White Chocolate possibly infected; Patrick Rue responds

Not only do you drink an entire of White Chocolate solo, you plan to open up two bottles of White Chocolate in the future. Amazing.

 

If the weather doesn't cool down soon, definitely.

If the weather does cool down soon, definitely.

 

Prompted by this thread, I opened a 2013 White Chocolate this weekend. Happy to report there was definitely *no* infection, nor was there any sour, off, or rotten flavors to be found. I'd not had the beer previously, so didn't have prior expectations. Was definitely a bit of bitterness up front--but beer bitterness, not sour/etc. bitterness--and I wonder if that's what people might be harping on. My bottle was a 6/18 one and did not gush at all, so perhaps there's something wrong with the gushers in particular? (It had been in a cooler full of ice before opening, so it also may just have been cold enough not to.)

All in all, it was a good but not great beer. The bitterness up front was perhaps a bit too pronounced, but the finish on the beer was better, with nice hints of vanilla and chocolate.

 

I'm curious, partly because no one has really said anything about it yet and it occurred to me today, but is this "sour" like green apple? If so it could just be acetaldehyde, which would go away with time.

 

My experience was pretty much like apple juice. It was a bottle from the initial package and I opened it up a few weeks ago. It didn't taste rotten really, just like a weird mix of a fruited sour and what WC has normally tasted like for me.

I opened it up and immediately got a huge whiff of apple. I didn't say anything and let the girlfriend try it. She then asked if it was supposed to taste like apple juice and chocolate.

All in all though, it wasn't too bad even with the overwhelming apple. I ended up blending it with some Ivan the Terrible and got something that reminded me of a BCBS variant.

 

The initial package would have been WC '12.

 

I could ascribe it to acetaldehyde, but if it is, I'm not convinced it will ever really go away - this is a barrel aged beer that has already conditioned for time in the barrel, as well as over two months in the bottle, and Patrick says they force carbed it so I'm making a guess that they didn't re-pitch yeast at bottling. You would need some healthy yeast around to clean up the off flavors, and I would be surprised if that's viable at this point.

 

Yep. Haven't picked up my '13s yet.

 

LOL

 

sigh....

The few I have opened so far have tasted fine (knocking on wood). I have about a case and a half left, hoping it all turns out well, if not I have confidence The Bruery will make it right.

 

I have had 2 so far that were off.

 

Crap, now I'm worried. I only bought one bottle of WC, my fault for not being a preservation/reserve member. It's 13' but I hope its not skunked.

 

Skunked is not the same as infected.

 

You're right, pour choice of words on my point. Hope it's not infected.

 

I'm just going to hope that the 2 bottles I have coming are perfectly fine. I enjoy white chocolate quite a bit.

 

After reading this thread, I was anxious to get home and try one of the two bottles I recently ordered online.

2013 Bruery White Chocolate (bottled 06/18/13)
This is my first time trying a Bruery White Chocolate, but I can't imagine this is anything like it's supposed to taste. It's definitely tart and a bit sweet. ..definitely nothing I would call a white chocolate flavor. The smell is a bit off putting. I've been sipping on it for about 20 minutes with no noticeable change, but I'll keep at it for a bit. Pretty safe bet I won't be finishing it. Very disappointed that I ordered two bottles at $30 a piece plus shipping. I was hoping for something of what I had previously heard this beer descibed as...liquid white chocolate.

p.s. - No gushing as a couple people had reported.

 

In all fairness, I don't think this beer ever tasted like "white chocolate", literally at least (to me). I've always thought the base beer with the added vanilla beans (and i think cacao nibs? Shoot I don't even remember) gave off subtle undertones that reminded drinkers of a "white chocolate", but not necessary giving off an entire palate packed with the stuff. That's at least what I've noticed over the years.

It's perfectly fine if it wasn't your cup of tea sbpyrat, and I'm at least glad that you didn't get a bad bottle. It's a bummer you didn't like it. Cheers.

 

FWIW, I've had it twice before, last year and then a new bottle this last weekend. Honestly, it tasted very similar to my memory of the previous years (and we know around these parts that memory can be deceiving). And we had no gushing.

 

It kinda does sound like he got a bad bottle if it's tart and has an off-putting aroma. The first batch of White Chocolate is the only one I've had so far, and it was not tart at all and had a very nice aroma.

If you read the description the Bruery used when they sold the beer, there is no mention of tartness whatsoever, and I've never heard any talk of the first batch being tart:

The Bruery's description of White Oak (which, like White Chocolate, contains White Oak Sap) also makes no mention of tartness:

 

I wonder how many of the most recently reported bottles are more people looking for an off flavor as opposed to an actual possibly infected bottle?

I've often had something, thought it tasted fine, then I get someone asking if I tasted a particular flavor, which initially I did not, but then after being told that the flavor is in there all of a sudden I taste it.

I fear when I open my next bottle all this talk of possibly infected bottles is going to taint my perception of it.