Category Archives: tastings

Beer Tasting: Accretion Porter

Posted on by

Porters are some of my favorites (especially during the fall through spring seasons), and seem to turn out well pretty consistently. Accretion Porter fits this trend. Details are below.

  • The Basicsaccretion_porter
    • Original gravity = 1.058; final gravity = 1.020; abv = 5.0%; estimated IBU = 41
  • Aroma
    • The aroma is exceptionally malty, with a grainy and roasty character to it., and a touch of coffee. Delicious!
  • Appearance
    • The beer is a deep, deep chocolate brown, with a light brown head that pours tall and settles down to a thin but persistant blanket over the beer.
  • Flavor
    • The roasty maltiness has a nice chocolate and coffee flavor. The hops have a gentle background flavor, with the slight herbal/woody component so classic for Northern Brewer.
  • Mouthfeel
    • This is a beer with moderate body and a smooth and pleasant, but moderately dry, finish. The carbonation is maybe a touch higher than I need (contributing to a perception of the beer being drier than it actually is).
  • Would I brew this again?
    • This is a pretty nice beer across the board; maybe a little drier and more carbonated than is needed, but the overall impression is exceptionally drinkable. I like this one!
  • Overall rating
    • 7.5/10

Beer Tasting: New World Blonde Ale

Posted on by

blonde_aleMy New World Blonde Ale ran out last week, but I did a tasting before the keg kicked. Results are below.

  • The Basics
    • Original gravity = 1.045; final gravity = 1.008; abv = 4.9%; estimated IBU = 24
  • Aroma
    • Initial aroma has a bit of orange with a hint of grainy maltiness behind that.
  • Appearance
    • Moderately hazy and light gold beer, with a low and fine but persistant white head.
  • Flavor
    • Light malt flavor with a slightly grainy and bready aspect. Hops are at a moderately high level for a blonde ale, with a slight orange pith aspect to it. When I first tapped this beer, the citrus was a bit overwhelming and unpleasant–almost like rotten orange. I think somewhere this flavor was euphemistically called “candy orange,” but I can’t say it is a particularly pleasant flavor. It has moderated quite a bit, but is still hanging around in the shadows.
  • Mouthfeel
    • This is a light-bodied beer with moderately high carbonation, so that it has a slightly effervescent feel on the tongue. The finish is dry, and the hop bitterness persists as the dominant character.
  • Would I brew this again?
    • This is a decent beer, but not a great beer. Or I should say that it’s not really to my tastes. I think I will lay much of the “blame” on HBC 438–the hop comes across as a bit harsher than I like. Perhaps it is good in other styles, but it just doesn’t do the trick in this particular beer. Apparently HBC 438 has been a pretty divisive hop–people either love it or hate it. I wonder if there’s not some compound in there similar to the various stuff in brussels sprouts, where folks with one taste receptor taste awesomeness and folks with another taste receptor taste awfulness.
  • Overall rating
    • 5 / 10

Beer Tasting: Transatlantic IPA 1.1

Posted on by

TIPAI kicked the keg for this batch a few weeks back, but luckily did a tasting before that happened. Results are below.

  • The Basics
    • Original gravity = 1.060; final gravity = 1.015; abv = 5.9%; estimated IBU = 60
  • Aroma
    • Light fruity background, with the hint of peach that I would expect for Conan. Slightly citrusy with minor floral hint, too. Very nice aroma, but not overpowering.
  • Appearance
    • A decent but not overwhelming haze to the beer; this has definitely cleared up over the past few weeks, from the initially murky impression. The head pours fairly high and fine, but settles down to a moderate but uniform, ivory-colored blanket across the top of the beer. The beer is a medium-amber in color.
  • Flavor
    • This is hops-dominated, with a notable bitterness at the forefront of each sip. This persists on the finish. The hops character is fairly piney, with a bit of citrus and faint earthiness behind that. The malt character has a slight breadiness to it, but is definitely at the background (which is fine for this beer).
  • Mouthfeel
    • The beer has medium-light body and a dry finish, with moderate carbonation as appropriate for the style. The bitter finish carries through smoothly. It is maybe a touch thinner than I like, but that’s fairly minor.
  • How does it compare to version 1.0?
    • This is a pretty good beer, but I think I liked the first version just a bit better in terms of its hops character. The main difference, to me, is probably the swapping out of Simcoe and Columbus for Falconer’s Flight 7C’s and Fuggle. It’s not flawed by any means, but I think my preference tips towwards the initial combination. Simcoe just does a bit better here, for what I have envisioned in my head. Once again, the Vermont Ale yeast rocks out. I do like this strain! I can fairly safely say this recipe is a solid one. I sampled it first when it was very young–within a week or two of kegging–and can say that a few extra weeks in the keg have been a good thing. The beer is at its peak!
  • Overall rating
    • 8.5 / 10

Beer Tasting: Claremonter Weisse (Me vs. BJCP)

Posted on by

berliner_weisseThis Berliner Weisse was my first award-winning brew! So, I wanted to do my own tasting to see how it compares with the judges’ assessment. It seems like an interesting exercise to calibrate my taste buds, and reflect on how my tasting skills are developing.

  • The Basics
    • Starting gravity = 1.032; final gravity = 1.010; abv = 2.9%; IBU = 5
  • Aroma
    • Low malt, mostly dominated by a tart pear aroma.
    • BJCP Judges
      • “slightly sweet, tart, honey, bready”
      • “Aroma is low lactic, low hop (grassy), lemon, dough (medium), grainy”
  • Appearance
    • Brilliantly clear and pale straw color, with a low white head that thins fairly quickly.
    • BJCP Judges
      • “pale golden, very clear”
      • “Pale yellow, brilliant clear, medium head with medium head retention and medium lacing. Head is white and creamy.”
  • Flavor
    • Pleasantly tart, with a gentle bready character at the back end.
    • BJCP Judges
      • “lemony, tart, wheat, buttery aftertaste, lemon zest, slight diacetyl, clean”
      • “Malt is fresh bread, dough, grainy, lemon tart, all in medium intensity. Nice and clean lactic soureness balanced by malt. Low bitterness. Finish is dry with lingering malt and lactic flavors.”
  • Mouthfeel
    • A fairly thin body and effervescent carbonation, with a dry and crisp finish.
    • BJCP Judges
      • “good mouthfeel, creamy, decent carbonation, could take more”
      • “Light body, medium-high carbonation, light astringency.”
  • Would I brew this again?
    • This is a very nice beer! I’ve noticed that some of the “barnyard” character from initial samplings has receded a bit with age and under cold storage, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I can’t say that Berliner Weisse is a style I would always drink, but this has been a tasty experiment that bears repeating.
    • BJCP Judges Overall Impressions
      • “Great beer, could have more aroma, but it’s very pleasant; could lower acidity.”
      • “I enjoyed this beer! It’s highly drinkable, refreshing, still supported by nice malt and lactic sourness that balance with each other. Great example!”
  • Overall
    • 10/10
    • BJCP Judges
      • 39/50
      • 44/50

What Did I Learn?

It’s interesting to compare tastings by various people; on looking them over, I have a few immediate reactions.

First, the overall characters of our assessments overlap pretty broadly. The judges think it’s a good beer, and I think it’s a good beer. The overall style characters–tartness, etc.–are also on everyone’s palates.

For areas of difference, I suspect a few things are going on. First, I wasn’t tasting in the context of a BJCP competition, nor was I tasting in the midst of a flight. I also would bet my beer vocabulary is less developed–or developed in different ways–than the people who judged the entries. For instance, the differences between “doughy” and “bready” are still a bit mysterious to me. A lot of that is perception, of course, and maybe some of it is a bit of over-analysis. In any case, I can certainly do more to refine my vocabulary.

One thing that puzzles me is the judge who saw the entry as slightly undercarbonated–I would suspect that just is from where they saw it in the flight, or maybe pouring technique by whoever was pouring. It is comforting to know that the other judge saw it as well-carbonated, which matches my own perception.

This has been a worthwhile exercise all around. My tastebuds aren’t horribly out of alignment, I can do a little more to develop my vocabulary, and my first attempt at a sour was a success. Time to brew some more!

Beer Tasting: Jarrylo Session IPA

Posted on by

I brewed this one waaay back, and haven’t gotten around to posting my tasting (completed in early March). Here it is!

  • The Basics
    • Original gravity = 1.047; final gravity = 1.017; abv = 3.9%; estimated IBU = 53.
  • Appearance
    • Very fine and persistent off-white heady with a creamy character; the beer itself is a medium copper color with a mild haze.
  • Aroma
    • The aroma is hop-centered but fairly mild, with notes of tropical fruit, pear, and perhaps a hint of pepper.
  • Flavor
    • The flavor is quite clean, with a subdued and smooth hop bitterness. The bitterness is way lower than I was expecting though, and probably pushes this more into pale ale than IPA territory. The hops themselves come across as citrusy and slightly floral. There is a very slight maltiness at the back end of this one.
  • Mouthfeel
    • The body is fairly thin, unfortunately, and the beer comes across as a bit watery. The finish is relatively dry.
  • Would I brew this again?
    • I was, unfortunately, rather disappointed with how this beer turned out. Even though it is intended as a session IPA, the bitterness and body miss the mark. I think the hops I used just aren’t suited for the style, and the initial wort was thinner than desirable too. Jarrylo seems like a nice hops variety, but probably better suited for less “hefty” styles, such as a blonde ale or even a pale ale. In fact, I’ve taken to thinking of this beer as a pale ale rather than an IPA, and that helps a bit with my perception of it.
  • Overall rating
    • 4/10