Dismiss Notice
Save $5 when you subscribe to 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine and select auto-renew.

Subscribe now →
Dismiss Notice
Join Our Email List →

And we'll send you the latest updates and offers from BeerAdvocate, because knowing is half the battle.
Dismiss Notice

Pre-order your Respect Beer "Hipster" Hoodie today!

Plus: Free shipping (US only) on orders of $25 or more until 12/18/15. Just select "Free Shipping" at checkout.

Shop now →

WLP013/ WY1028/ Worthington White Shield

Discussion in 'Homebrewing' started by pweis909, Nov 12, 2012.

  1. pweis909

    pweis909 Champion (750) Wisconsin Aug 13, 2005 Verified

    Have you brewed with both WLP013 and WY1028 and do you find them to be distinctly different? And for that matter, are you familiar with White Shield, and what's the ester profile like? Supposedly, the two commercial strains are derived from the White Shield strain.

    White Labs describes 013: Dry, malty ale yeast. Provides a complex, oakey ester character to your beer. Hop bitterness comes through well. Wyeast describes 1028: rich, minerally profile that is bold and crisp with some fruitiness. They don't sound similar to me.

    I just kegged a batch with WLP013. The taste has sort of a musty pipe tobacco thing going on. Could that be the complex oakey ester character? Fermentation was at the low end of the temperature range.

    It's the second time I brewed with this yeast. It also is the second time I got this musty thing going on, which I find a little off-putting. It was 7 years ago that I first used this yeast and about that time when I first encountered the musty tobacco flavor, but I'm not 100% sure that the earlier musty batch was also the earlier WLP013.

    In addition to the WLP013, the EKG leaf hops that I used in this batch seemed old. Very little aroma, no strong off-putting bitterness when I bit into a chunk. But nothing that suggested musty tobacco, either.

    What's bumming me out is I really wanted to try 1028 but had to substitute. Is the yeast to blame? Are the hops to blame? Or did I manage to repeat some undiagnosed rookie mistake 7 years later?

  2. pweis909

    pweis909 Champion (750) Wisconsin Aug 13, 2005 Verified

    Thanks for nudging me there. I don't know why I didn't think of it. I tried to sift throw those reviewes and they suggested ester profiles all over the map. Given the diversity of palates and the likelihood that most of them were not drinking fresh beer, I'm not sure what to make of it. The freshness factor may also explain (to a degree) why you found the reviews disappointing.
  3. I've brewed with WLP013 once, and loved the results:


    Definately had an oakey thing, but nothing I would consider "musty". Pretty fruity, like red apples. I did ferment in the mid 60s and had a pretty big starter, and it was pretty heavily late-hopped FWIW.
  4. My point is that White Shield claims to be a traditional IPA and those reviewers who only know the new wave versions of this style don't recognise this.It isn't the sort of IPA which needs to be drunk fresh but rather one which can be enjoyed with a bit of age. Perhaps this will be of interest;
  5. pweis909

    pweis909 Champion (750) Wisconsin Aug 13, 2005 Verified

    Thanks for the link. From reading Mitch Steele's IPA book, I knew that this one was based on the intepretation of a different era. It is interesting that it it seems to age fairly well despite its modest gravity. I'm probably not going to let my homebrew sit around for 3 years, but I'll consider drinking a less-than-fresh White Shield if I ever come across it.