Oddside Ales and tart BA stouts

their stouts are turning sour, this is not normal. Stand by your product rather than saying its "developing" whatever..

 

I've been pretty vocal in the other thread. And honestly I don't have any skin in this so I'm not looking for anything. But I think the canned OSA response is pretty shitty and don't think it's right. When this post started I had 2 Hipster and 0 BBAIMM left. My buddy had 3 BBAIMM and 0 Hipster. We got together and had the two amonst other similar beers and they had both definitely gone sour. To me Hipster had changed the most. Do we drain pour? I don't. I've poured very few beers known to be infected. But I definitely didn't care for them. But my buddy loves sours and actually liked them. He actually said he'd trade for Hipster. Just like BCBBW, definitely tart cherry but still drinkable in a different kind of way. I don't like it as much as past years of BW (in fact 2013 is still amazing), but he did like it.

So we are told by OSA that it's our fault for holding on to beer for a few months. But yet they pulled MW out of their cellar and sold it to everyone. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

IMO, the only risk that is reasonable in holding onto beer for extended periods is mellowing of the adjunct flavors. I keep 1 bottle of KBS around from each year. To some that is blasphemy. For me, I'm not a coffee freak so toned down coffee is fine with me. I accept that risk. Same with hoppy beers. I don't expect the hops to hang around forever. I accept that risk too. I actually preferred a hopslam from last year over this year's fresh. Coconut will fade, maple will fade, coffee will fade, etc etc. What I do not expect is for them to turn sour. That's an infection, and nobody wants to acknowledge it.

I do have like 7 or so Hazels left. I'm drinking them at a faster pace than I normally would. I might save 1 just for the hell of it to see what happens.

 

Exactly. If you produce a beer that is the exception to the norm, and your customers are buying $100s of dollars worth of it, they deserve to know that it's the exception.

I'm not about to draw a line in the sand on whether or not OSA should be providing refunds or not, but if they state that this is a freshness issue here, they'd better make their customers aware of that before they knowingly throw down their cash for BBA stout that will only last 3 months max (if that is indeed the case). Drinking BBA stouts fresh may be a great rule of thumb, but its certainly not widely accepted as the norm.

 

I never got an answer on the other page, so I'll try here:

What timeframe is acceptable for the risk of a product being unsatisfactory to transfer to the customer and away from the brewer?

And before answering, stop and think about it without the context of the supposed "infection" and just think about it in terms of the product being less than what is expected.

Edit: I also think categorizing the boilerplate response from Odd Side as "blaming" consumers is an extremely tilted reading of what was actually written. I get that the "it is what it is and we're not going to compensate anyone" response is probably frustrating to those who feel they are owed compensation, but I'm not sure it sounds like Odd Side is blaming anyone so much as they are denying any responsibility on their part. Blaming the nature of beer as always evolving might be more accurate.

 

I'm guessing the opinions on that can vary widely, and I'm not sure I even have an answer of my own. If pressed, I would probably say 6 months, but that is probably based on Bell's coding for their products. They basically say that all of their beers have a shelf life of at least 6 months, and I think their stouts are coded as longer...up to a year (or unlimited).

 

The discussion is about an infection.

We're not talking about adjuncts fading... And the fact that the release is only months old makes all of this a moot point. I can't tell if the people defending OSA are: (1) OSA employee plants/shills (2) blind local homers (3) new to beer or (4) betas with zero quality standards and expectations. It's amazing.

 

So answer the question I posed: at what point does the risk for an unsatisfactory product transfer from the producer to the consumer?

Ignore whether or not it's an infection or not for a second. Whether the source of undesirable flavors is a yeast, chemical breakdown of adjuncts, or oxidation isn't really important here, as those are all factors that impact the flavor of a beer with time. How long is it reasonable to expect a brewer to guarantee the quality of a product that we all know changes--for whatever reason--with time?

The idea that the only possible source for opinions that differ from your own is that the people holding them are somehow guided by some ulterior motive or are ignorant rubes is obnoxious.

 

Why yes, I have had bad bottles of both the BBIMM and Hipster Brunch. The Hipster is more drinkable than the BBIMM but not by much, both have a distinct tart finish. For those that have enjoyed both beers over the past couple of years it really isn't difficult to detect that something has gone horribly wrong with these beer. Undrinkable is a relative term, gross and not enjoyable is a better description. Rest assured, if this beer underwent laboratory analysis, it very well could reveal living organisms that the brewer did not intend. If this rings true, it is no fault of the consumer. We are talking about an infection, not some whiny BA's that don't like that the coffee has fallen off.

Brewery Vivant had a very similar issue (developing a tartness) recently with their Vanilla Plowhorse except the rogue yeast developed off flavors in about a month. They promptly recalled and offered credit to patrons.

I tend to agree, 6 months is at minimum a reasonable expectation for any stout.

 

You are asking a loaded question and this wouldn't even be a thread subject if the beer wasn't infected. This is an issue of infection. The only people mentioning adjuncts/additives falling off or changing is the brewery that is doing their best to deflect from what may be the actual issue of the infection, an issue I would imagine they are aware of but unwilling to do anything about.

 

Honestly, your smoke and mirrors straw man distraction tactic is what is obnoxious.

 

So have any of you scientists been able to prove its an infection?

 

All in time, all in time.

 

They've soured. Don't be so daft.

 

Don't a lot of breweries put some sort of a timeframe on their beers? Bells is the first that comes to mind. Hell, Two Hearted is suppose to be good for 6 months. In this case if OSA would've said BBIMM is only good for only 6 months it still would've turned before that timeframe was up. I'm curious now if any breweries market their imperial stouts as "drink immediately". I feel like expecting an imperial to last less than a year is kind of laughable.

I can somewhat agree that they aren't necessarily blaming so much as they just aren't taking any accountability for the mess. Owning up to it would go a long way I think.

 

I have had the hipsters brunch and while there is an initial tartness up front the remainder of the beer is still drinkable, for how long who knows but I'm going through it quick. The bbimm I had is a tart hot mess and it's only salvation is down the drain. I have a bottle left I might just send back the Odd Sides and see if they have the courage to drink it because it was terrible in comparison to the previous year's batch. Also had a Hazel's the other night with some friends and that was phenomenal with none of the other beers off tastes evident.

I know Odd Sides is relatively new and as someone pointed out that they do not have the Deep Pockets that Goose Island has but the like it or lump it attitude is a little much. As I am not a Michigan native and usually trade for their barrel-aged beers, I don't think I will be doing that next year and probably won't give much consideration to the beers they are bringing to Market in my area now.

Hopefully they will find a happy medium to resolve any bad press but until then I think I will stick with my tried-and-true locals.

 

So, a beer thats 4 months old is a real risky experiment in aging now? Who's insane?

 

Its always a risk. There's no scale. Its not a crazy risk but in this case it didn't pay off.

 

So a brewery should never refund or replace bottles based on the beer going bad, regardless of the time frame? If there is no scale as you say, that seems to be what your implying, but I could be wrong.

If that were the case, OSA already contradicted that by doing replacing Morning Wood.

 

But that was a proven infection, wasn't it?

 

was this proven by Oddside?