Infected Barrel Aged Yeti

My offer still stands to trade anyone Colorado locals for your BA Yeti you suspect is infected. I've had no takers thus far.

 

I have bottle #1833 and #3054. I'm heading to Denver in June. Since its the closest to other reportedly infected bottles, Maybe I'll bring #1833 with me to the GD tap room and open it there. If it is infected, they can credit my tab. If not, I'll share it with the bar.

 

I think we're well over two bottles. I agree the majority sound great, but there is a sizable minority percentage of bottles that are having a problem. There's a certain iceberg effect once you get past 1-2 bottles - for every person that complains they're really representing a much bigger number that don't actively participate on forums like this. Infections are probably somewhere in the 10-30% range... I was hoping it was ranged in count, but it sounds like it is not. I'll be opening a bottle sooner rather than later for sure...

 

Yes, but I also dont trust eveyone who reports.
Someone who just doesnt get the beer may report an infection.

 

A friend and i bought 3, during GABF 2011, didnt look at the numbers, but i have bottle 820, im assuming the other two were relatively close in numbers, since GD was keeping the sales on the downlow, and limiting 5 per day at the tasting room , until we informed the owner at the Sat afternoon session, he he was pissed! "Anyone that wants a Barrel Aged Yeti, should have the right to buy one!". Tasted Dec 2011, I thought it was amazing one of the best BA Imperial Stouts I have ever tasted, tasted it side by side with Black Tues 11, BA Yeti blew it away by a mile. Ill make sure to post here when i open, bottle 820.

 

Some is by chance, like generous people visiting paris ...otherwise, myself and a buddy (skimoore) are frequent flyers and traders so we end up bringing some good shit back with us.

 

maybe. just cracked my '11 (bottle #1727). infected. aroma and taste is dominated by tart, balsamic notes like a dark lost abbey sour. damn shame.

and i've been on the other side of this with less rare and less costly bottles like abyss when my '09 drank sublimely and most everyone else was bitching and moaning.

 

Thats a buch of baloney. I assume most people on this site know what a barrel aged stout should taste like.

 

had one of my 11's already and not in the same world as the 09. I did get slight sourness my 11 BA Yeti. Have one left and been debating on drinking it soon

 

I'm bummed - I'll have to look at the numbers on my remaining bottles
My wife and I drank one last night and it was fine.

 

I have bottle 566, I'll report back next Sunday.

 

You are new here so I guess that would seem a likely thing to expect, but do a Google search for Shorts responses to similar issues. Or Lost Abbey with carbonation issues. Or others who to this day either don't admit to the problems, or refuse to refund when the problems can no longer be denied.

Your contention that people shouldn't review a beer if it is infected is really ridiculous. If a beer is infected, and a brewery like Shorts won't admit to it, how are any of us supposed to find out? Reviews are to give us guidance in choosing beer. I want to know if my $30 is possibly purchasing an infected bottle.

 

My contention was that insofar as Great Divide acknowledges/acts on the infection it's unfair to keep the review up. Maybe that condition is unreasonable, in which case you're correct, but I'm not saying that in any case he should take the review down. Has Great Divide said anything about this yet?

 

Have #3763, will report soon.

 

Insofar as Great Divide, or any brewer, is able to assure that every single bottle of infected product has been recalled, than I agree the reviews of infected bottles may as well be purged after the complete recall. Since it is impossible to guarantee this, than it is an important public service to make absolutely sure the reviews of infected beers stay up.

 

Sorry, but when I review a beer & it's infected, that's the brewer's fault & it should be reflected in the score. I don't care what the brewer does subsequently, they made a mistake. Lots of people use reviews when shopping for beer, & I'd be pissed if all the "bad" reviews were self-edited.

And cadedave's note above is right on. Brewery's vary wildly on how they respond to reports of infection (as will the homers that defend some of them to the death!).

I have bottle #2106. Going to open it sooner rather than later now.

 

It's one thing for you to leave the review up if Great Divide doesn't acknowledge or refund the bottles. In that case, they've decided to let the product stand as what they intended and the reviews should reflect that. However, I think it's absolutely unnecessary to leave the reviews up if the brewery has made the effort to tell people the beer did not come out as they intended and to refund those who bought the bottles. In that case, just as one wouldn't put a review up of a beer they know to be skunked, opened, or ruined in anyway, one shouldn't leave the infected review up, as it (and the score being put into the average) stand as a reflection of the beer the brewery wants you to have, which is clearly not the case if the brewery announces the infection and refunds. A bad beer being made is one thing; an accidental infection (with recourse) is another.

 

I heartily disagree on several levels, but so be it. I review for myself, & I certainly want to remind my future self if something has gone wrong with a beer.

I'll review what's in my glass, not the brewer's "intentions". Because heck, if "intentions" are what matter, I'm sure InBev intends to give us great beer, so all their macros ought to be at least "A" beers, right?

 

Right, but we have to make a distinction between something like an explicit accident (infection) and just making a bad beer that you think is good or that you don't care about. Obviously if the brewer just makes a bad beer, the review should reflect that. But if it's something like an infection, with proper announcement and compensation the brewer should be given some leeway.

Let's say you're handing in a paper for a class. If you just wrote a crappy essay, your grade should naturally reflect that and be bad. But if the file you sent to your professor got corrupted and came out with all the text scrambled, it would be unfair of your teacher to give you an F without first asking you whether or not the scrambled paper is what you wanted to send and giving you a chance to send a non-corrupted copy. I don't see a difference between the two here.