Professor Good Ales

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.”

Shed Brewery Mountain Ale
Middlebury, VT
(That’s the small print on bottle. Big print says “Stowe.”)

Profiled by Ken Carman for professorgoodales

Listed as a “rugged brown ale,” this brown ale might better be listed as slightly harsh, somewhat overly bitter butter brown. Those comments may seem harsh, but only if you ignore the modifiers, both “slight” and “somewhat,” and the fact that the diacetyl-like butter-sense is background, but grows once you become aware it’s there.

The bottle claims 1995. Unless they weren’t exporting out to other nearby states, or they were under another name, seems odd I’ve never seen this spending as much time as I have for the past 30 years in New England. BA and Rate list this as an old ale/English Strong. The packaging I had said it was a brown.

In my opinion it was neither old, strong or brown.

Nose was brown malt with a sense of sweet: orange-like. Maybe a tad butter? But almost all of this is in the mouthfeel and the taste.

Appearance: a deep brown that creeps up on black. SRM at least 18. Nice tan small bubble, but mostly pillow, head. Slight chill haze: probably the propane fridge it came out of. Good clarity, otherwise.

Some of the “harsh” could possibly be a hint of Black Patent, but still too much. Yet, I’m guessing too much hops at too long a boil: too early in the boil. That explains why it’s not in the nose. Nice chewy mouthfeel provides a great sense of depth to the malt in both mouthfeel and taste. Other than the possible hint of black patent adding to the bitter/harsh, the malt complexity with possible pale, brown and mix of caramel malts: maybe even a hint of Maris Otter, is pleasing. But the slight butter and the harsh just leaves me annoyed.

87 at Beer Advocate. BA says “retired.” Could I have gotten an old bottle? Purchased at Yankee Spirits in Sturbridge, MA: I doubt it. They rotate product where the six packs are displayed rather fast: this had a primo spot. Looks like most reviewers reviewed it lower but a couple went high enough to skew the results. Rate Beer has it at 59: closer to fact.

Further research shows Otter Creek purchased Shed a while back. Odd: Otter Creek usually does a great job.

I really can’t recommend this, and the sad fact here is it is much more promising than other browns often brewed by mega-brewers who disguise their mega-ness under fake brands. I’m going to go with 3, on the PGA scale, though I’d rather do a 2.5. But the attempt is worthy of 3 or maybe even 3.5. At least the brewer attempted to step out of the bland box, and wasn’t way off like some mega-brewer attempts.

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 Topic: An Absinthe of Information

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.

 Imagine you ask for a beer. A friend hands you a glass and you take a sniff. Huh??? Then a sip: you gag. What, did he think you wanted liquid licorice, or black jelly beans? Of course what your “friend” did, most likely, is pour you some absinthe instead. Indeed it may be bad absinthe that has been flavored with star anise oil. The good absinthe uses green anise. Real fans of the legendary quaff will tell you there’s a lot more to really good absinthe than the harshest, black, licorice; and certainly not some black jelly bean drink.
 Maybe he thought he was being funny. But you probably aren’t laughing.
 Beer judges sometimes have experiences almost as off putting, and it may not be the fault of the brewer who entered it.
  A previous edition of Brew Biz mentioned a competition I was entering which had just restarted after a few years and their web site, their instructions, were confusing: at best. I understand competitions are run by volunteers, and I have no wish to dump on those who work their garbanzos off: not getting a single bean for their efforts: all for the cause of better brewing and better beer.
 Indeed let me start by saying I found the organizer helpful and kind, especially after working with him through the, “OK, what now,” phase when site instructions were confusing and links didn’t work. The web site seemed professional: until I tried to use it. Even the organizer admitted he wasn’t surprised: since this was the first competition after a long time things weren’t a little messed up. This competition had been on a hiatus for quite a while.
  Yes: I am deliberately trying to be vague to avoid giving you clues as to who I am referring to. Since we’re talking about the same competition, and I wish to do nothing but encourage more competitions: no names mentioned. Continue reading “Brew Biz: Werts and All”