring inside the lines either for that matter. Continue reading “Outside the Lines”

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales.net

The nose is VERY promising in the bottle. Apricot with a hint of pit floats up with also some sweet. Wheat behind that in the glass: a hint of white bread. The sweet is almost honey like, as in Orange Blossom.

SRM almost 1, very hazy. Head faded fast, almost none with tiny white bubbles. That’s odd for a wheat beer. Tiny, tiny bubbles cling desperately to sides of the glass.

Mouthfeel is sweet wheat with a semi-full feel provided by pleasant, soothing, wheat proteins. Sweet lingers on the roof of mouth and back of palate.

Flavor: wheat and hint of apricot. Apricot is more in nose, less in mouthfeel and far less in taste, but it is there. Balance is about right: the taste also may have faded for this has been around for quite a while in my “to try” collection, so I can’t use the lessened against it. It’s bready, kind of sweet white bread-like with apricot pit following in that part of the taste: almost like they left apricots with some pit in the dough when baking white bread.

I am not a wheat beer fan, but have to give it a 4, especially since this is an old bottle. It is impressive, for what it is. A simple, very pleasant, quaff that deserves the 4.

82 in BA, 32 on RB with a 62 on style. A Park City, Utah brewpub, who also brews, bottles and serves Polygamy Porter.

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.”