Wulver & Backwoods Bastard

Another thing I find intersesting with these beers is that Wulver actually is best on the colder end of the spectrum while BB to me shines closer to room temp. This is odd, because in almost every experiece I have had, the alcohol, especiay bourbon, is usually more prevalent as it warms.

 

For the money, Backwoods Bastard is the better value. However, if you can afford the $20-$25 per 4-pack price, my opinion is that Wulver is the better beer (and it really isn't even close).

 

Never had Wulver but... This years Backwoods is noticeably thinner than I remember it... Still tastes pretty much as I remember it but... It's drinking very thin... At least the bottles I have....

 

Had a Wulver Tuesday, and Backwoods today. Yep and Yep.

 

That sounds completely the opposite from what every one else says, but I guess that's what makes beer interesting. Honestly, I think there's a chance you or the bartender switched the glasses. I would strongly suggest revisiting the two.

Wulver is way stickier and a caramel-bomb. I always need to age my Backwoods at least a year to make it enjoyable due to the alcohol bite.

 

Beat me to it - this does sound like the reverse of the usual reaction. I suppose palates are different, though. I know I've spit beers out for tasting exceptionally hop-forward while a guy down the bar from me spit the exact same beer from the exact same tap out for being too malty, so I couldn't say for certain.

 

Both top notch, but I give the edge to Wulver.

 

Bad, bad people. The same sort who drain pour. Unforgivable blasphemies, all of it. Woe am I for my heresy!

 

I appreciate your suggestion.

The Wulver was on tap and brought out first. Then the backwoods bastard was purchased. I didn't even buy the backwoods bastard until we were already drinking the wulver. It definitely wasn't a mix up. I live about an hour from Akron and the Wulver isn't available in bottles yet where I had it on tap- while the backwoods has been out for a little while longer. Maybe 2 weeks to a month difference in release.

There was definitely caramel in the wulver- just the fruit and alcohol were more prominent than in the backwoods. I tasted bourbon and molasses much more in the backwoods. The backwoods was also sweeter in general. Both beers are comparable, complex, and offer the full profile expected in a BBA Scotch Ale.

 

Wulver > Backwoods.

 

lol this STILL sounds like you got the two backwards. Although as noted above everyone has different tastes. Wulver is an amazing beer Backwoods is a great beer but we are all lucky we get to have these friendly debates.

 

Never had Wulvers, and definitely so inclined to get a bottle, but this years Backwoods is amazing!

 

Side-by-side tasting notes of these two excellent beers:

Backwoods Bastard

Little head retention. Light shines through the clean, rubyish dark brown body. Aroma has lots of bourbon coming through with a pronounced sweetness plus notes of vanilla, raisin and dark fruit. Flavor is a bit more lively than the Wulver with the mild hop bitterness coming through more. More of a caramel quality than Wulver. Also drinks kind of like a barleywine/scotch ale hybrid while the Wulver is straight Scotch ale. Mouthfeel is slightly creamy but also has a sort of zesty punch to it. Medium-low carbonation with a less heavy body than Wulver.

Wulver

A bit more head retention than Backwoods with a little less light shining through the clean, rubyish dark brown body. Also very bourbon-forward in the aroma only with less oak and more straight booze. Still plenty of vanilla and raisin. Less sweet-smelling than Backwoods. Flavor has an incredible balance between the bourbon booziness, oak, sweet vanilla and raisin notes. Has an almost milk chocolaty aftertaste. Sweeter taste overall which is contradictory to what I found in the aroma. Hint of smoke. Mouthfeel is certainly more creamy than Backwoods. Medium-low carbonation and a fullish body.

Conclusion:

Man, it's a close one. Just about too close to call but, for me, it's Wulver by a nose just because the flavors are more well-rounded and it's just so damn smooth. I feel like Backwoods is a bit more in-your-face with the hops kind of accentuating that bourbon presence and making it a more intense drink overall. Wulver's sweeter and more laid back while still being complex. Either way, these are two fantastic beers that will change the way you look at both Scotch ales and barrel-aging. Cheers.

 

I re-appreciated BB this year and saw other posts with this same comparison. Led me to "want" Wulver. Glad to see a tasting-note comparison. Funny, without ever tasting Wulver, your review is close to what I expected from what I read in other posts. The "community" got it "right" again! Thanks, BA

 

I'm never a fan of "do-you-like-this-or-that-beer-better" kind of post (too many comparisons, really), but if we go at it, I choose WULVER!

 

The one and only Backwoods I have had was a week or so ago and amazing. I have some Wulver in my cabinet but have not tried any yet, looking forward to it.

 

The answer is...YES

Thanks for the thoughtful post OP!

 

I think Wulver is better by a pretty wide margin actually. Especially when comparing each fresh. I think the comparison may be a little closer with a BB with a couple years on it.

 

My palette is not refined enough to justify the price difference