What’s the Difference? Share your Side-by-Side (2021)

Re-posting two blind tastings I did back in the winter...

 

Ok everyone, pictures below: First was a picture of all three plus the mugs. To make this a truly blind tasting. Second picture is a shot above the mugs after we revealed what was what.

As I said in a post above, I guessed them all wrong at first. On my second attempt I believe I got one of them right. After the reveal I dissected them a bit more, and knowing what they were, was able to better pick out the nuances.

By far the most different one was the Pale Ale, as it was the maltiest. Again, this was bottled on 10/17, so it was also the oldest. This, combined with the fact that it IS the least hoppy (at least in terms of IBUs), made it stick out...but not until after I knew what it was. Also due to it being maltier, I enjoyed it the least out of the three.

The 40th Anniversary had the least amount of malt character (or at least felt the most hop forward), but obviously it was still there, since I couldn't pick it out blind. Celebration felt the most balanced, and also tasted the best to my palate...again this was all AFTER I knew what they were.

I took the picture above the mugs mostly to illustrate the insane head that this year's Celebration has. People were commenting on it on these boards, and well after we had poured it, it was the only one out of the three with foam still left.

I can probably score three more singles of each, but I'm a bit hesitant if all I can get is "old" Pale Ale. Maybe another round with just Celebration and the 40th?

 

C-hops seem to really screw up my palate. Because outside of the Bigfoot I ONCE AGAIN was not able to discern between Pale Ale, 40th Anniversary, and Celebration. As someone else said before, Bigfoot is just too huge to not tell it apart. That being said, on my second go around I couldn't even tell the difference between Bigfoot and the others.

I did take my time and drank water in between beers as well. Oh well. It was enjoyable to sit back and sip on all four after the tasting. That 2020 Bigfoot is so good this year.

As an aside, I had a 40th Annivesary after this tasting on a separate evening (I think I've had four or five total) and I really enjoyed this one the most.

Here's the dates of all four beers:

40th Anniversary: 12/10/19

Pale Ale: 10/17/19

Bigfoot: 12/4/19

Celebration: 10/29/19

 

Ok, so this came about because I had an Old Chub in my hand, but debating if I wanted something else. I saw an older bottle of Dirty Bastard in the fridge and figured it'd be good to knock that out. As I sipped the chosen beer, I was thinking it wasn't all that different than I was thinking about when I grabbed the Old Chub. So... I went back and grabbed the original beer and revive this thread for a day:

So although both brewers tend to make more bitter hoppy versions of styles, I would expect Founders to be more bitter when fresh (or against an equally old Old Chub). It is nearing four months old now, while Old Chub is nearing three, so maybe things have evened out a little? As they sit here in front of me, here's what I perceive...


Old Chub is a little darker and has a more "fuzzy" head. There's bigger splotches of lacing on the Oskar Blues' beer as well. On the nose, there is a sweeter and spicier aroma in Old Chub than Founders' flagship. Dirty Bastard has a little more roasted aspect - cacao or coffee - in a relative sense to Old Chub's somewhat spiced cherry note.

The differences in malt profiles on the taste resemble the differences I noted in the nose. Old Chub is a bit sweeter, and as expected a muted hop bitterness shows up in Dirty Bastard (though not too strong, recalling it is ~4 months old).

There is a core similarity in the malt side of the two beers, and it deviates mid-taste with a continued malt focus in Old Chub and a hop focus in Dirty Bastard. OB's beer seems to have more alcohol even though it clocks in with a little lower ABV.

If I had not jumped into this comparison, I would not have known I made the better choice of the two originally. That's just a statement to my preference tonight with the beers (And their ages) I have in front of me. Cheers!

 

Been meaning to do this one since the Porter had sky blue labels...

Bottling date about a month apart, both from around Christmas. So, not super fresh, but equally aged.

And truly like-for-like because they're almost the same ABV: Porter @5.6%, Stout @5.8%

Both feel like throwbacks.
I'm surprised how light the Porter is - closer to Fuller's London Porter than Edmund Fitzgerald.
Similarly, the Stout is not as roast-forward as some newer stouts, instead there are more bready and toffee notes.

It's also notable how not sweet either of them are.
Where plenty of modern stouts rely on residual sugars for body and balance, these both feel like their finishing gravities were fairly low.

The Porter is lighter, fizzier, sweeter, nuttier, more balanced, less hoppy, cleaner, and more sessionable than the Stout.
The Stout is more full-bodied, lower carb, fruitier, roastier, more bitter, hoppier, chewier, and smoother than the Porter.

If you're looking for the difference difference between stout + porter, you could do worse than this matchup.

Thanks for reading; this was fun.

 

Funny, I’m sitting in Deschutes and now wondering what I’d find between Black Butte and Obsidian Stout, even though their ABVs are a little further apart.

 

Ok, I'm back, but not with the Deschutes dark beer comparison, but one I hypothesized when I reviewed one of the beers for the first time in a recent NBW. In that thread, I mentioned I think Gennessee Cream Ale could easily replace my favorite "lighter / summer" every day type of beer. The beer that held that spot was Narragansett Lager. So the purpose of this post is simple - which beer do I like better?

That's it, straightforward and simple, no trying to figure the nuances - which do I like better.

But wait. I have this other lighter beer in the fridge. It's one I'm not actually too fond of. And I want to get rid of them, so let's throw Tucher's Helles Lager in there, too.

That's it then - mainly, which do I like best? And secondarily, do I dislike Tucher's relatively?

A little less than simple, two-pronged review. Unless...


The noses have mild differences, with Tucher's being the most unique and easiest to pick out. Gennessee has a little fruity note relative to Narragansett, which seems to me the one more obviously using corn as an adjunct (note: I had to verify that they do use corn - cooked by them).

Note: all statements are quite relative in this paragraph, as the differences were not that large to me. I get a little more grassy bitter note backing a more fruity opening in Gennessee than in Narragansett. Narragansett is a bit cleaner, lighter, but there is just a little more character to Gennessee.

Ok, so with those slight but noted differences... but I think I might like Narragansett just a little more today. And I mean just a little. It started a little further ahead, but by the middle of the glass, Gennessee closed the gap. I couldn't go wrong with either in the fridge, although as of this posting I know I can only definitively get my old standby in the stores any day.

Edit: as the beers warmed more, the Gennessee got (again relatively) better. Not sure I can or want to pull off a colder Narragansett vs warmer Gennessee comparison, but never say never.


Oh...
Tucher's has a stronger presence in look, feel, smell, and taste and therefore it truly is the outlier in this tasting. Ignoring the comparisons, I still find these notes just don't work for me for some reason.

And, FWIW (you didn't really think I could stop at two things, did you?)
The GF (who was choosing which she disliked least just to reduce a few ounces from my chosen burden) thought Narragansett and Tucher tasted most similar. I found that odd, and I gave her sips of mine, and she definitely noticed a difference in them. Regardless, she definitely disliked Genessee the most.

 

This thread is everything I enjoy about beer.
Drink. Train the palate. Learn and improve. And drink again.

 

I've been buying the Genny Screamer big cans lately and I have really enjoyed it. Unfortunately the store doesn't also sell Gansett for a comparison, but that's how I wound up with Genny in the first place.

I drink these cold from the food fridge.

 

Update: stopped by on the way home tonight and got the Genny plus a PBR for future comparison.

 

Ok, I'm not done for the night (though you might want to set aside a couple hours to get through this).

It's time for a double-blind taste testing. It's not the scientific kind of duoble-blind (I could come up with a hugely flawed argument trying to meet it, though), just that I am giving the beers to the GF blind and she is giving me them blind.

This tasting came out of a post in some thread (perhaps this one) about how much freshness matters. We all know it matters at least somewhat, but how much?

Well, this one test isn't going to prove anything. So you can stop reading now, I guess.

However, if you want to see how two random people feel about five month (5mo), three month (3mo), and 0 month (2wk) Dale's Pale Ale, read on...

Ok, the picture are the GF's tasting, in which I poured oldest (5mo) into Flying Dog, the middle (3mo) into Lost Rhino, and newest (2wk) into Old Ox. My pourings are unknown but I am using the same glasses.


For me, the Old Ox glass has the best and most sustaining head, followed by Lost Rhino and finally Flying Dog. Nose was too hard on full glasses, so onto the feel. For some reason, the Lost Rhino glass had a little different feel - a little more carbonation and maybe the ever so slightest bit of stickiness.

Okay, those sips didn't bring the levels down enough, so we'll check in with the GF. She says, "If I were to guess age, it'd be Lost Rhino is newest, then Flying Dog, and then Old Ox as oldest." But she only had a couple sips of each and the beers still have a little chill to them.

Flying Do (FD) has a citrusy opening with a grain backbone that rises between that citrus and the more piney/pithy finish. With the level sipped down, the nose has a little more zesty citrus aspect but the also aromas that parallel the piney/pithy finish.

Lost Rhino (LR) is a little more bland, or to say there's a little less shift from the opening and ending. It's a little more husky grain up front and in the middle. It's piney in back, but it pairs with a little more grassy than pithy note. Nose seems a little less nuanced overall. I'd guess it's older than FD at this point.

Old Ox (OO) brings back some citrus, especially compared to LR. It has a little bit more of an orange citrus (candied to a degree relative to FD). The back is a little more of a subtle or maybe drawn out shift to pine and pith compared to FD. It ends up in a similar spot, but it takes a little longer to get there.

GF's final answer, "The LR is more bitey, so it hasn't had time to mellow out, still the newest." The other two she ordered based on mellowness, as well, and she didn't change her answer despite my best Monty Hall impersonation.

So, using perhaps slightly different terms, I feel the more distinct the flavors seemed to be in the beer, the newer the beer. Also, none of them seemed to have any oxidation to go by. Going by this, my guess is FD is 2wk, OO is 3mo, and LR is 5mo. Of these, I feel most confident in LR.

So how wrong am I?
First, to recap, the GF picked 3mo LR as newest, 5mo FD as middle, and 2wk OO as oldest. So if our perceptions of "bitiness/complexity" are spot on, I am in trouble...

My order, newest to oldest and the actual:
Flying Dog (FD) - middle (3mo)
Old Ox (OO) - newest (2wk)
Lost Rhino (LR) - oldest (5mo)

So the one I was sure of was right. However, while 3 months might change the flavors and aromas of Dale's Pale Ale a bit, they didn't do so in a way that indicated age very clearly. Between 3 and 5 months, you might start to notice a difference.

However... I can't say drinking the 5 month Dale's on its own would be a bad experience. It seemed obvious relative to the other two that its teeth were growing, but it still tastes fine. As for enjoyment without guessing age... I enjoyed both the 3 and 5 month old cans but in different ways. I liked the longer bitterness of the 2wk, but liked the quicker transitions of the 3mo (which also included a quicker cleaning of the finish).

Thanks for reading, or skimming, at least.

 

Awesome!!

 

Thanks. Definitely wouldn't be possible to do 2 in a night if the GF wasn't sharing. I figured Dale's would be a good choice because I always felt it held up well and is a fairly hoppy beer in makeup. 60 Minute might be another.

I also really think Jai Alai would be an interesting one given its reputation for falling off quickly.

 

If you are willing to conduct this test I would greatly want to read your thoughts.

My last purchase of Jai Alai was two cans as part of a mix-a-six. Those cans were about 3 weeks old at purchase. I placed them in the refrigerator immediately upon bringing the beers home. I drank one a few days later and I greatly enjoyed that beer. The other beer was consumed a few weeks later and that beer was markedly different, almost like a completely different beer.

Cheers!

 

I believe I experienced something similar in general terms. First time I had it was on tap in FL and really loved it. It was nearly as good when we first started getting it fairly fresh. Then I started noticing it wasn't as enjoyable as it started sitting a little longer on the shelves after the novelty wore off for the area.

I am fully willing to admit I may have been imagining it, which is why I think it'd be interesting. However, I'm not sure we get close enough dated shipments to get down to some of the claims - does it fall off after as short as two weeks? At least not in a true side-by-side, which is kinda necessary in this case/thread

The GF still likes the beer and buys it regularly. She's actually checking dates nowadays - but she's not too much of a stickler for them (more looking for way out of date vs brand spankin' new freshness). Maybe I'll have her keep track of what she's seeing to see what can be pulled off.

Of course, anyone from nearer the source can set it up and educate us as well. Would love to have another voice in the thread

 

"The source" ?

 

Ok, a source. Just increases the pool of people who can chime in here

Edit: also adds potential for other comparisons

 

Yesterday, in the NBW thread, I posted a 2 stage triangle blind tasting comparing Corona Extra with Hamms.

Here is a summary, if you don't want to read the whole (long) NBW post.

First, the premise:
Corona will not justify its premium price over Hamms. In fact, it may not be any better at all on an objective scale. Corona is, as they might say in the Southwest, all hat, no cattle.

Second, the method:
1. Triangle test 1.
a. Glasses 1, 2, and 3. Two are the same beer.
b. Identify which 2 glasses contain the same beer.
c. Review each by L-A-T-F and O.

2. Triangle test 2.
a. Glasses 4, 5, and 6. Two are the same beer. The duplicated beer may be the same beer as test 1, or it may not. I will not know which.
b. Identify which 2 glasses contain the same beer.
c. Review each by L-A-T-F and O.

3. The reveal
a. Identify the beer in each of the 6 glasses.
b. Log the results, now identified by brand.
c. Identify the “winner.” Confirm or refute the premise.

The results summarized (for more detail, see the post in NBW, linked above):
I did not correctly identify the different beer in either round of the triangle test. The obvious conclusion is that I could not reliably tell the difference between these two beers.

The Corona did rate a bit higher, but since I couldn’t really tell them apart, this is likely just happenstance. These beers are, for all practical purposes, identical.

These results cannot justify the nearly 2.5 times price difference between Hamms and Corona Extra.

Corona Extra is all hat, no cattle.

The premise is proven (at least to my palate).

Pictures:


[1] Hamms
[2] Corona Extra
[3] Hamms


[4] Hamms
[5] Corona Extra
[6] Hamms