White Chocolate possibly infected; Patrick Rue responds

There is a fine line between the bottle being "infected" and for certain tastes to be "different" than previous batches. Patrick did mention this bit earlier in the thread if you missed it,

"There is a light tartness to the beer (as many batches of White Oak Sap tend to exhibit) that was there at packaging and at initial testing. It was also carbonated a bit over spec (force carbed), so that's why there's some instances of gushing occurring, especially if it's being opened on the warm side.

It's a bit different than last year's White Chocolate-- a bit drier and higher ABV. We're still testing to make sure there are no issues that'll impact stability. Given its high ABV, we're pretty confident that if there is any bacteria present, it won't survive / grow in this environment so the stability should be fairly promising.

We're still looking into this further and will be watching how this beer changes over time. In the meantime, I hope you all enjoy the beer!

Cheers,
Patrick
The Bruery"


That being said, it does explain some of the initial tartness certain folks (including myself) had experienced. Does that mean NONE of the bottles are infected/bad or tasted like rotten sour apples ? Of course not, but it does relieve some stress from a good majority of the concerned.

The folks over at the Bruery are looking into it so I guess I'm just hoping for the best. I agree that this year's batch tastes different than the previous year's, but it wasn't as drastic of a difference for me than it was for the few on here who had bottles that tasted COMPLETELY off. I say all of this because many of us on here have only experienced the slight tartness at the front of the tongue and some gushing occurrences upon bottle opening, which according to Patrick seems to be normal in regards to this year's WC batch.

sbpyrat can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems like he just wasn't a fan of WC considering it was his first go at the beer. He mentioned only that it was off putting and not necessarily indicating that it was infected. He also mentioned that he didn't experience any bottle gushing so I just took it as him having a good bottle he simply wasn't a fan of.

To JesseLara's fear of tainted perception, perhaps you (or anything else trying this batch of WC for that matter) could try and consider what Patrick has said about this current batch vs previous years. Making a decision that a beer is "infected" or "bad" based solely on the premise of it not tasting exactly like a previous bottle year is a bit ridiculous if you ask me.

 

I'll have to agree, all this talk doesn't make things any better for any of us. I'm hoping Patrick comes back and just tells us we're crazy because there's nothing wrong. Wishful thinking

 

Regardless of what is said, this never happened to any bottles I opened last year. It definitely changed for the worse if not infected.

 

I was talking with wine making friend recently about this and he mentioned that there is a double standard between beer and wine making. In wine, it is accepted that different vintages of the same wine will not usually be the same. In some cases recipe tweaks cause change, others are attributed to different quality of crop on any given year. This is accepted by the wine world and is why certain vintage bottles are much more valuable than others. The beer culture expects the exact same beer year in and year out (though they still choose favorites -BCS09?). I haven't opened a bottle of 13WC yet but from what it sounds like this year is an off year. I think if the lab shows no infections there isn't much to do but say well that was a bummer and move on.

Took look on the bright side, I am excited for windowsill and the tart whiteoaksap should do great in there.

 

I can say that a bottle varies from year to year if it is a $10 bottle and except that and move on
but when you pay $30 for a bottle some resemblance to the past year should be there
it should not be a completely different beer of less quality and gushing issues

 

I don't think people actively expect the same beer so much as they don't understand how beers can vary substantially from batch to batch or year to year. I think a lot of people think it's similar to making a batch of Kool-Aid.

"Well, I dumped in the powder and the right amount of water, it should be the same as last time, right?!?!?"

The act of picking favorite vintages is partially a reflection of people starting to figure things out. BTW, I kind of laugh at people who think all vintages of BCBS or Black Tuesday are the same, considering they all have different ABVs...

 

Like I said, I can't believe the the bottle I had last night was meant to taste anything like it did. I sipped on it for close to an hour before pouring 80% of it out. From all the previous reports of how good White Chocolate is supposed to be, I can't believe the bottle I had was even close. I know folks have different tastes, but mine don't usually vary this much. I have had a wide variety of beers from the Bruery and they have all at least been good, most great. But this was bad. Patrick's and other's description of light tartness doesn't fit, it was very tart and not in a good way (I love sours). There was no sign of any chocolate flavor.

I hadn't had it, so I didn't have any specific expectations, though I did expect a $30 bottle that ranks in the 90s from the awesome Bruery be decent and not be a drain pour.

I feel very safe in feeling that my dislike of the beer wasn't a matter of personal taste, but that beer was not what it was supposed to be.

 

To me this says you had a bad bottle. I can definitely tell the difference between what it should taste like and then getting a completely different flavor, as I would imagine most of us coming to BA would. So far I've opened about 6 of this years batch, all have been excellent. Waiting to see if I get one of those bad ones, hoping not.

 

Come to think of it, none of the ones I have opened so far have been a gusher. If I get one that does, we shall see what it tastes like.

Can any of those who have had a gusher share the bottling date and what I'm guessing is a batch number from the bottle? It would be interesting to see if they're all from the same date and/or batch code.

 

Just an FYI, will probably be a few days/a week for PMR to chime in again. Per their FB post, he and a few others from the Bruery crew are currently in Brussels Belgium.

 

Sorry to hear sbpyrat, hopefully Patrick can shine some more light on the matter in the coming days/weeks. I can only speak for myself when I say my first two bottles from this batch were just fine, but from the sound of things there may be some bottle variation in this batch. I've only had one '13 bottle from my order and another from my bro's. I'll have to crack open another one of mine this weekend next to any previous year batch and note the differences.

If anything, hold on to what you have and in the event Patrick does confirm any type of issue with this batch, there should be a similar type of compensation much like their other bottle issue. I feel you though, I have 5 bottles left and my bro only polished 3 from his case. Even though neither of us really had a problem with the '13 bottles we've tried so far, there still is a bit of concern lingering. I guess that'll be the case until we can get a final word from Patrick.

Anyone else pop open a bottle of '13 WT recently?

 

I had it on tap at the tasting room last Saturday, and thought it tasted great. Definitely not like rotten apple juice. I know that's not all that helpful for other people, but I figure I have a pretty good baseline of what it SHOULD taste like now. I'll get back to you guys when I finally do open up a bottle.

 

People are complaining about bottles, not draft.

 

Decided to open another tonight. It was not a gusher. It WAS tart and sour in the finish. It was not Overly carved. The initial taste was sour and tart, not that great, but the beer finished well. After taste was good. The beer was still not worth anywhere near $30 though. The initial taste kills it, and the sour aroma was still there. This bottle was better than the first, but still not what I expected with this batch. Wish it was like batch one, and not so disappointing.

I really wish the batch was like the first.

 

my thoughts exactly

 

Correction, tart and sour initially, and muted until the white chocolate in the finish. Had 4 guys split this, and same reaction from all tasters involved, even the birthday boy in the photo.

 

Oh, you mean no one's compaining about draft being a gusher?

My point was that Patrick has said that they saw no sign of an infection, that White Oak Sap does in fact have a tartness to it, that the beer is drier than last year's, and that the beer was carbed quite highly. In addition, there have been a couple people here who have posted that they think that the way the flavors meld together points in the direction that this was intentional. Now, considering we can confidently say that the keg at the tasting room is exactly the beer that they wish WC to be, I feel I can also say that if any of the bottles I try taste significantly different to that, then, barring poor memory, I feel we can conclusively say that there is some sort of infection in some of the bottles. On the other hand, if my bottles taste the same... well, it doesn't prove that there's no infection, but considering that it seems like the majority of people here have complained about the beer, I'd say there's a reasonable chance that this simply isn't some people's bag.

Scientific Method, woot! Though in all likelihood Patrick is going to have an official word on the subject the day before I plan to open my bottle, so none of this really matters.

 

To be fair, the first batch was kind of gross, although in what sounds like a different way. Not sure why people thing every expensive beer the Bruery makes is actually going to be good.

 

There is prescedant for white chocolate to be a good beer based on last years batch and the subsequent ratings. Batch variation is acceptable but to have a dramatically different flavor profile is not. I'm still waiting on my 2x 2013 bottles to see how it tastes though.

 

So the ones sent out to Preservation members (on 4/1/13) would be WC12? Any way to tell? I couldn't find any bottle date or code.