Goose Island Bourbon County 2017

We've been getting 2nd and 3rd drops at various shops around the twin cities. Maybe thats whats going on in OK?

 

No. This is the first go around here in Oklahoma. I called around Black Friday and was told beginning of the year. Last year the BCBS came in around Black Friday just like everywhere else.

 

Same. Got some in 2016 in November. The 2017 still hasn't made an appearance yet. My shop owner says "not yet" I'm like dude, its not coming.

 

If I had a nickel for every time some craft shop owner didn't know WTF they were talking about...

 

Wow that is crazy.

 

2016 was my first try at BCBBW and I was not impressed. It was OK, but not balanced. Overly sweet and had a lot if ethanol esters. Just did a mini vert and while 2016 has gotten better, fresh 2017 is way better IMHO. Am I alone on this?

Also, I've heard different reports, but is this year the first that they used fresh barrels for Barleywine?

 

2016 was the first time they used second use barrels for BCBBW. They made the change due to the infection issues from 2015. It had always been third use barrels prior to that.

 

^^this.

but here is what i wonder in regards to what @brewaddict asked. 2016 switched to second use as a result of known infection as you pointed out. before GI knew the infection was real, i would assume they had no reason to believe they needed to discard the spent BCBS barrels they previously used each release.

so for 2016, you have to wonder whether they had already put anticipated BW into spent 2015 barrels they were later forced to discard once the infection was confirmed, then throw together a newly brewed batch. depending on available time-frame & sorting out the issues, some of what brewaddict cited might be a shorter period than usual of aging in barrels.

 

Wish I had it handy, but in one of the Grit and Grain videos, they talk about time in barrel. I believe the quote is 8-12 months. If eight months is correct, its entirely likely they knew before considering the infected reports were coming in as early as Dec15/Jan16.

 

so then after calling me chicken little, lol, for basically asserting the same (they knew in advance of first reports); based on numerous accounts of their employees saying a majority of Coffee was discarded pre bottling - now you concur GI knew prior???

are we also conceding they threw out all the BCBS barrels on the basis of infection but then continued to claim they didn't believe the beer was infected, months after discarding the vessels the beer lived in? tell me more. please.

if GI were smart they'd exercise their Miranda right. the more they talk about anything the more the thinking public is accidentally clued in on the various aspects of their never ending story that point to serious deceit.

 

I never called anyone a name. It's a saying!!!! Sheesh!

Secondly, your twisting this again. I said it's likely they suspected or knew prior to 2016 going in barrels if they only age for 8 months. I doubt they knew at bottling 2015 time or even near release time. 2015 tasted great out of the gate.

 

don't get mad, man, you know what i meant. i thought it was hilarious regardless.

we can't know for sure but let's think about what's implied.

-for 2016 GI dropped the 1-2-3 process because of the known 2015 barrel infection.
the 1-2-3 process = refilling emptied BCBS barrels.

-you contend that they succeeded in *releasing* both BCBS & BCBW on Black Friday.

-you simultaneously contend that GI did not know of the infection by the time of release.

- does that mean you are contending GI bottled BCBS then held onto the emptied 2015 BCBS barrels until after release date? then later discovered an issue tossing said barrels before putting any 2016 BCBW in them?

- my assumption. GI would know it's not a good idea to keep empty barrels laying around to dry out. i suspect they would refill the BCBS barrels as quickly as possible / as close to BCBS' bottling dates as possible.

- unless they do keep the barrels waiting empty, it doesn't work for me that they didn't know but also simultaneously did know.

 

It is an interesting question whether they wanted/intended to switch over the entire time or ex post infection.

 

Like @Beer_Economicus mentioned, it is an interesting question if they intended to switch the entire time. I'm not sure what the time frame is on 2nd use barrels before they can no longer be used. I imagine it is difficult to fill them immediately, so they do sit for some time. Due to factors like brewing capacity, having a different location for the barrel house, not knowing exactly when regular is going to be removed from the barrels, etc.

How long they sat empty in 2015 is a good question. 2015 BCS barrel removal happened as late as Nov. Early December was first infection report. That is not a lot of time. GI could have made the decision to go with 1st use around then. Perhaps they even filled some and dumped!

As I've said before, my belief is GI wouldn't knowingly release bad BC beers. As the saying goes, "Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair." I think they are smart enough not to release a sub-standard product.

 

But in fact the did just that.

 

But it wasn't known to be substandard at the time of release.

 

Oops, that should read "knowingly release a sub-standard product"

We all know they released a sub-standard infected product that turned into shit...that's pretty well documented.

 

I'd love to see a bit more information on how blending and bottling goes. Hypothetically, due to barrel variance, some are ready at 8mo while others are ready at 12mo. From the standpoint of production, I imagine it's easy to go into the warehouse in August, taste 200 barrels, and fine 20 that are ready, and so "ok, let's make the Barleywine, and we'll dump and then fill these in 7 days." -Or, however long it takes to make the Barleywine.

This would be a logical answer to why barrels range from 8-12mo, along with the fact that they are ready at different time periods. Same for BCBS.

That said, there's very little reason to believe that they wouldn't have dumped some. The only reason they would not have is if they were never planning to use 3rd use barrels ever again. Since "BC Barleywine Reserve" went into Rare at that very same time, it's entirely possible that the second coming of King Henry was intentional to kill the mini king-henry that was BCBBW in spent BCBS barrels, Pretty smart move. Take away the BCBBW that everyone loves, build back up respect, and then say "Hey, Here's The second Coming of King Henry!". That hype could drive a nail through any Florida or California beer.

 

BCBS 2015 is like the OJ verdict of beer but with more convoluted conspiracy theories.

Not guilty.
What if he did it?
He DID do it!
No, actually he didn't!
But what if he did?
He had someone else do it!
Did someone else do it?
Did GI - I mean OJ - know it was happening?

'Tis a case for the ages that all of us will be re-litigating around smokey computer screens in dark rooms forever.

 

logically why would they do that? the spent BCBS barrels are a FREE resource for re-purposing. so they just up and decided instead of using their own free bread & butter, let's burn some of the 2nd use supply on BCBW instead of reusing the free resource already in our possession, like we've been doing 3 years straight???

you noticed they tried to 1-2-3 their failed variant this last release? the conclusion there is the current barrel supply seems unable to support the process any longer. they abandoned the 1-2-3 on 2016 BCBW not because they intended to discontinue using the free resource. it was because the free resource was not viable based on the infection. they thought they might be able to pull it off this year on the back of the spent Rare 2.0 barrels because there was no outbreak of infected Rare 2.0. and as said you see that failed too? that's the commonsense conclusion there.

this is what i assume happened - they probably did fill the BCBS barrels that weren't marked for destruction right away with intended 2016 BCBW & then learned they needed to destroy the whole lot. which is why i proposed the actual released 2016 BCBW probably had a shorter aging period & turn around time in barrels. - as they likely had to brew a whole new batch & get it in newly received barrels for 2nd use.

TBH - i'm not hung up on them "knowingly releasing bad BC beers". bad beer happens. what i have a problem with is they had enough in house evidence, beforehand, to IMMEDIATELY take concerns & complaints seriously. they failed there miserably pretending to be skeptical & optimistic.