Sixpoint to release Bourbon Barrel aged 3beans....

I'm curious what the best BA beers are that have seen less than four months in a barrel. I guess, at least, that a porter would stand a better chance, but like many have said there are few instances where a beer has spent such a little time in a barrel and has been amazing.

I've long blessed Sixpoint's presence and their commitment to this website but I'd be shocked if this beer has what I'd look for in a BA beer. Or that it will be available in south central PA.

 

"And why is it that others do not go south with longer aging but yours does."

There are a couple problems with your statement here. First of all, Goose Islands' two consecutive years of recalls show that others can go south with aging, so you may want to reconsider that statement. And they are not alone. Weldwerks, which ages their BAMA beer for 10 months in bourbon barrels, also had to issue a recall for their beer. There are many other documented instances of barrel-aged beers going south after spending a long time in the barrels.

Second of all, we never said our beers automatically go south with aging...we said depending on the beer, there reaches a point in time on the aging curve where the beer is no longer improving in flavor. And after that, it can go south. Whether that on the aging curve is one month, six months, twelve months, or 2+ years depends on the style of the beer and the barrel you put it into.

We have certain barrel-aged beers that we age for 1 year or more. We have beers that we age for 6 months. And we have beers that we age for 100 days. We will age and release the beer when we test and confirm that the beer has reached its optimum flavor profile.

 

Everything you say is arbitrary and subjective.

You have given no sources that suggest that time in a barrel is likely to lead to an infection. This is also the first that I have heard of this.

You state that you age it for the "optimal time to get the optimal flavor profile," where aging longer it will no longer be optimal. That's a completely subjective statement. I think that demand for long-BA stouts would tend to suggest longer=more developed flavor profile=better. This is true for spirits of course, too. If you wish to say science shows longer aging = more likely infection, please share these findings.

You are making the assertion (implicitly) that a risk of infection 5% of the time (or you are saying it is larger) is not worth it for a superior product. Again, the industry would tend to suggest otherwise. If you also don't have the ability to forgo such R&D sunk costs, that should worry consumers. You should be doing everything yocan can to make the highest quality product, which to me is much more about taste than a small chance of infection given proper QAQC.

You also made a comment about how many times barrels get used. You won't find an industry wide BA beer with a cult-like following that has a beer that is virtually across the board considered amazing a dominant where THE SAME beer goes into a barrel that gets used multiple times. You see this with Dragon's Milk, and look how it compares.

What you say about ABV and aging makes sense. The argument isn't that a lower ABV beer can inherently stand more aging. The argument is that it won't be as complex with as much of a barrel presence.

You say that you age them for the optimal time. Again, what a silly thing to say. Why would you say anything else? If you did not claim to do that, you'd be a fool. So obviously the length of time you age them must be the "optimal." That statement is therefore an empty attempt to claim platitudes you do not have.

 

Shane, what two years have Goose Island issued recalls?

 

Actually three different recalls, although two from the same year but issued on different dates and one preemptive recall from this year of the Barleywine - first beers recalled were produced in 2015 and recalled in January and July of 2016, and the 2016 production was announced preemptive recall in October 2017

There's a lot of assertions and statements in here and its going to be difficult to address all of them. But let's start off with the statement, "You have given no sources that suggest that time in a barrel is likely to lead to an infection. This is also the first that I have heard of this."

There are hundreds of years of empirical evidence here to back this up. There is a reason why the entire brewing industry converted from using wooden tanks to stainless steel tanks my friend. Wood is porous and a horribly dirty material for brewing. Even the cleanest wooden barrels are absolutely crawling with wild yeast and bacteria, which can be confirmed with any microscope powerful enough.

"This is true for spirits of course, too."

Comparing spirits aging to beer aging in a barrel is a dead-end my friend. There is not a single contaminant that can survive in 110-140+ proof liquid - that is what barrel-strength spirits are. Furthermore, spirits are distilled many times before they are even put into a barrel, which makes them free of contaminants and residual sugars and proteins needed for infection to take hold. Comparing this liquid to a beer that has only undergone primary fermentation without multiple rounds of distillation is not even in the same ballpark.

"You also made a comment about how many times barrels get used. You won't find an industry wide BA beer with a cult-like following that has a beer that is virtually across the board considered amazing a dominant where THE SAME beer goes into a barrel that gets used multiple times. You see this with Dragon's Milk, and look how it compares."

Well, we never mentioned anything about putting the same beer into the barrel. We only said "how many times that barrel was filled." Apparently you made the assumption that it was the same liquid going in and out of the barrel.

Even if its a different beer, aging can lead to the beer going south. Let's look at an example where the beer was aged for two years in a barrel that was reused. Under that common platitude two years would be a superior barrel-aged beer. But that does not prove to be true, because age does not always mean its better. Once again, to prove our point:

"Goose Island Brewmaster Jared Jankoski said Reserve Barleywine — a barleywine aged two years in barrels that aged whiskey for 35 years, and more recently held Goose Island's 2015 release of Rare Bourbon County Brand Stout — won't reach the public because "it doesn’t taste like what we wanted it to."

 

Chicagoan here.. Just want to say I appreciate Sixpoint's presence in this thread (or on BA in general); I think it's awesome how hands-on you guys are.. And I'll also preface by saying we've all been fed up with In-Bev and Goose's infections in the past, but I don't think using them to prove a point is fair.. You guys have constantly, throughout this thread, bashed Goose for having infection issues and for being corporate-owned.. Frankly, it's getting annoying..

And you're using it to solidify your product as superior, when in reality the vast majority of people would choose a Bourbon County over a BA 4Beans, etc.. I think we should respect Goose for taking chances using 2nd/3rd use barrels for things like OG Rare, King Henry, 2015 Rare, Reserve BW, etc. Go on Untappd; the top four or five beers in the all-time list are all bourbon counties..

Also, it's probably a blessing in disguise this happened to Reserve BW as there are five variants already. I imagine it'll be ready for release next year.

This all being said, I am excited to try BA 4Beans. A BA coffee stout, whether there is a strong bourbon presence or not, is an exciting prospect, especially at that price point.

Cheers to all

 

I really hope the box packaging indicates BA in some way to make it look different. I'd pass it by if its the same.

 

In the interest of accuracy, as @PA-Michigander alluded to above, your referenced article does not mention two consecutive years of recalls but rather two recall announcements within the same release year. A big difference imo.

I'm sorry but what the heck is a 'preemptive recall'? It's an oxymoron. How can a beer be recalled if it was never even released?

 

"Chicagoan here..." Ok buddy, you're going to have to recuse yourself then because of inherent bias.


"This all being said, I am excited to try BA 4Beans. A BA coffee stout, whether there is a strong bourbon presence or not, is an exciting prospect, especially at that price point."

Once again, keep in mind that this first release is a porter and not a stout. That being said, we will have a stout and other styles in the future - but its important to recognize the important difference between the totally different styles, and also the 3, 4, and 5Beans are all unique formulations within the porter category as well. cheers

Hah, I can see the confusion there @Jaycase but I know what you're saying. Should clarify by stating two consecutive years of products either being recalled from the trade or not released due to a production issue.

we thought of what you were saying and wanted to help you out with that...excuse the blue lines on here (grabbed a quick screenshot) but this is what the wrap will look like to help identify....

No one tries harder or invests more money in trying to convince people their beer is superior than AB-InBev. The global leader in advertising spending in the beer industry spent $1,920,000,000 (almost two billion dollars) in the United States alone last year. Maybe they should take your advice and just let the people decide?

 

Interesting to see how many folks who've never run a barrel aging program seem to think they know how it sould be done and how the decisions should be made.

 

I am not saying i know how it should be done. What I am saying is that the constant spin that this beer is great and everything is optimal is just dizzyingly infuriating. More time was devoted to why they are doing amazing things, trying to convince us that it is so great, than really showing/proving any statements. This all while bashing other companies (implicitly and explicitly) whom do something different, and put out a (based on ratings) far superior product.

You should not work this hard to convince me your beer is great. But they are.
I appreciate interaction with consuners. I dislike constant spin with an obvious attempt to capitalize on a past infection issue by the gold standard in the industry, simply because they were purchased by ABI. If they were still craft, would this happen? Probably not.

I don't like who sixpoint is as a brand if they are representative of the type of campaign being waged in this thread.

 

Just as an FYI, time in barrel does not necessarily lead to better spirits. The same run of a distillate is used to fill several barrels but once in the barrels they actually begin to age differently, depending on the characteristics of the barrel. The liquid in the barrels is periodically sampled by an experienced taster/blender who then decides whether the particular barrel should be bottled or keep for further aging. Only those barrels that are subjectively chosen by the blender for further aging are allowed to continue to do so.

So by the time the spirits reach extreme age in the barrel there are often only a very few of the original barrels from a particular distillation remaining. Even then extending time in the barrels does not create a "better" spirit. There are malt whisky distilleries who will release something like a 12 year old, an 18 year old, and, say a 23 year old. (With prices going up to match the time/labor/amount of spirits involved.) It's not unheard of for a panel composed of experienced tasters to decide that, say, the 18 year old is the optimum age for that particulary distillery's whisky.

 

This is well-said

 

If the shoe doesn't fit....

I look at what he is doing quite differently than you seem to. In my view he is explaining the decision making processes the brewer goes though, how they reach those decisions, etc. The fact that he includes what are seen as examples of other folks mistakes simply shows me that he and the brewery crew are busily learning from the mistakes of others.

(But then I've been having occasional Sixpoint beers for some years now and actually do find them to be better than some of the other beers I've had.)

 

I take your point seriously and I believe it is valid.

My point was not meant to be universally true, but rather a gradient. I.e. a directional result based on averaging.

Say the average years in barrels for aged Bourbon to be "exquisite" is 12 years (ie here is some threshold for it to be considered a gold standard). Any Bourbon released after a mere 4 years would be expected to be inferior.

That's the same principle I am arguing here. I'd argue that the gold standard in BA stouts (yes this is a porter, fine) is 1 year for a superior beer. Aging for a mere 4ish months is expected to produce an inferior product by comparison. Could it be great? Could be. Expected to be as great as one aged 1 year? Nope.

Under that guise, I take issue with the spin-sell strategy that their brand and this beer is the anomaly without any evidence to suggest consumers feel this way. This is further amplified by my feelings in my immediate post above.

 

[/QUOTE]

There is no bashing going on here; we're all working together to try to get at the truth surrounding an important brewing/cellaring process. There is a respectful discussion taking place as to whether or not extended time in the barrel will automatically indicate a superior product. Our position, stated many times, is that the suitable beer will improve with age up until a point - and after that point, it no longer improves, and it risks going south. And once it goes south, the beer is most likely fatally flawed and needs to be dumped or recalled. This "maturation curve" is dependent on what beer went into the barrel and what type of barrel was used (along with a myriad of other factors, but these two are critical points).

This is no different than dry-hopping a beer or any other time-sensitive process. Dry-hop a beer for two hours and it will barely make an impact. Dry-hop a beer for a week and now you have something close to an optimized aroma contribution. Dry-hop a beer for one year and you no longer are getting the benefits from aging - you have most likely made the beer much worse.

There are plenty of recent examples of barrel-aged beers that were extended for a long time in the barrels that went south, validating our position. There also are plenty of examples of beers that were aged in a barrel for a long time that tasted exceptional, which also validates our position. As stated, it is up to the brewer to determine the optimal time that each beer/recipe/formulation should spend in the barrel to hit the right flavor. In other words, where is it on the maturation curve? Is it still improving? This is part of the craft of barrel-aging.

We do not have any claims of making superior products over all others. We sat down as a team and tasted and formulated the final version of these porters, based upon the three different types of barrels we used (Bourbon, Rye Whiskey, and Port Barrels) and came up with the right blend for these three distinct porters. Your comments about ratings are irrelevant at this point; none of these barrel-aged porters have even been commercially released yet. However, if you want to talk to some who have actually tried them before release, you can ask @frozyn and @jrnyc and see what their thoughts are.

It is also important to note that the 3Beans has Guatemalan Finca El Injerto Coffee in it, so that should be treated as an exotic ingredient. Its essentially a coffee & chocolate porter that was aged in bourbon barrels. The 4Beans and 5Beans are also porters with exotic ingredients in them - a far cry from a pure bourbon barrel aged stout. We intentionally and deliberately wanted to start our barrel-aging program with these line of beers because they are different and unique offerings. You currently cannot get a 4-pack or 6-pack of cans of barrel-aged porters with this dynamic range of flavors. There will be new formulations coming out as well.....and as we said in a prior post, we will have a strong bourbon barrel aged stout for you to taste in 2018, so perhaps we can do that together. If you want to visit NYC and try them at the brewery, I'd be happy to conduct a personal tasting.

 

any chance this makes its way to TX??

 

Yes, TX will be getting an allotment. However, due to your crazy and arcane labeling laws, there may be a slight delay between when you get it and other areas get it. Contact the TABC for any feedback.

 

Ha ha...of course. Thanks for the reply though!

 

I have to take issue with these two points. With Bourbon there is a sharp distinction between age and maturity. As recently as 50 years ago new make Bourbon entered the barrel between 100 and 105 proof which would reach maturity in about 4 years. Under modern practice the entry proof is 125 and the whisky needs more time, say 6 years or so, to reach the same level of maturity. All Master Distillers of Bourbon agree that between 7-8 years the barrels have been depleted of wood sugars, vanillins, char influence, in short all they have to contribute and the Bourbon is at an optimum of age and maturity. Wood barrels are organic aging vessels and each is unique which is why two barrels filled on the same day and aged side by side in the rack can produce two whiskys with distinctively different flavor profiles. Some barrels do continue to age gracefully past 8 years but the percentage is small. Most don't and of that most a good number start to run downhill faster than a racehorse. The only gold standard for a 12 year old Bourbon is the extra gold in the pockets of Distillers catering to the whims of age conscious consumers who really have little understanding of how the process works.

Aging beer in barrels involve the same organic principles in that each is a unique vessel and therein lies the rub. You can't tell a barrel what to do. Even if the thing could read it would ignore instruction and go it's own way.
That's why I rely on the brewers to decide at what point their aged beer is optimum to bottle and I don't care if it's 3 months or 3 years. There simply is no arbitrary standard of time except in the minds of those who wish it so.

To tell a brewer when their stuff is ready according to my time table is to state that I know more than they do, which I don't, and I'm a little more knowledgeable about this stuff than the average bear. I suppose Geek is the better word but I like bear and it's hard to put bear and geek in the same sentence.