Is Double Dry Hopped (DDH) Innovative?

Interesting that they mention volatile thiols and glycosides.

 

Thiols are where it is at. Those sulfur compounds are a very small part of the oils, but we humans are hyper sensitve to those.

 

Thanks Jeff...yeah double dry hopping as stated in the article is a big advantage for pro brewers using large cylindroconical fermenters. Pellet dry hops will settle to the bottom of the fermenter...so unless the brewery is using a recirculating dry hop (like a Torpedo)...than adding the dry hops in stages can greatly up the hop oil profile. On a homebrew scale, that just isn't as much the case since most homebrewers aren't using CCV fermenters.

If you compare Trilliums line up (say Summer St. vs. DDH Summer St.) you can clearly tell the boost that a second charge of dry hops can add in a CCV. They're using a TON of hops in there too...so while some may call JC's tactic of call it DDH Congress St. and jacking the price a ploy...I definitely can tell the difference between the two. If a brewery used to add 2 lbs./barel dry hops, but now adds 2 separate 1 lb/barrel increments but everyone notices a marked increase in hop aroma...but ups the price tag and calls it DDH, then yeah, that's a marketing ploy. But I feel like in Trillium's case, it's providing info for consumers to make their own decisions and I appreciate it.

 

As for DDH being innovative, in my research into the development of the west coast IPA and if my memory serves me, it may have been Tommy Arthur who was the first double dry hopper in that west coast arena...obviously Vinnie Cilurzo would have been in the mix as well I think right afterwards. Stone would have been an early potential player there too...as the west coast IPA race started heating up back in the late 90s early 00s.

 

The bit that they didn't go into was how to transform the sulfur (and glutathione) bound thiols, as well as the glycosides, into their aroma-active forms. That's some interesting stuff, there.

 

I brought up this critique of Tired Hands in a thread back in January, which created a spirited debate. You can read starting here, it lasts for a few pages.

My main points in that thread were that its strictly a marketing term, doesn't mean anything because it's not defined like ABV or IBUs, and beers like Pliny the Elder have been doing it for 10+ years, without the need to call it out. One of my posts from that discussion:

"But calling something "Double Dry Hopped" is no different than calling something "Dry Hopped". Because dry hopping is just a brewing process that can mean a wide range of things. It can mean you added 1 pound of hops, or 10 pounds of hops. In 1 addition, or in 10 additions. For 1 day, or for 10 days. During active fermentation, during secondary fermentation, or during conditioning."

 

Yup. In this previous thread I said this:

 

Yup, where does it end? If a brewer adds 1 hop pellet roughly every 7 minutes for 5 days, they could sell a "1000x Dry Hopped" beer! Maybe Dogfish Head could brew a special version of their 90 minute IPA like this.

 

I don't have a strong enough opinion either way on pilsners to agree or disagree, particularly since I don't drink them often. I merely meant that pilsners are being discussed quite a bit now, more so than in recent years past, and yet the pilsner style is much, much older than the 8 or 9 years OP sited for DDH brewing methods being introduced. Just because it isn't brand new, doesn't mean it can't be trendy.

I am interested to see what people do with pilsners, just as long as they don't turn them into hoppy water marketed as a "pilsner".

 

Obviously some people are just using it as a marketing term. This always happens.

But doesn't anyone else think that that some breweries mean the dry hop rate is doubled? I.e. A Trillium Fort Point Pale ale hypothetically is dry-hopped with 2 lbs/barrel, and then a DDH version is dry-hopped with 4lbs/barrel?

Or if it is not literally double (the way a Double IPA is not literally double strength IPA), then "Double dry-hopped" at least means they upped the dry-hop rate significantly.

I really don't get why people think it means splitting the regular dry hop into two separate charges, but leaving the volume of dry-hop the same.

 

But not every beer described as DDH is a variation of an existing beer. The beer in question in the Tired Hands discussion was a beer they were selling for the first time. There was no point of reference for the consumer.

 

I have to say - all of these American hopped Pilsners are terrible - across the board. People should just stick to their IPAs - I don't understand the need to sell these overhopped Pils. Every beer style will taste the same just be labeled - "hoppy pils" "hoppy blond" "hoppy brown", etc

 

Have you ever tried Peak Organic Fresh Cut Pilsner?

Cheers!

 

Meh. I prefer wet hopped. Sorry for the diversion..

 

I had something by Peak awhile ago and really didn't like it. Also recently had a 6er of Lakefront Organic ESB and also really didn't like it - so 0-2 on organic beers.
Reading about Peak Fresh-Cut it sounds like an American IPL - so I really don't get the point of calling it a Pilsner.

 

Have no idea if innovative, but I belief there is a difference in taste. Wish I could do a side by side with say some Trillium brews, since they do the different variants of their IPAs/DIPAs. That would be a great comparison. Any brewery that does this would be great, Trillium just comes to mind, quickly.

Cheers!

 

Well, I can report that it tasted like a Pilsner to my palate.

I recognize that you have an established 'bias' here but in the future you may want to give the Fresh Peak Fresh Cut a try. You may find that your statement of "across the board" does not apply here.

Or maybe not.

Cheers!

P.S. Ideally this Fresh Cut drinking experience would be done blind: somebody would pour the beer into a glass and hand it to you with the only knowledge of the beer is a Pilsner.

 

I may be alone in thinking this, but "wet-hopping" is one of the worst examples of novelty beer brewing techniques out there.

 

Chinook, Citra and Centennial sounds like an IPL to me - I mean I really enjoy "C" hops, and if I see it I'll give it a try. I just think its a blatant bastardization of style disguised as "innovation". Not picking on Peak - certainly that's the trend all around these days. If it wan't called a Pils I wouldn't complain I guess is my point.

 

I fully understand your thinking here since I also thought the same thing for a long period of time and then I just I decided I should just try the beer.

Again, I had similar thoughts prior to drinking the beer.

Needless to say you should try this beer for yourself but for my palate when I drank this beer it tasted like a Pilsner to me.

The 'trick' here is to approach this beer with as open a mind as possible. I was trying to think how I could have my wife serve this beer to me blind without me knowing which beer it was but at the time I drank this beer this was the only commercial Pilsner I had on hand so there was no way for me not to know which beer she was serving me.

Cheers!