Twin Cities Bottle Hunt - 2019

Aren't most BA beers identified by the year of release, and not the year they went into the barrels?

 

I don't know if there's any standard. The (great) Birch's Oud Bruin bottles originally released late last year after two years in the barrel are labeled as 2016, and that's a beer for which the barrel-aging is actually essential to the intended taste of the product, not just a gimmick add-on. If I had my druthers, that convention would be the standard. If you want to hype a release, however, it probably helps to make it seem brand new and not something that might've been sitting around on shelves for a while. My guess is this midstream change will only add to the confusion that @BillManley cited as the reason for the change.

I hope Surly recognizes that good old-fashioned Surly Darkness is the special beer. The variants, including the barrel-aged version, can be fun little asides, better suited for beer festivals than bottles, but they shouldn't overshadow true Darkness or, more importantly, influence changes to the modern classic base recipe or process. The idea that an imperial stout can't be special if it isn't crammed into a barrel or stuffed full of other flavorings should be anathematic to craft beer fans. Frankly, I don't think Darkness in particular lends itself well either to barrel-aging or variants (the flavors of Simcoe, for instance, tend to clash with flavoring adjuncts), and Surly could make better pastry-ized and barrel-aged imperial stouts with a separate base recipe,* but that Darkness brand is pretty powerful and likely helps juice the sales of the variants, even if those variants aren't particularly good.

* Note that Goose Island doesn't release the base to Bourbon County Stout, as it's a recipe designed specifically for barrel-aging.

 

Only disagree as '15 BA is a top 3 best I've ever had. Right below BCBS Vanilla Rye. But BA beers are my jam as are non-BA imperials.

 

For those interested in trying the new BA Darkness (see how I avoided referencing a vintage?) before committing to purchasing a bottle you can have a sample at France 44 on Friday.

 

Is Surly BA Darkness '19 in any Twin Cities stores yet? I called Zipps' earlier today and they did not have it, and told me they did not know when they would get it. Thanks.

 

Total Wine Minnetonka had at least 6 cases on the floor last night. $24.99/each.

 

TW Bloomington did not have it out yet as of yesterday evening.

 

Liquor Barrel Golden Valley had it at $23.99 yesterday. It sounds like they got a decent amount of it.

 

This quote literally made me laugh out loud... you make it sound like I'm a hostage.
Police: "Blink once if you're in trouble"
Me: **blinks twice**

Honestly though, I'm not trying to BS you or sell you a bill of goods. Your palate is your palate. If you think 2018 tastes noticeably sweeter than it did in the past, I can't argue with that. We each have our own set of tools to evaluate beers. I don't taste how you taste and that's a good thing. There are definitely folks here that agree with you about the sweetness.
I can assure you, there was not a plan hatched by Surly to make Darkness sweeter to appeal to a different audience. Darkness does just fine on its own.

 

This is pretty interesting. Do you know why the ABV of some of those early (late 2000's) batches was only 9.6% as opposed to 12%? They literally WERE under-attenuated. The equations called for XX lbs of grain with YY brewhouse efficiency which should equal ZZ% alcohol. At the time, Surly didn't / couldn't handle a beer that size and didn't make enough to blend with for better consistency. The ABVs ended-up where it ended-up. And this is what I find so interesting about this argument... The early batches were quantifiably / provably sweeter from an analytic perspective. There is / was so much sugar left after fermentation.
Also about the tweaking over time... Candi Sugar and syrup is glucose. Brewer's Crystals (in use today) are also glucose. Glucose is glucose...Brewers crystals come from a different supplier (BSG) The OG shift comes from better process control and brewhouse predictability meaning we use the same amount of grain, but the mash temps, mash density, and sugar additions actually get us to the proper original gravity from which to begin. When the bottles say 12% now, they mean it, and have for some time (at least since 2016).

 

The ABV definitely has crept up over the years. I've tried every vintage of Darkness. I don't remember early Darkness being particularly sweet by imperial stout standards, but my palate may not have been as sensitive then. I do remember early Darkness being the most remarkably hoppy/bitter imperial stout I had tried to that point, and that bitterness could've balanced the sweetness. But that would imply that the beer is less bitter today than it was originally (note the "low IBU" claim on Surly's website). Do you have any explanation for the "low IBU" angle? I'm quite positive that wasn't originally the case. RateBeer, which, in its heyday, had as close to as impeccable database as you'd find for beer, has Darkness as 9.6% ABV and 85 IBU based on the 2006 entry. I in fact used to say that Darkness might as well be a Double Black IPA; this was prior to the existence of Blakkr (which needs to come back, by the way).

I remember being surprised not all that long ago when Surly was throwing around 12% ABV for Darkness. I'm pretty sure that was 2017, the first time Surly put the ABV on the bottles (I think). That definitely wasn't the case (or at least not the claim) for quite a while. I'm skeptical of the claim that Darkness wasn't properly attenuated until recently, because that just hasn't been my tasting experience. I still think there's something else going on (not that you or anyone else is hiding, just that you might not be aware of).

Linked is a review of 2010 Darkness that lists the ABV at 10.3%.

Linked is a post that lists 2016 Darkness at 10.6%, apparently quoting Surly's website at the time (although that link no longer works).

 

Two things: One, the website isn't always gospel regarding beer specs. We fix errors as we become aware of them, but there are undoubtedly errors there. There is so much data there that over time has been compiled into sheets and uploaded, that it could come down to whomever entered the spec sheet info at that time, might have just used the wrong word. To reiterate that, this is what the website says for 2008 Darkness: 12% ABV, Loy "IBU" Brewers Crystals and DME. So that one year is literally an anomaly for various reason. I suspect it is simply a mistake and I'll look at the actual tasting / brew sheet as soon as I'm able.

Secondly: There is a drastic misunderstanding of what IBU is.
IBU is a quantifiable thing. International Bitterness Units are the amount of isomerized alpha acids in solution. It can be measured and factual (although the number of IBU can decrease over time.) This number is completely useless to the consumer without having other factors in consideration.

The more useful assessment is Perceived Bitterness. Perceived bitterness takes into account the amount of residual sugars (final or terminal gravity) that remain in the beer combined with the actual amount of isohumulone resulting in a qualifiable answer. The rub is, that one man's "bitter" is another man's "crisp." I may think something is incredibly bitter, you might disagree and I can't tell you you're wrong because I don't taste like you. Your mouth is your mouth. The "IBU" numbers on the website are actually Perceived bitterness amounts. (Low is obviously not a number.) We use IBU as shorthand rather than perceived bitterness. A beer can have 100 IBUs and not be particularly bitter if it also has, say, a 6 Plato finishing gravity. Darkness is and always will be a 80-90 IBU beer, but that doesn't make it bitter. Low or Moderate can be arbitrary. I would call a beer like #Merica more noticeably bitter with far fewer IBUs

There's also hoppy, which is its own category and also qualifiable and not really in this debate, but since I'm at it... A beer can have low IBUs and still be hoppy as hell (Almost all NE-style IPAs) and vice versa. A beer can have high IBU, a high perceived bitterness but not be particularly hoppy (see #Merica example above.)

 

So, you take a quantifiable, measurable, factual characteristic and turn it into a marketing number in the name of consumer usefulness. And, then, wonder why "There is a drastic misunderstanding of what IBU is."

You're not helping with that "drastic misunderstanding."

 

You're not wrong about that, and it's an internal argument that continues.

 

Lake Wine & Spirits has it.. should be in most stores by weeks end.

 

Thanks for the color. One of the points I'm making is that fresh Darkness used to, at least to me, have very high perceived bitterness that happened to match those high IBUs. That has diminished in recent years, especially in 2018, perhaps due to changes in my palate (lupulin shift) but I suspect for other, more fundamental, reasons related to the brewing of the beer itself. If anything, the same beer in 2018 to 2019 should stand out more for its bitterness as the industry moves toward lower perceived bitterness in newer releases.

On a related note, I recently was at the Beer Hall, and I noticed that the menu listed the word "bitter" only twice, once in the name of "Bitter Brewer" and once, if I recall correctly, to refer to one of the dozen-plus IPAs as moderately bitter. This was across dozens of beers at a brewery that used to be famous for the bitterness of its beers. I bring that up to make this request: Please re-embrace bitterness, both in the beers Surly makes and in marketing. I know that runs counter to the trend in the industry, but 1) Surly used to set trends or at least ignore them, not follow them and 2) the trend is exacerbated by breweries like Surly that could be standing firm in favor of bitterness instead caving in. Is the term "bitter" so offputting to the general public in 2019 that it can't even be mentioned where it applies?

 

Before I respond any further, I do want to say, thank you (and also to the others who have chimed-in) for your civil tone in these conversations. It’s a refreshing change to have a conversation with someone on the Internet that doesn’t devolve into name calling and general bad temper. Thanks. Also, I’m sorry for the snippy tone I put on the replies above. I was actually aggravated about something unrelated and it bled across to my responses. For that, I apologize. I regret it now and it’s too late to edit.

To your point about bitterness, I actually agree. I believe the beer pendulum is poised for a correction back toward bitterer and more aggressive beers in the near future, and away (somewhat) from the Uber-sweet flavors that are en vogue right now. Don’t get me wrong, I think there is most certainly a place for both, but for a while Surly trended too far (in my opinion) in the opposite direction.

 

@BillManley, let me say I appreciate a representative of a brewery engaging in the conversation here. Thanks.

 

It's my pleasure. If anyone ever has a question, please @ me. I'll happily chime-in.
I'm not a going to try and convince you of Surly's infallibility, or try to sell you a bill-of-goods. I'll merely offer my perspective or rational.
Surly's done some dumb stuff in the past, and will likely do dumb stuff in the future (although we're trying like hell to mitigate the dumb stuff) I won't pretend otherwise, but I think it helps to hear another side of the story.

 

I didn't notice any snippiness from you, and I do appreciate the responses. I've been a Surly fan (but never a Surly "fanboy" for whom Surly could do no wrong) since 2006. I'm not mad at Surly in the slightest, just sharing my cellar-temperature takes as a critical consumer. I still think Surly is the best brewery in the state, even as that's become an uncool position and even as its lineup has shifted markedly and, to some extent, away from my tastes.

As I've written previously on these boards, if you think you don't like Surly's beers but haven't visited the Beer Hall in a couple of years, give it another shot, because the bulk of the beers on tap these days are not at all what you'd tend to expect from Surly in the past but are, if anything, better executed than they used to be (2018 Darkness aside). Whereas Haug-era Surly was known primarily for style-busting, often bitter beers that happened to hit my palate perfectly, 2019 Surly does mainstream style exercises better than Schell's and Summit (just as perfectly executed but more flavorful) and also has a ton of (way too many for my tastes) hip, sweet beers (NEIPAs and, to a lesser extent, fruited kettle sours and pastry stouts). I'm not sure what there is to dislike, at least in terms of the beer itself; there's something for everybody. That's the only brewery in the state for which I'd make that claim. That said, more style-busting bitter beers again, please.