Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

Wow that is like twelve years of discussion on this topic(s) in a paragraph. I think I have seen every sentence as a thread title.

 

There is a rather large difference between someone's preference in vintages and someone's preferences for non-infected BCBS and it isn't *subjective.

For comparison sake, it's like buying a new Hyundai with a 10-year, 100,000 mile warrenty (ages for 5 years) and then having the engine blow one year in with 10,000 miles on it and being stuck with the bill. What you are saying is that you should have driven 101,000 miles in year one. *Not the best analogy, but I can't believe people are arguing this.

 

I think he's trolling, no one can be that naive.

 

serious? you've been trying for the longest. your argument doesn't work, no matter how many beers are consumed. "It's your fault that they fucked up" isn't going to get it. that kind of logic only sounds feasible when clients speak @ circle time @ AA support meetings.

the whole exercise of patience here is GI trying to reconstruct or come up with a workable story HOW THEY SCREWED UP - not how we did. the beer is defective, not because we waited or aged it. GI, itself threw out a segment of beer before the release. how you figure you'll convince us we somehow fucked up their defective release, i'm not even sure there's a quantifiable measurement to describe the amount of ludicrous you're working with.

 

How they screwed up?

That's pretty simple actually. They had a barrel aging program.

They should just eliminate it then nobody screws up in the future and all issues of who's to blame and/or responsible just go away.

 

well. maybe saying "they" screwed up is too sharp? the beer they produced & released definitely appears to be screwed up. how it got to be, has nothing to do with : i didn't drink it fast enough or other cockamamie suggestions. lol

 

Liked for use of the word cockamamie.

 

except it they are "infected" "sour" "off" or continue to cry daily. to each there own. mine were great

 

Please keep posting. It's like the New York Times crossword puzzle trying to English your posts up.

 

can i assume you meant to put accept there too?

 

Perhaps the label should be changed from "Develops in the bottle up to 5 years" to "Develops in the bottle up to 5 years, though you may not like it". Seriously, this is saying that the beer basically develops out for 5 years, after that.... If I started finding out that my meat and canned goods were going bad in 1/10th the expiration date, you can bet I am going to be pissed. So yes I can see why people are pissed here. I was going to take one of my 3 regulars to Florida for vacation, but now scared once I cross that state line it will go bad

 

I've had a few older vintages and Ive never got any type of soy sauce hits, especially as recent as a 2012 vintage. I will say I've had 5 year old bottles and I would say it's hit or miss, I get oxidation on some older bottles. Not off per say, just past prime and a bit stale, but nothing close to cloying.

 

I had one of my few remaining bottles of 2012 BCS on New Year's Eve & it was in the top 20 beers I've ever had. No soy sauce at all. I'm not a big fan of BCS fresh, but give it 2-4 years & it's like little elves are continually at work under the bottle cap. Which makes the potential infection worse for me, because I won't touch any of my (massive stash) of three bottles until 2017 or later.

 

Ive got 6 regular left, I've drank 4 all have been perfect, also have one Regal and one Rare cooling. IMO Bcbs starts getting great with 2-3 years on it, I'm not rushing it. The bottles I've tasted have been perfect, I have no reason to think they'll magically turn to shit in a year or so. They might but there's no indications on my bottles to make me believe the worst.

 

Beer temp is holding steady!



This Thursday will be the 2-week mark. I've got 5 people committed to joining for the blind tasting, which will take place this Friday. Would still love to have a bottle of 21OCT15 join the mix, but doesn't look plausible at this point.

I'll be sure to post detailed results following the tasting. Cheers!

 

What if they just said there was a very small chance of "spoilage"?

Given what the beer is, I would still take it

On topic I have only bought regulars (and enjoyed all)

 

We drank a vertical ('12,'13,'14,'15) in December. All were outstanding. Soy sauce? No freakin' way.

 

TLDR version: obscure lacto strain first identified as a beer spoiler in 2014. Very slow growing, and very not widely known, so it didn't show up on in house testing. The labs they went to had to jump through a lot of hoops just to get the stuff to grow in the samples. It was a very long process, they didn't want to issue a "we think we may have found something, but we're not sure" statement. Still nailing down where in the process it was introduced.

The bacteria is only in the coffee and barleywine, the bad prop and regular seem to be a byproduct of the things the bacteria did without the live bacteria being there.

 

thank you!

 

Can you explain this part? I guess I don't understand what that means.