Bourbon County Coffee 2015 - Gusher?

Had this year's 13.7% batch on draft tonight at Sapsuckers in Huntington, NY and it wasn't infected (yet?)...it just lacked that intense coffee roast flavor I usually expect from the beer and had little to no carbonation (and I say that in regard to BCBCS I've had in the past since '12). It wasn't bad but something definitely seemed a little off compared to the BCBCS chocolate/coffee richness to which I've become accustomed. I've never had '10 or '11 BCBCS but this batch is definitely my least favorite.

 

I opened a bottled on Christmas Day and really enjoyed it. Not as much as the 2013 I opened a couple weeks ago (yes, even though it's two years old!) but I think 2015 is better than 2014.

I actually did get a little bit of "twang" in the 2015 I just opened, but I attributed it to the coffee bean and not infection. I often pick up a fruitiness with some of the more specialty coffee beans. I didn't have any gushing, thin body, or sour notes.

 

Just opened a bottle from 09/17/15 1328 batch. No signs of infection whatsoever. Lots of fruitiness on the nose which may seem like it's infected, but I got this from two bottles I opened from different batches. Body has some roast to it, but not as much as 2013.

I definitely agree that 2013>2015 > 2014. 2014 was too fruity for me and not enough roast.

 

I think this post is just a conspiracy to get you guys to hurry up and drink your Bourbon Co. instead of aging them.

 

My buddy opened two bottles last night. 17/Sept/2015 1653 and 1052, both total damn drain pours (infected). Contacted GI.

 

I haven't had a bottle of coffee yet but I had a barleywine that had off flavors

 

I had a weird sour taste as well. I split it with my father and his glass as coffee heavy and mine was sour. Both clean beer ready glasses.

Poured them together then both has a sour taste with some coffee present.

 

So out of 1 bottle, you poured 2 glasses of BCBCS. 1 of those glasses was fine and the other was sour?

 

So should I drain pour the first half of my bottle or the second half? Is infection like hot air that rises? Or does it settle into the bottom of the bottle?

 

Come on people, with a little bit more ridiculousness we could still get this thread into the running for Best Thread of 2015.

We need more posts like this:

 

Another shitty infected bottle. 17/Sept/15 1841

 

Yup. It didn't gush like crazy but def foamed for a bit. I let it sit a a wile before I poured it. It tasted fine though.

 

1411 was good for what it is worth.

 

Perhaps before getting out the pitchforks we should note that goose island may have desired this flavor?

Read this pre-release article (particularly the coffee portion).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/goose-island-new-bourbon-county-stout-story.html

 

what about the gushing? while it doesn't mean infection, still not what it should do.

 

I have opened numerous bottles with no issues.

 

I have a few 13s IMO they're terriffic, I like this particular beer aged a bit vs fresh. But something like Kbs I prefer fresh.

A shame about the spotty 15 batches, see more FT than I'd ever expect, personally at that level of quality I pass.

 

not gonna quote, just selecting the most recent example. can you guys collectively stop posting the 4 digit bottling times inferring that bottles with a 1411/2:11PM time is fine versus a bottle with a 1531/3:31PM time is bad etc.

the 4 digits are military clock times. minutes & hrs don't = batches. the date might be relevant, but the time of day the ink was put on the bottle is unlikely to be any significant factor. STOP!!

 

While I agree the 4 digit is clearly the military time of bottling, I disagree it's irrelevant to GI. The brewery can use the full timestamp to differentiate bottles within the same day. They would likely not even list it on the label if it was meaningless to them.

 

Every bottle so far mentioned has had the 9/17 date, good or bad. Is it safe to say, every one was bottled on that date? If so, the time wouldn't matter if it was ALL the same batch bottled but if different batches were bottled on the same day it could.

With all that being said, I think there is a good chance the "fruit" flavors were intended as posted by the two articles/descriptions given of the beans used.