Wild Sam Adams Beers?!

well, the beers are blended.... I assume to be more approachable to the non-beer geek, as that is Sam Adams' niche.
They are definitely not "overly" funky, sour, tart, when compared to other brett-bombs, but they use the yeast, and it does come through as Homebrew42 noted, as do the reviews:
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/35/53774/?sort=topr&start=0

 

the "wild" ale category is a widely encompassing and broad category... just read the definition I put above.

 

Yep. Surely their inclusion of the word "American" was meant for you to prepare yourself to NOT expect any relation to it's Belgian inspiration.

 

I can point to many Belgian krieks that are overly fruity and sweet as well, while not showing a lot of the wild yeast characteristics.

However, this particular beer is not even drinkable for me.

 

What is "a Cerise"?

 

oh... I guess it just means cherry, eh? I was confused because Cambridge Brewing's Cerise uses a solera style fermentation, so I thought Cerise was synonymous with a solera fermentation, but upon further research, it just means cherry.

 

Agreed...definitely not "clean" (note the use of quotations throughout this entire thread). However, I personally did not pick up any characteristics that were apparent enough to truly classify them in the catch-all "wild ale" category. Belgian influence? Sure. I wouldn't dispute that.

Unfortunately, after having realistic expectations, I found these beers to be rather disappointing. Sure, the idea of a beer blend that technically contains an uncertain ratio of a beer that was fermented with "wild" yeast/bacteria sounds great on paper (or Internet), but the results seem curiously muted.

Anyone know what style of beer KMF is supposed to be? And don't say "wild ale"....

 

I thought there was some obscure style that I had no idea about. I hope my question didn't come across wrong.

 

no, man, not at all... I can always use more info and it prompted me to look into it more and I actually learned a bit by you pointing that out.

 

It's probably closest to a Flemish Red.

 

Cambridge Brewing's Cerise is no doubt a wild ale and a great one at that. I tried the Stony Brook Red when first released, and found it very boring and not what I hoped for.

 

Well, I did, and so did the 18 other people who were at the tasting where I opened the bottles. Not every wild ale punches you in the face with wild character, Orval for example.

 

While it's certainly an impressive feat to get 18 people in one room to agree on the qualities of one beer, I'm not really seeing this unanimous extolling of their "wild" virtues within this thread (and wouldn't this be the perfect place for those who don't really review to chime in?). While I'm not looking to be "punched in the face", these particular beers fell entirely flat with just about everyone that I know who tried them.

Don't you think that Orval is a fairly poor example in this case? It's not even an American Wild Ale. In fact, it's not even American (and even so, Orval is a far more interesting beer than the Barrel Room series as a whole). Of course it doesn't punch you in the face...it's a Belgian Pale.

EDIT: Is it too late to start a poll in this thread???

 

Yeah, but Orval is rife with brett that gets stronger with age. It's obviously not an American Wild, but plenty of Orval-like beers are classified as such on this site. Fortunately, Rayon Vert, which is very similar in yeast profile to Orval, is classified Belgian Pale.

 

Serious question: Which holds more truth: The brewer's intent, the BA classification, or a drinker's own perceptions?

 

Sam Adams brought a Gueuze with them to Night of the Barrels last year. There is only 1 review on that beer but I personally found it very tasty. I went back a few times to grab more before it finally kicked. I don't know if they plan on doing this as a Barrel Room Collection type thing but I hope they do.

As for the actual Barrel Room Collection beers I haven't enjoyed one yet.

 

Given the repeated demonstrations of drinker's perceptions being influenced by such biasing factors as price, name of producer, geographical region, rarity, etc. etc. (i.e., the multiple effects of context), I'd say we have to put that one a distant third behind Brewer's Intent and BA classification.

Edit: For a very famous example from the world of wine tasting, google "The Judgement of Paris" and "wine." Even the perceptions of "experts" can be biased by the effects of context.

Edit: Saved folks the trouble:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

 

I thought that I had a solid answer prepared, but the more I think about it the more grey it seems to become...

Brewer's intent: We have to assume that the resulting beer was brewed specifically to achieve the intended results. While this isn't always the case (Oops, we fucked up. What is this? Quick, associate the best matching style for proper marketing purposes), I personally think that it's best to trust the brewer's intentions over anyone else. They're responsible for bringing these beers into the world so it's really up to them to properly classify their "babies". BJCP can deal with them later.

Drinker's perception: This one is pretty dicey. Unique palates lead to a variety of reviews (Unless you're one of Homebrew42's friends, it seems)....which can lead to uncertainty when choosing a beer and then ultimate disappointment when it doesn't exactly hit the mark based on descriptions/reviews that may have suggested otherwise. Based on the responses in this thread, there were certain expectations that obviously were not met in several cases. Is it our fault for assuming that a beer should taste a certain way but didn't? Do I suffer from a defective palate?

BA Classification: Even more dicey as these entries are typically created by someone who's likely tasting a beer for the very first time (Heck, some entries are even added and classified well before the beer is actually released and without any reviews contained within). In a lot of these cases, brewer's intentions are often eschewed in favor of one's personal tastes if the proper information is not there (How was this brewed? What kind of yeast? Blend? Barrel aged? Geographical region?). I'm sure there are also cases of group-think that have ultimately influenced the style categorization, but that's a completely different topic. Does that make BA's database the ultimate reference tool? Hardly, but it's a good starting point. Unfortunately, the presence of a "wild ale" catch-all category can oftentimes promote lazy database additions. "What kind of beer is this? Well, there's some brett in the aroma...it's slightly tart....must be an American Wild since I can't seem to pinpoint an exact style otherwise".

My personal beef is mismatched/uninformed classifications across the various platforms which leads to a lack of clarity regarding specific style (which inevitably leads to disputes such as this). While the Kriek is classified here as an "American Wild Ale", it's also classified as a "Fruit Beer" over on RB. Who's right? I personally side with the latter as the "wild" characteristics simply weren't "wild" enough to warrant such a designation.

Oddly, Samuel Adams essentially side-steps proper classification on a lot of these beers and instead offers an overly esoteric description of an otherwise unremarkable liquid (I'd honestly be curious to try the base beer of the Kriek. I'd imagine that it's pretty horrendous based on some of their other "fruit beers").

***If you check SA's description of the Kriek, you'll notice some rather questionable keywords: "Lambic" (why do they insist on throwing this word around?), "Wild airborne yeast", "Open fermentation"....none of which directly apply to the resulting beer. They also go as far as to mention that it's blended with a "small amount" of KMF. Well, how small? They listed "over 50%" in the Stony Brook Red profile (decent enough...I'll concede on that one), but why aren't we privy to the blend ratios otherwise? I highly doubt that SA neglected to document this information, so why not publish it? I'd wager that it's a negligible addition to the base beers in an attempt to make them seem more interesting on paper when in all actuality these beers taste fairly unremarkable. The reviews truly speak for themselves, in this case. Nothing above a "good"...and I'm sure a lot of reviewers are still being quite generous.

 

FYI, this was at a tasting with a bunch of BAs that I hardly know. I brought a bottle of the American Kriek and the Stonybrook Red, people were a bit skeptical, and the Kriek wasn't well liked, but the Stonybrook was unanimously well received, and some even thought that it was the best beer at the tasting.

You act as if I'm trying to fabricate some sort of story, but it is what it is, I brought the beer to a tasting and everyone liked it, even the self proclaimed "sourheads" thought that it was better than the "whale" sours at the tasting.

 

So basically, you want every beer to be subject to classification by way of the current drinker's palate, and not what the brewer or BJCP say it is. Brilliant idea, captain!

Let's do a little example: Say you are a homebrewer. You make a brown ale, and blend it with a Flanders Oud Bruin that you made. The ratio is like 99:1, brown ale to oud bruin. If you were to enter that beer into a competition, which category would you put it in? If you put it into oud bruin, you'd be knocked for not enough character, but the flavors (and any "wild" character) would make it truer to style. If you put it in as a brown ale, you'd get knocked heavily for off flavors AND not being true to style. Same goes with these Barrel Room beers. Sure, they may not fit into the styles completely, but the inclusion of "wild" character makes them not fit into the styles they are meant to borrow from, which means they need to be in a category where they do fit, and even a little wild character means? Wild ale.

Stop the whinging and whining, drink a beer, and chill out.