Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

Fresh KBS trumps fresh BCBS in my book too. However, 2-3 year aged BCBS is some of the best brew there is; its taste is even up there with much rarer and harder to get bottles. This notion is why the thought of infected bottles has us devotees riled

 

fair enough. I havent tried an aged bcbs ... but after trying a vintage 2014 KBS on tap and a 4pk of the 2015, I was somewhat unimpressed with the bcbs by comparison. Honestly I preferred the 4pks of sunday morning stout that I picked up this year, but I guess I need to try bcbs again and let a bottle sit.

 

You cannot compare an imperial stout with coffee and chocolate added to a straight up imperial stout. They are two completely different beers. Fine if you want to compare BC coffee and KBS, but even then there is no chocolate in BCBCS.

 

well. one certainly might prefer KBS over BCBS. to not be able to realize the added ingredients & take in what the wording flavored means on the KBS label sort of lowers ones credibility on the matter.

 

oh yea, thats a good point.... but i guess then by indirect comparison I would still make my original point.

 

Just had a bcbs from the dreaded 10/21 batch and it was absolutely fantastic. No infection issues here.

 

You can add all the "flavorings" you want, but there is nothing like a plain old imperial stout.

 

After you have been around for a while you might start to take the even more realistic attitude "gee, I really like barrel aged beers, so glad this one I'm drinking now isn't infected, since the risk of it happening to any barrel aged beer made by any brewery is so great."

 

Enjoyed a 10/21/15 regular that had been stored in my basement at room temp. Tasted amazing, no issues at all. Same goes for the regal.

 

So, from what I've seen, we've got reports of infection from many different dates, different ABVs and different states. Also, from the same dates (and even similar times) that we've got infection reports, there are many reporting theirs are fantastic with no issues.

To me it rules out the base (it would affect them all).

I'm oh so far from an expert, just applying some simple logic....this sounds like a bottle or cap issue where some were tainted and some weren't. I have no clue what the bottling process is with respect to sanitizing the bottles and caps, but if there were a faulty sanitization process what worked intermittently, we'd see exactly what we're seeing, wouldn't we?

Another thing that comes to mind (...and I really have zero clue if this is possible/probable), but something airborne that tainted some bottles, but not others?

I don't know, just trying to put together in my mind what would fit the pattern we're seeing. I may be out in left field because I really don't know anything about how beer is packaged.

 

I recently enjoyed a 10/21/15 BCBS that was purchased in MA and has been stored in a 60 degree cellar since November. No signs of infection at all, just typical BCBS deliciousness.

 

Playing devil's advocate, the counterpoint to that would be that infections are inherently unpredictable and so the unwanted yeast is taking hold at different speeds in different bottles for a whole host of variables that would impact such a thing. And that given enough time, *all* of the bottles will turn.

That said, I tend to agree that this isn't impacting every bottle, mostly because of the commenter on p. 12 (?) who noted that they had multiple bottles from the same date that were stored in identical conditions with significantly different outcomes. The other piece of evidence that supports this is that if the problem were the base beer, one would assume that lab testing would have caught the issue before they invested the time and expense in bottling. Furthermore, once the beer is bottled, catching any renegade yeast contamination becomes a little harder (especially if it's not the base) because you have to be lucky enough to open and test a bottle that was affected.

 

10/21/15 0804 14.3% kept in my basement since release, around 60 degrees. It was perfect. Praying my Prop is good too.

 

Prop may be not infected, but it is far far from good.

 

All due respect, if the first thing you think of when you hear of Bourbon County is contamination then you haven't been into craft beer very long. This is Goose Island's first contamination issue since 2010 Matilda.

 

Cracked one this weekend to see what all the fuss is about.

Given the scarcity of this beer and the fact that it's probably one of my all-time favorite beers, I don't typically drink a BCBS on just any given weekend. But thankfully, I thoroughly enjoyed it:

05NOV15, stored in a dark Michigan basement and tasted absolutely perfect.

Hopefully I can sit on the remaining 7 or 8 I have left without feeling the need to rush through them all.

 

If I had any bcbs left, I would immediately put it into the coldest (non-frozen) storage available.

All bottles may not be infected, but it's clear that this is a slow moving infection, and very cold temps are your best bet for keeping it at bay for a while.

 

Id choose an infected bcbs over a kbs anyday

 

BCBS was not scarce. If anyone could buy 9 or 10, and still have 7 or 8 remaining, well, that to me is the opposite of scarce. However, I do agree that was the batch i also opened this weekend, and it tasted perfect as well.

 

Was worried about my case dated 26-Oct 15 (purchased in Brooklyn, NY) so I opened one last night. Luckily, it was perfect.

Bottle info:
26OCT15 1234 14.3% ABV