Category: Beer

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.

Written by Ken Carman. Label courtesy Bruguru.com

In the early 70s I headed off to college, having wet my whistle long before I was of age.
Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned.
Or just help me find more great craft beer.
I thought I hated beer. Well, let’s rephrase that. Let’s just just say beer was a cheap: somewhat tolerable, and a way to have a break between my Stingers, Lime Collins, Harvey Wallbangers and anything else someone would recommend. Like with beer, mixed drinks were an adventure. I didn’t like hard liquor, except really, really expensive Scotch: and I didn’t know that yet. Wine drove my stomach crazy. So mixed drinks were all that was left to get a buzz on.
Continue reading “From the Bottle Collection: Schmidts Bock”

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.

 In the early 70s I headed off to college, having wet my whistle long before I was of age.
 Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned.
 Or just help me find more great craft beer.
 I thought I hated beer. Well, let’s just say beer was a cheap: somewhat tolerable, way to have a break between my Stingers, Lime Collins, Harvey Wallbangers and anything else someone would recommend. Like with beer, mixed drinks were an adventure. I didn’t like hard liquor, except really, really expensive Scotch: and I didn’t know that yet. So mixed drinks were all that was left to get a buzz on. Continue reading “From the Bottle Collection: Schmidt’s Bock”

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales.net

A cross between and apricot and a plum, in case you’re curious.

BA rates it at 74. Rate Beer: 46.

What a stink! Lemony, plum-y, apricot and, oh, God… I can’t put it any other way: ass. Seriously, if you had diarrhea after eating a LOT of fruit fruit: this would be it.

This could also be identified as “green apple,” or acetaldeyhyde. But that’s not it. i’m going with a case of the plum/apricot runs.

All this covers malt, any hops (Guessing little: no bitter or floral that seems related. Fruity, citrusy hops might, obviously, be lost due to plout.)

Bud yellow, maybe srm 4 with great clarity. Pinpoint bubble head. Head fades fast but presentation is great.

Mouthfeel is plum with lots of carbonation. Nice full pilsner malt feel. The fruit provides most of that: sweet. 10%? More like 8% in feel, but I think they’re spot on. The sweet is apricot-like.

Taste: once I get it past my nose I noticed the fruit provides a nice, almost Cascade-ish, sense. If it weren’t for the nose, this could be quite pleasing. There’s a great sweet fruit sense. The carbonation fades fast, but the flavor lingers.,And, to be honest, the plout wore quickly into annoying. Still bubbly in an almost champagne way.

In some ways a fruit, somewhat cloying, version of a malt liquor without higher alcohol sense.

Wear your nose plugs.

I’d love to give it a 2, but 3 for the attempt.

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 “prefecto.”

Written by Ken Carman

 The first Bluegrass Cup where we judged was at a horse track. That sounds bad, but no: it was fun. And the horses didn’t even ask to share in the bubbly. They were too busy hoofing it, or being the “mane” attraction: depending on which version of “bad joke” you prefer.
 Lexington is one of the main, and most famous, horse capitals of the country. Indeed it known as “the horse capital of the world” and “Thoroughbred City.” So it wasn’t surprising that’s where we judged this competition the first time. While it was a pleasant place to judge, I think we prefer where they hold it now: Shrewsbury Hall… part of Alltech; a local craft brewery.
   I remember there being many breweries pouring their beer on another level at the track, and a wide open judging area. In many ways, similar to some competitions we attended during those years, the fare’ that surrounded it was a bit party-like.
  But is that what beer competition is really about?
 Increasingly, I have observed, competitions are getting away from that model and more towards what The Bluegrass Cup has become.
 A wide open judging space with hard walls, like what I remember at the horse track, can make for a noisy environment: despite the natural contemplative nature of judging beer. Well, “natural” until there’s a gusher, or some entry stands out in a really good way… or not so grand, to be polite. And I have noticed: at a rare competition, the high gravity tables can tend to be a bit more noisy… only the lampshade hat wearing beer gods know why.
 So nicely half paneled walls, soft carpet and fine restaurant tablecloths, like at Shrewsbury Hall, really make for a better judging atmosphere overall. Continue reading “A Beer Judge’s Diary: The Bluegrass Cup”

Written by Dee Gross for crazycow252

The brewing juices are flowing, and Husband is brewing with the enthusiasm of a wood nymph in an oak forests.  His latest endeavor is the honey Kölsch. Though this is his third brew of said German deliciousness, he thinks it will be his best.  The secret to this particular Kölsch is the balance between the sweetness of the honey and the bitter-floralness of the Hops.  The first batch was too sweet, the second batch was too hop-y, and hopefully, this batch will be just right.

The day seemed like it was full of beer-filled possibilities.  And best of all…

 

 

  Continue reading “Brewing Up the Kölsch”

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales.net

You know, western (of Mother Russia) beer always drives me crazy: fits no style, inappropriate balance, dark beers that are light and vica versa. This one is from Lithuania. The liqueur store “proudly” told me, “Must be good, it’s sold by Budweiser.” When I said “InBev” they looked at me blankly. My guess: distributed by whomever brings them Bud.

Just a hint darker than Bud. Head fades fast: sharp pinpoint and marginal in depth. Great clarity. As warms head seems to increase. Pinpoint head about 1/2 since before Sheriff shows up and the brewers/distillers start to hide their product.

Mouthfeel a bit slick, Pilsner malt dominant with just a hint of caramel malt. A little harsh on the palate and the roof of the mouth in a Belgian white candy sugar-way. Carbonation light, but despite this a bit insistent on the palate.

Nose is Belgian Tripel-ish with a hint of white sugar boost and pilsner malt in the background. No hops sense in any category, except a very mild bitter in the background.

This is 9.5%, supposedly: you’d never know. How they got there, if they did, I’m curious. None of the harsher ice bock-like alcohols.

I would have to say this most closely resembles a Belgian Tripel, though somewhat missing more complex sense. But I have to give them credit: they did a great job. Not my style: or even my fav off style if I’m wrong about “Tripel,” but this is like an American take on a Belgian Tripel: brewed in Belgium. Not a bad attempt at all.

I don’t see anything on the web stating InBev.  Brewed by..RinkuÅ¡kiai Alaus Darykloje .

69 on Beer Advocate, which declares it a “Euro Strong Lager.” And that style comes from…??? 14 on Rate Beer. YACK! BA is closer, in my opinion. It’s just a matter of what style you THINK it might be, I suppose. I’ve judged many Tripels, and this is very much like one.

I gave it a 3. Not quite worth a 4, but close to due to possible stylistic accuracy. It’s tough when a brewer doesn’t declare on the bottle.

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 “prefecto.”

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales.net

6.5abv
Caldera Brewing
Ashland, Oregon

Nose: Cascade/grapefruit-like sense as open and sniff top of bottle.Pale malt way in the background. Not much else.

Appearance: a little hazy but I think that’s cold chill. Light gold in color: In the teens SRM-wise. White head is little rocks with a touch of pillow that lingers. About an inch and slowly fades but never quite goes away.

Hops on taste far less than nose. Great aroma but doesn’t translate into taste. Mouthfeel is caramelized malt: slight, that gets stronger as warms. Bitter is firm but more “slight” than it should be. There’s a fruity bitter:as bit orange-ish, that hangs mid-tongue. Carbonation full and firm.

Flavor: light pale malt with a soft, almost orange, bitter. That’s all. Could use more. I’m guessing they did a lot of early hoping on a basic pale. Not much else. Really not all that impressive: could use more hops in the taste, more complexity in that hopping.

Here is what their web site says…

Hop Hash: 6.5% ABV Hop Hash is a twist on the American-Style Strong Pale Ale/IPA using only pure lupulin for bitterness, flavor and aroma. This ale gets its name from pure hop lupulin extracted and scraped from the Hopunion pelletizing line.

Nice idea, I suppose, but misses a lot in the execution. You would think with a name like Hop Hash the hops would stand out more. There needs to be something to make me choose this from all the the other hop focused beers out the in what has become a very popular style.

Rate Beer: 85. 83 on Beer Advocate: both at the time this profile was written. Noticed the reviews were mixed from fairly high to far lower than mine.

Frankly I can’t rate it high, or real low, so three seems just right…

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 “prefecto.”

 I am hoping to make this an occasional feature in the Diary. Millie and I have been judging since the 90s, and since I travel a lot for work and judge occasionally on the road, and we like to do a few out of town competitions together… we get to see more competitions than some judges, I suppose.
 Sometimes it’s something that seems insignificant, like a top to a sample cup. These were those plastic cups most competitions use. I think this was at Knickerbocker in Albany: run by Saratoga Thoroughbrews. While it may seem small, there’s something very satisfying about being able to shake a glass as much as you want without getting your hand wet, or spilling it on yourself. Plus it can hold aroma in quite well while you inspect appearance. As judges well know aroma can be a fleeting thing, yet head can be too. To judge a beer it can be a chicken or egg situation, as in “which best to look at first, which will I lose faster if I don’t get to it first?” The top helps to resolve that. Continue reading “A Beer Judge’s Diary: Things to Consider When Planning a Competition”

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales.com

Aroma: caramel, light… should have more. Not much else and not much of that.

Appearance: nice brown: probably in the mid=20s, srm-wise, with head fading fast… not unexpected. Pillow head with some clarity but a slight haze: probably chill since I had to put in freezer.

Mouthfeel: nice carmelized sense with a full body sense due to that, a little sweet and clings to the roof of the mouth. The mouthfeel is pretty much spot on, though maybe a hint more of abv might help.

Taste: here is where it falls. Everything is right except someone added too much hops for the style. As it warms it bounces between the hops and a more appropriate Scottish ale sense. Back and forth. Could also use a higher abv sense for the style: as I mentioned. The hops seem Centennial-ish. Malt sweet, as expected, but when the hops popthey distract from that all important Scottish Ale characteristic.

A close try at a 4. maybe a 3.8? But I can only give it a 3. That may seem unfair, but the Professor has explained to me that 1-5 rating is meant to make the reviewer come firmly down as possible when rating a beer. We can mention increments of, say .5, but it needs to be 1-5. Now, if they cut back on the hops, raised the avb a hint, and they might get close a 5.

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 “prefecto.”