New Entry on BA for New Vintages

Talk Discussion in 'BeerAdvocate Talk' started by backbaybrewer, Aug 13, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. backbaybrewer

    backbaybrewer Zealot (712) Feb 26, 2010 Massachusetts
    Trader

    I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam in some other thread, so I appologize if I missed it. My questions relates directly to the 2013 release of Hill Farmstead Phenomenology of Spirit, but I am also asking more generally if there should be a new BA entry for beers based on Vintage. In some cases, I can see why it may not be necessary becuse vintages are so close to the same every year (BCBS). However, in the case of a beer like PoS, I think it would make sense for a new listing. The 2013 Vintage is a completely different beer as it was sent through the coolship and 100% feremented with Greensboro "wild yeasts." In situations like this, I would love it if the powers that be could create a new entry... it doesn't make much sense to lump these together.

    Thoughts?
     
    #1 backbaybrewer, Aug 13, 2013
  2. dbrauneis

    dbrauneis Grand High Pooh-Bah (8,071) Dec 8, 2007 North Carolina
    Mod Team BA4LYFE Society Pooh-Bah Trader

    Anyone that writes a full review can create a new entry for a beer (just click on the "Add beer" button). That being said the guidance from the Bros is as follows for Vintages... Not sure if the recipe has significantly changed for this particular beer or not, but I would leave that up to someone else to make the determination.

    • Vintages. Do not add a new entry (year) for a beer if the beer recipe has not significantly changed. Doing otherwise will most likely result in merging beers and lost reviews.
     
    #2 dbrauneis, Aug 13, 2013
  3. TMoney2591

    TMoney2591 Grand High Pooh-Bah (6,139) Apr 21, 2009 Illinois
    Pooh-Bah

    What DB said. The rule is there to prevent what's basically happened with the Stone Old Guardian vintages, where the only significant difference between each beer is the year it was released. In this case, it should definitely be a separate listing, as it's a significantly different beer. Feel free to add, or be patient...it'll get there.
     
    #3 TMoney2591, Aug 13, 2013
  4. backbaybrewer

    backbaybrewer Zealot (712) Feb 26, 2010 Massachusetts
    Trader


    Thanks to both of you! I didn't realize that anyone on BA can add a new beer. When I crack mine and write a review, I'll definitely do this, if it hasn't been done by then already. I think this type of change to the beer (100% spontaneous rather than house yeast) is a significant change worther of a new entry.

    Thanks again!

    Cheers.
     
    #4 backbaybrewer, Aug 13, 2013
  5. Ernest_Hooper

    Ernest_Hooper Initiate (0) Apr 23, 2012 Michigan

    Shaun Hill must have an interesting bookshelf. I'd be curious to know if he just randomly names his new beer after the philosophical tome he happens to be reading at the time.
     
    #5 Ernest_Hooper, Aug 13, 2013
  6. UCLABrewN84

    UCLABrewN84 Initiate (0) Mar 18, 2010 California

    He names them after people in his family tree.
     
    #6 UCLABrewN84, Aug 13, 2013
  7. MasterSki

    MasterSki Grand Pooh-Bah (4,848) Dec 25, 2006 Canada (ON)
    Mod Team Society Pooh-Bah Trader


    Please do not create a new listing at this time. I have asked Shaun Hill to clarify if he feels the vintages are sufficiently different in recipe.

    Also, it's probably too late to do this cleanly, as there are already a few dozen reviews of the 2013 version under the initial listing. Trying to get people to move reviews is like herding cats.
     
    #7 MasterSki, Aug 13, 2013
    UncleJimbo likes this.
  8. backbaybrewer

    backbaybrewer Zealot (712) Feb 26, 2010 Massachusetts
    Trader

    Wow, that went right over your head. The beer he was refering to is called Phenomenology of Spirit. If Shaun Hill has a family member with that name, I'd be really surprised. :wink:
     
    #8 backbaybrewer, Aug 13, 2013
  9. backbaybrewer

    backbaybrewer Zealot (712) Feb 26, 2010 Massachusetts
    Trader

    Noted. I'd be shocked however if he says no. Completely changing the yeast in a beer is changing 1/3 of the essential ingredients (not counting water), and perhaps the ingredient that has the single biggest effect on the flavor of the resulting beer.

    Can't wait to see what he says. If you don't mind replying in this thread with his response I'd really appreciate it.

    Also, to be accurate, there have been precisely 5 reviews of the new 2013 beer, not " a few dozen" which implies a minimum of 36.

    Cheers.
     
    #9 backbaybrewer, Aug 13, 2013
  10. UCLABrewN84

    UCLABrewN84 Initiate (0) Mar 18, 2010 California

    Ugh, you win.
     
    #10 UCLABrewN84, Aug 13, 2013
  11. backbaybrewer

    backbaybrewer Zealot (712) Feb 26, 2010 Massachusetts
    Trader

    *EDIT* I noticed this part of my reply sounds terribly snarky. It was not intended to be so. Also, I think you were probably including "Hads" and not just full reviews, for which there have been a few dozen.
     
    #11 backbaybrewer, Aug 13, 2013
  12. MasterSki

    MasterSki Grand Pooh-Bah (4,848) Dec 25, 2006 Canada (ON)
    Mod Team Society Pooh-Bah Trader


    Yes, I was including hads. Pretty much anything from July '13 onward is going to be the new batch, unless someone busted out a stray bottle from the initial tiny release.

    The initial batch used 'some' resident microflora as well as a number of house brettanomyces strains. Different? No doubt. That being said, it's up to Mr. Hill to decide whether this is an evolution of the same recipe or a 'new' beer. If he feels there's sufficient continuity between the two releases, who are we to argue?

    Virtually every brewery is tweaking recipes behind the scenes to improve their beers (or reduce costs). Most of the Russian River sours have changed primary and bottle conditioning yeast at least handful of times over the years. Unless you're talking about Budweiser or Boston Lager, batch variation is nearly unavoidable, and quite often recipe changes are made to ensure flavor consistency rather than to create 'new' beers. For instance, hop schedules often change in response to flavors variations that occur with each harvest or a new yeast strain may be used because the house strain has evolved over time.

    Our general rule of thumb is if the brewery keeps the name the same, it's the 'same' beer; with some obvious exceptions, of course, where a name is reused for a completely different beer (Hill Farmstead Edith, 3 Floyds Alpha Naught, etc.).
     
    #12 MasterSki, Aug 13, 2013
  13. backbaybrewer

    backbaybrewer Zealot (712) Feb 26, 2010 Massachusetts
    Trader

    Yeah, I agree with all of that. This beer however went through a completely differnt process in that it was sent to the coolship with no controlled yeast additions. I'm not disagreeing with your general point and I fully understand BA's position on not creating unecessary entries. I'm justr really curious and would love it if you post his response.

    Having said all of that. If it is entirely up to the Brewer to make this determination as to whether it is an evolution or the same beer, then why not say so on the "new beer" tab, rather than saying:
    • Vintages. Do not add a new entry (year) for a beer if the beer recipe has not significantly changed. Doing otherwise will most likely result in merging beers and lost reviews.
    This seems to imply that BAs are free to make the determination.

    Perhaps instead it should instruct BAs to not add a new entry for a beer under any circumstances. That way it is clear that BA moderators, under the direction of the brewer, will take care of adding new vintages of existing beers.
     
    #13 backbaybrewer, Aug 13, 2013
  14. MasterSki

    MasterSki Grand Pooh-Bah (4,848) Dec 25, 2006 Canada (ON)
    Mod Team Society Pooh-Bah Trader


    We don't want to say that either, as certain beers are totally different recipes from year-to-year or batch-to-batch and a new listing is definitely warranted; think Anchor OSA or Perseguidor. In that case, I'd rather the user created a new vintage as it's easier for us than trying to separate out reviews at a later date.

    This is definite a grey area beer. There are good arguments on either side. Shaun Hill's input will certainly weigh heavily, although we've gone against brewers before.
     
    #14 MasterSki, Aug 13, 2013
  15. backbaybrewer

    backbaybrewer Zealot (712) Feb 26, 2010 Massachusetts
    Trader

    That makes sense. Thanks for all the feedback.
     
    #15 backbaybrewer, Aug 14, 2013
  16. backbaybrewer

    backbaybrewer Zealot (712) Feb 26, 2010 Massachusetts
    Trader

    I assume you never got a response on this one? I really wish this had been cleared up because the reviews are piling up for the new version. Looks like a new entry was started for Genealogy of Morals (2013) which was the same beer except aged in bourbon barrels instead of madeira. Seems like if that is cause for a new entry, changing the yeast entirely to spontaneous would also.
     
    #16 backbaybrewer, Aug 27, 2013
  17. MasterSki

    MasterSki Grand Pooh-Bah (4,848) Dec 25, 2006 Canada (ON)
    Mod Team Society Pooh-Bah Trader


    Nope. Even sent a reminder with a link to this thread.

    I was the one who added the Genealogy listing when I heard the new batch was aged in bourbon barrels. I was following precedent for other beers like Eclipse.
     
    #17 MasterSki, Aug 27, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.