Category: Beer

Courtesy beerpulse.com

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales.net

Not enough scores to score on RB or BA. Not listed on their site, but found on a FB page run by them…

Here is what the brewery says about this beer…

“Dark Planet is a rich, earthy, English style ale that checks in at 9% ABV. Deceptively smooth and complex with hints of caramel, molasses, and dark fruit, a great beer for the fall season.”

Big light tan head that fades fast: little pillow, more bubble/big rock head. The srm is probably 18 or so, brown ale-ish. Good clarity with very nice highlights: deep ruby-ish/garnet.

The nose is carmelized sweetness with slight hopping noticed: so background hard to tell.

Firm bitter in both the taste and the mouthfeel, but to be honest this beer fails with balance. I get the caramel, molasses (very slight, not as much fruit: maybe hint of plum, but there’s a balance problem here.) The abv hits you hard and competes way too much with the rest. Harsh on the roof of the mouth, and the palate, and on the
way down. Not undrinkable by any means, but it simply ruins what would be an otherwise incredible experience. Keep the abv but even more sweet grain, more likely less hops. Cut down on bitter, combines with harsh abv in slight problematic ways. Medium body that hangs in the mouth after swallow.

“Smooth?” Uh: NO.

Note: English ale? Where do they get English ale from? Well, if the abv was less it might be more “English,” but I’d have to have it that way to be sure. English ales I’ve had have always been more about balance than this. The hops are, perhaps, Fuggles-ish. I get some “earthy,” but way in the background.

Personally I’d take this into Scottish Heavy territory because it doesn’t quite work. But they have one of those already. Another solution, maybe the best is bring it to 7abv. There are no higher alcohols I can sense here, but even when not “higher,” too much for balance is problematic.

Great brewery, and I hate to do it, but a three. Needs work, guys.

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 professorgoodales.net

 Sitting in a back room, near the back porch: I could hear birds outside the closed glass door… and even hear them on the recording device I used when I reviewed our conversation days later. This is truly Tennessee countryside.
 The Liz and Phil Snyder estate in White House, Tennessee, gently slopes down to a small creek, then back up to the hill where the hop garden is. I find it odd how you look at grass, a stream, a hop garden, grapes vines: and they seem as if they’re just natural; been there for a long, long time. That’s how I feel about Phil Snyder as a member of Music City Brewers. Phil and the club just seemed to fit together.
 But Phil’s story is more interesting than that. Born in Defiance, Ohio, Phil’s family quickly moved to Fort Wayne, Indiana, “when I was just a little tyke,” where his father had taken a job.
 He started with wine and made his first batch in 1969. At a wine convention in DC; about 1980, Phil was staying at a friend’s house who had a fridge full of beer and a six pack of Anchor Steam.
 “I tasted that and I knew I had to start brewing.”
 His first batch was about 1979 or 1980, just after home brewing was made legal.
 “We had a big wine club up in Fort Wayne and I was president of that several

times. Just on the side some of them were making beer. It wasn’t as popular back then: you couldn’t get any supplies; you had to get Blue Ribbon extract from the grocery store and Red Star Baker’s Yeast. I don’t remember what we used for hops. There were no homebrew shops or places to order supplies.” Continue reading “Brewer’s Profile: Phil Snyder”

The Topic: Styles of scoring and judging beer

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.

 There are various versions of judging beer, like bottom up or top down: one where the judge decides what score the beer probably should be then adjusts as he or she scores, or scores the beer and then adjusts the score to what they think is closer to what it should be. Then you always have adjusting because two, or more, judges differ and their score is too far apart.
  Then you have one of the oddest I’ve ever encountered. I understand judging in silence and then discussing after we’ve each come to a score, but one judge claimed the correct way to do it is to judge all the beers in a flight and then go back and adjust.
  I simply can’t support that. If the head of the table insisted, well of course I would do it.
  There is another method I have used that most judges probably frown upon, but I think can work quite well. The BJCP doesn’t seem all that fond of it either. But in certain circumstances: with certain judges, I think it works amazingly well. Continue reading “Brew Biz: Werts and All”

Without intent, I have collected well over 1,000 beer bottles since the early 70s. When something finally had to be done about the cheap paneling in this old modular, I had a choice. Tear down the walls while, oh, so carefully, replacing the often rotted 1X3s. Or: cover them with… The Bottle Collection.

  I know a tad about this one. Suwanee River Ale was probably brewed for Spirit of Suwanee Campground in Live Oak, Florida. There was a small contract brewer in the south who brewed the beer. To be honest I think they had two different venders over the years, so I’m not sure which one. The whole thing was put together by Micro Masters, a company out of Pensacola.
 The bottle itself was pulled from the collection to take a picture of it, but now it’s… well, somewhere in this vast collection. When I find it I’ll return and post the picture.
  I got the bottle at Micro Masters when my friend Steve Fried, who was the founding brewer at McGuires, and brewmaster there for many years, gave me the bottle.
  To be honest a very bland ale: not much to talk about. Kind of a little darker than Bud: but not by much. They basically brewed one beer and slapped different labels on the bottles.
  Micro Masters had many clients but, according to my information, went out of business due to mismanagement. And I seriously doubt many missed the beer.

Profiled for The Professor by Ken Carman

Victory Brewing
Downingtown, PA

88@BA, 91@BA, 8.5 abv.

“Red” Thunder? More like deep brown at best, even black. Head fades very fast. Pillow with a very few small rock bubbles. Clarity good with some garnet highlights, mostly hidden by the deep brown.

Their web site says Baltic Porter. Sort of. Does seem close, but Imperial Brown aged in wine barrel seems closer.

Deep caramel malt nose with hops background. Nose promises malt complexity. A lot of chocolate nose: probably chocolate malt.

Mouthfeel: medium body with just a slight sense of roasted barley. Munich malt too. Caramel malt provides depth. Nice full body. Excellent malt profile.

Taste: malt, heavy on the malt side, balance right for an Imperial Red.. Hops provide strong, very, very, background bitter. According to them back label this is a bounce off of a Porter, which explains the body and the color. There’s a wine sweetness that helps provide plenty of pleasure to the quaff. Malt complexity is there, but in the background. Wine sweetness is first, then malt, hops behind that: just a soft bitter. Just a hint of wood barrel.

I cannot rate this as Red, or Porter. More a Specialty with some of both with an Imperial sense on Red side and malt Imperial Brown then add a strong, woody, wine barrel sense to top it off.

I can’t bash it for style, it’s SO good. Excellent at 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.”

Profiled by Ken Carman

I have reviewed the barrel series of this ale, let’s see how the Christmas ale did, OK?

Nose in bottle cinnamon, ginger and nutmeg: a hint of brown malt.

Mouthfeel: spices with a medium side of light body. No a big beer in that sense. The spices coat the top of the palate.

Appearance: 17 srm A definite brown with pillow head and a few small rocks and off white. Slight tan hints. Clarity good.

To be honest I think the barrel series provides a depth the regular Xmas ale doesn’t have. It’s not that there’s anything wrong, it just doesn’t have the complexity that makes it a 4. If I could I’d go with 3.9. It’s that close. But I really feel it needs more complexity to stand on its own. What a shame.

83 on BA, on ratebeer.com: 88. The barrel rated higher.

A very pleasant quaff with spices balance well with light malt and hint of brown malt. Carbonation pinpoint, but light: slight carbonic. To be honest, again, if they had gone with a more complex: Cigar City Maduro-like recipe, this might even be a 5, in the barrel aged series. But the Brown Ale recipe is really good.

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 professorgoodales.net

Paare don moi’ but I bought this with a cringe, because New Belgium’s brews have a mixed history with me. The Lips of Faith series even more so a “mixed history.” The last one I remember reviewing was the Pluot and I likened its aroma to someone who ate a lot of fruit and then had to vomit. Hard to get past that to the medicore’ taste. Odd, because I have found strong tastes or aromas often lacking in their Faith series.

They have redeemed themselves.

I have never liked dandelion brews, but this worked well with the peach, which you find first in the aroma. The taste is also light peach, medium body with a hint of caramel malt and even less a hint of dandelion. The color is between gold and straw with a hint of haze and a big, long lasting, pillow head. Moderate sweetness on the palate.

While the abv, at a stiff 9%, is not noticeable at first, as it warms it expresses itself, but never obtrusive or hot. Very well balanced. Mouthfeel is solidly balanced with sweet coming in first, body second, peach third with Lady Dandelion a distant 4th. Grains of Paradise are in here, but I’ve judged many GP beers and have yet to be able to actually taste GP. If they’re “paradise,” paradise is more than a tad bland, in my opinion.

Some folks claimed “wild yeasty,” but tasted like a typical ale yeast to me. No clove, banana, sour or otther indications of such. Either I missed it or they were mistaking some of the peach sense for a wild yeast flavor. The brewer claims “wild,” but not so… IMO.

81% at Beer Advocate and 85@ Rate Beer.

I’d heartily recommend that you try it for yourself, and rate it at a PGA4.

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.”

Mikkeller’s Chipolte Porter
Lockchristi-Hufte, Belgium

Some list it as “Texas Ranger”

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales

90 at BA. 99 at RB. Both well deserved.

I’ll say from the start I have had mixed opinions on this brewer. I’ve had a few that were so problematic they should have tossed the batch; like higher alcohol-ish brews. This is NOT one of “those.” Also, from the start, I gave extra credit. This one was at least 2 years old and I noticed no “cardboard,” or other defects.

Nose: roasted malt and chipotle. The malt bill for this, wow.

Incredible depth to this beer, and that’s ignoring the chipotle burn with gathers steam and continues to assert. Love to see the malt bill on this bugger: incredible complexity, roasted, to caramel, to pale, to a hint of chocolate, maybe some Munich… No hops sensed, but I’m guessing the chipotle covered that. Chipotle flavor has faded, probably due to age.

Obsidian, brackish deep brown and black, with a big, brown, dense pillow head. Excellent presentation.

Soft, slight, carbonation on the palate. yet also sticky sweet with that deep, somewhat roasty, complexity. Maybe the roast faded too, or it could have been more caramel and pale, less darkly roasted malt. Heavy body: very.

Oh, dense, in all senses of the palate: thy name be Mekkeller Chipotle Porter.

A 4. Seek it out.

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.”

Saranac High Peaks: Wet Hop IPA
7% abv
Saranac/Matt Brewing
Utica, NY

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales

I hate to type this, but I fear they may have missed the hop laden brew train on this one for their intended. Tis a fine beer, but to be a wet hop I fear it needs more than this. Perhaps they’ll start some “way in the background” trend?
Starts with a sweet malt nose: a hint of caramel and hops, but not wet hops. Visually: great clarity, shimmering gold, pillow and big bubble head… fine presentation.
Mouthfeel is more malt, a hint of chewy and a firm, yet less forward hop sense. More Brit in that regard… for an IPA.

Nose: caramel malts and background hops, firm… just a hint behind. But not “fresh” or “wet.”

Malt sense lingers for a while on the palate. Carbonation in body firm, but light. The wet part of the hop taste is very background; pretty much absent. Even the hop sense in general is more Pale than IPA. I’m curious the type of hops used, thinking they are actually hops that grow wild near the Utica, NY area… from some press release I read a while back. Interesting, yet I fear most craft beer quaff-ers will be disappointed as per the usual slam of wet hops one get from most wet hop beers, and that’s damn unfortunate, because this is one great beer.

Rated 82 at Beer Advocate. 40 at Rate Beer. I tend to find Rate Beer has more reviews by those who don’t quite get it when it comes to deviation from a style, and BA is more beer snob oriented, to be honest here. I think RB is off on this one for that very reason.

Now the longer you sip, the more the hops present themselves here: a fine achievement. Still not that somewhat grassy sense fans of the Wet would expect, though silimlar and, perhaps, WAY in the background… not quite the same. One achievement here: some brewers mistake the two and just go with the grass. Yack.

I recommend, with a 4, because the brewer is challenging us. Otherwise, if I were judging by mere mass appeal to the craft beer palate I’d have to go to a 3. Uneducated palate, perhaps. But always seeking complexity and a different, if oh so subtle, take on a somewhat aging trend? Back to 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.”