Why isn't Founders Imperial Stout Bourbon aged?

The question has been answered many times over but I didn't see this one. Founders Imperial Stout isn't Bourbon aged [any more] because they tried it once and don't want to do it anymore.

 

I heard someone in the industry say they don't have any more room to barrel age. That's probably why. But I agree I would definitely buy BBA Imperial Stout. It would probably be super duper small release and cost $12 a 12oz bottle and it wouldn't make it's way down here anyway....

 

I'm not sure if this is the reason, but having been let down by BA Darkness this year, I've learned that some of my favorite RIS don't necessarily improve when barrel-aged. As has been discussed before, the base beer for BCBS is said to be below average and too bitter to be worth drinking by itself, but when combined with bourbon barrels, becomes one of the best beers in the world, so making a good BA beer isn't necessarily as simple as "take good stout, add barrel-aging."

 

Any form of barrel aging, in my experience, tends to impart a characteristic oxidative note unless maybe the storage time is very short. Again, many people like this. But it is good often just to taste the beer "as is", IMO.

 

Not every great stout needs to be BA

 

Honestly they probably will do it again but it will likely never see bottles. They routinely have taproom one offs that are BA versions of their seasonals or year rounders. Last spring they had BA reds rye on for quite awhile, it hindered my ability to order anything else for what seemed like a couple of months. Unfortunately for out of towers they are usually class 3 and no growler fills are allowed.

That said I would plan a beer-cation and hit this years Black Party. That's when they serve all of their black beers and typically several rare BA one offs. IMO it is their best party every year followed closely by last years 1st ever firkin fest. Good luck OP!

 

why dont we turn a $12 4 pack that I can easily buy into a $25/4pk that I will have to hunt down.

ummm...no thanks.

 

I agree that it is designed differently, but basically in the opposite way that you are saying. Barrel aged beers can have a decent amount of bittering hops because the preservative affect of the hops can help protect the beer. Barrel aged beers are often sweeter to meld with the flavors of the bourbon (or other alcohol) and because sugars have an anti-oxidating affect, which is why sweet beers are often cellar-worthy. This usually means more caramel malt.

I'll add the caveat that I have had roasty and non-roasty BA beers and believe that this is merely stylistic. I have had sweet and dry BA beers as well, which again, suggests style differences. I have also had BA beers with low initial IBUs (i.e. vanilla rye at 35 - and others much higher, around 100).

I guess my point is that we both just said a lot of things that are never always true, as is the case with beer, huh?

This was fun.

 

This reminds me - can HF hurry up and make a tequila barrel aged Edward. That beer really needs something to make it better

 

For science?

 

Oak aging normally implies the us of oak chips, so it wouldn't have the same oxygen exposure as barrel aging.

 

I regard chips as a plus in this respect. Oak aging is a term that can be ambiguous, but clearly often it doesn't mean more than chip treatment. Still, it is a way to impart oak taste without the potential downside of excess air exposure.

 

Maybe do another keg release to generate some revenue. If it never hit bottles the first time, I doubt it is in the works to bottle it any time soon.

 

This sounds like something they would actually do as one of their backstage series types of beers if they do it at all.

 

Do we really need to increase the booziness of FIS?

 

Just be glad it isn't. If it was you wouldn't be able to get your hands on it.

 

Not hard. Just gotta get a ticket. Then make the trip from Iowa