Infected Barrel Aged Yeti

Bottle 3667 (consumed last night) was definitely not infected. Probably the most whiskey-forward barrel-aged stout I've had, and I really liked the smoky char aroma/flavor too. Very relieved, I traded away some pretty damn good beer to get my hands on this one.

 

An argument in semantics (objective v. subjective) is always a surefire sign of someone with their back against a wall.

Just give a good faith review (i.e. no agenda or bias) of what's in your glass. How the end-result got there isn't part of the reviewing process. I don't give a crap WHY a beer has a certain problem -- I just want to know that it HAS a problem.

NOTE: This obviously doesn't apply to negligence by the customer or retailer, unless some factor in the control of the brewer was a contributing factor.

 

The rating should reflect what's in the bottle. If you wanted a rating/review of the beer 'as it was supposed to be made' you should ask the brewer or perhaps read the brewery's ad copy for that particular beer.

 

Someone who's back is really against the wall (or doesn't understand the argument), typically responds in such a way.

Take a class in logic, then come back and we can discuss civilly.

Subjective & objective are two completely different terms. If you think it's a matter of semantics, I kindly suggest you look up the definitions.

And no where in my argument did I say we shouldn't have some method of saying whether or not it's infected. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the current rating system of grouping all the vintages of beer together (for some beers). Either rate by the batch, don't rate it, or have a way to say it was infected without having a score attached to it.

 

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're being illogical. You're separating beer out by vintages, many folks don't do this. If I drink a beer that's only good 4 out of every 5 years, then that should be reflected in that beer's reviews. Sure, it's not terribly helpful if you're interested in how a specific vintage of the beer is, but it's still reflective on the beer overall. Saying not to rate it in that case is being illogical.

 

It's not a matter of disagreeing. I'm stating something as subjective vs. objective, you cannot say an infection is subjective because it's not based on opinion. The beer is either infected or it's not. It's black & white. Hence someone trying to debate that an infection is subjective is illogical.

No because it goes back to the root of what an infection is... it's an accident that alters the beer from what it was intended to taste and smell like based on what the recipe called for. It's not a subjective taste based on the same beer that everyone else is rating.

Churchhill's Finest Hour is separated out by vintage.... that recipe doesn't change from what I know.
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/5318/78205
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/5318/67034
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/5318/56607

 

Good Lord. You two disagree and you've made it painfully clear. We get the point...BMs are there for a reason.

 

while joe six pack may not you'd be hard pressed to find a large amount of people here that don't...

 

Capt Lawrence St Vincent Dubbel was a good inadvertent infection

 

Taste and rating of a beer are subjective. Part of the that subjective rating takes into account objective features - for example head and color are pretty objectively determined. Another objective feature to take into account is whether a beer is infected or not.

Why do you care what the beer is supposed to taste like? Lost Abbey Brandy Barrel Aged Angel's share has a reputation (and a very fairly deserved reputation at that) at being an infected mess. Sometimes that beer can taste delicious. But it's a $15/375ml gamble. And that's been every iteration of that beer. Why the hell wouldn't you rate what you're getting instead of what you're supposed to get? If the only ratings of LA Brandy AS were based on the non-infected versions, you wouldn't have anything approaching an even remotely accurate representation of that beer.

This isn't even something like light-infection from a crappy store location - it's something completely within the control of the brewery. It's entirely relevant to the score of the beer if a percentage of them taste bad - objectively or subjectively.

 

It actually does.

 

i hate when idiots tell people to take a class in logic. it makes me wonder if they've ever actually taken classes in logic. i've taken many, and i guarantee you that we never talked about 99% of the bullshit that went on in this thread.

 

Bottle 3261 was delicious.

 

Surprised GD hasn't chimed in yet...

 

It would have been much quicker if I could rid myself of this damn job.

 

At the risk of poisoning the well, has no one noticed that while Prospero is vehemently arguing for people not to rate BA Yeti because it'll drop the score, he's also from CO and is an active trader?

People should rate infected beers. All this stuff about keeping the score high sounds like more of the inflated ratings issue this site has suffered through for years.

 

too late.

I've never traded BA Yeti. Nice try. I was fully prepared to go to Great Divide and demand a refund or exchange had my BA Yeti been infected and offered to do it for anyone that had one. Fortunately I was lucky to get a good bottle.

The topic of debate is whether or not to rate an infected beer. In no way was I talking specifically about the BA Yeti. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first beer to have this issue and won't be the last. The topic applies to all beers.

You guys are terrible at this civil debate concept and just go straight to insults don't you... crap, I forgot, I'm on the internet again... I mean you pretty much slandered me. Why?

All my debate has been about is a reasonable alternative to lumping all reviews into one score. In an effort to better identify batches that are infected without impacting the entire line of beer. Do I believe Great Divide should better their QC on their bottling? Absolutely.

 

That's true of issues like oxidation, lightstruck beer, and heat damage. That's not true of infection. Storage conditions can accelerate the spoilage process, but the initial contamination ultimately comes back to sanitation.

Oak is a porous material, and porous materials provide lots of nooks and crannies for spoilage organisms to hide in. With barrel-aging, there is always a possibility of the beer being inoculated with bugs in the barrel. For this reason, I think it's unfair to say it's a breweries fault when a barrel matured beer goes off. With that said, there is nothing wrong with letting other potential customers know that issues, even isolated ones, have been found with a given beer. Why is it wrong to put the information out there and let other consumers make a (somewhat) informed decision? Whether its Chowhound, Yelp, or BA, isn't that one of the purposes of a review site?

 

While I agree with the rest of your post, can I ask why you think it's unfair? Brewers should know better than us how difficult it is to barrel-age beers, and should be cognizant of that before jumping in to the latest fad (a delicious fad to be sure). Some breweries are clearly far superior than others at barrel-aging, so it can't be completely random...