PASTE: Best (Non-Barrel Aged) Imperial Stouts

I agree that if you taste FBS objectively, it doesn't live up to its reputation.

 

While I LOVE Storm King, it's definitely not for everyone, and is a different beast when compared to most stouts. It drinks more like a black IPA on steroids when fresh than a traditional Imperial Stout.

 

So, let’s discuss the ‘crazy aunt in the attic’: the topic of Imperial Stout and cellaring.

@spelingchampeon posted: “No Brooklyn Black Chocolate?”

@jmdrpi commented: “Kind of weird to include a 3+ year old beer in the tasting.”

@Whey2Hoppy stated: “While I LOVE Storm King, it's definitely not for everyone, and is a different beast when compared to most stouts. It drinks more like a black IPA on steroids when fresh than a traditional Imperial Stout.”

I don’t have an extensive beer cellar but one of the beer styles that I think benefits from aging is the Imperial Stout style.

I have a half-dozen bottles of Stone Imperial Russian Stout in my basement from the 2014 release. I opened the first bottle a few weeks ago (over the holidays) and it drank beautifully! In the past I drank a freshly released Stone IRS and I did not enjoy that beer at all. I have learned over the years that this beer is best with a minimum of two years of aging and optimally more than two years.

A couple of months ago I bought a case of Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout and that case will remain unopened in my basement for a minimum of one year and I will consume that case over a few years. It has been my consistent experience that Brooklyn BCS is too hot from alcohol taste when it is fresh.

For my palate Imperial Stouts generally improve with bottle aging.

Now, back to the case of Victory Storm King. I once conducted a tasting with my wife where we drank a fresh Storm King and a one year aged Storm King. The hop flavor was greatly diminished in the one year version. My wife preferred to aged (less hoppy) Storm King while I enjoyed the fresh version. The weird aspect here is that my wife is a HUGE hophead so it kind of surprised me that she preferred the less hoppy version.

I am bringing this topic up for general discussion purposes with no intention of criticizing the Paste blind taste test of Imperial Stouts. While I would be greatly interested to read how they would have ranked 1-2 year old versions of all of the beers they taste tested I fully recognize that this is a commitment that would be onerous for them.

Cheers!

 

Horses for courses as they say, that is why i like it better fresh.

 

Fair enough, I love hoppy stouts, but could definitely see someone not liking them.

 

Just to make sure:

• You perceive the alcohol hotness in fresh BCS?
• You enjoy this hotness?

Cheers!

 

yes

 

Hence why everyone should drink one of something fresh before cellaring the rest. I'm one of those weirdos who actually prefers fresh 120 minute IPA to the aged by a wide margin, and if I never experimented for myself, just aging all of it, I never would have known, and it wouldn't be in my top 5 of all time.

 

I fully agree here!

Of the three example Imperial Stouts I have mentioned I prefer the Storm King fresh but I am a big non-fan of fresh Brooklyn BCS and Stone IRS.

I would not be extremely surprised if some BA stated they are 100% opposite here and they prefer fresh BCS and IRS and aged Storm King.

We all have our own unique palates and our own unique preferences in what we seek in a beer.

Cheers!

 

About the only beer that i enjoy more with a little age on it is Bigfoot which strikes me as to sweet fresh. It's better about 6 months to a year after bottling.

 

Only since you are inviting comments, I have never had an old stout that I preferred to a newer one. Most recently, I have had aged vs newer Storm King, Founders Imperial, and Expedition. My experience in this is very limited however... and I know it is not as deep as yours (and naturally it's a matter of personal taste). Actually, I've never experienced any aged beer that I've liked compared to a newer one... with the exception of some strong ales (meaning barley wines / old ales etc.) That's not to say that I generally prefer aged strong ales to newer ones (because I don't), just that I've had aged strong ales that I've really enjoyed that were old. On this matter, I might just change my mind completely, but that's how it's been for me so far.

 

As I posted above:

"I would not be extremely surprised if some BA stated they are 100% opposite here..."

Chris, you seem to be an 'opposite' sort of fellow!?!

Cheers!

 

These nation-wide lists can be tough, as most people will never have a chance to try the vast majority. I find regional lists to be a bit more interesting, if only for the reason that it's likely that I will have had access to more of the tested brews and have a stronger frame of reference.

 

Interesting list - though I've only had 10 that made their top 40, and 13 from the list that didn't make the cut. Stunned that Vanilla Hazelnut Zhukov didn't make the top 40.

That's my favorite new beer from 2016 and in my top 10 all-time stouts from the 175+ I've reviewed here on the site.

Totally agree with you guys - they rule out barrel aging, but everything else goes? It makes me wonder exactly what they were looking for in the beer to determine its rank.

If it were an additive-free sampling, I think we'd see Old Raspy in the top 40. And Yeti. And Narwhal. And Stone. And so on...

I was surprised it came in at #3 - and I really like it, and I'd highly recommend it - but number three?

I might give Soft DK a try - I've passed on that repeatedly because the name alludes to shit, which I find off-putting, but maybe its worth a try...

 

Hey bud, you offering to share any of those pictured beers with us?

 

...and 13 out of 62 "not ranked".

 

I guess they did not test Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout. There is no way it is not one of the top 101 Imperial Stouts.

 

Right. If it's not on the unranked list, they didn't go out and buy it and/or Brooklyn didn't send it.

 

Funny, I tried Vanilla Hazelnut MZ at Cigar City and thought it was a total disappointment. An absolute sweet mess in my eyes and I'm a fan of normal Zhukov. Zhukov's Final Push is the far far far better varient IMO.

As for some of the others, I've always found Old Raspy overrated. I agree with the list for the most part, though I would have Stone IRS in the top 40 for sure.

 

I think Brooklyn Black Chocolate was a good beer a decade ago but just pales now compared to what's available. I also think it is very inconsistent aged. I'm not a big fan of it fresh, but I've had some good bottles at 2-3 years. I've also had some terrible bottles that age and I haven't had much success personally aging them.

As for Stone IRS, if you think '14 is good right now, sit on it for another 3-4 years! Stone IRS at 5-6 years becomes a total chocolate bomb, just awesome.

As for the last statement, I actually don't agree. I think very few non-barrel aged stouts improve with age (and even a lot of barrel aged I prefer fresh). They will almost never be as balanced as they are fresh. Hoppy stouts tend to get very awkward at 1-2 years of age, sometimes improving with more time, but usually never improving to as good as they were fresh. I've had so many examples of this that I've all but stopped aging most imperial stouts. Kate the Great/Mott the Lesser is a great example for me. Amazing fresh on tap, never comes close aged in the bottle. Never.