What’s the Difference? Share your Side-by-Side (2022)

Been a few weeks since I've delved into a side-by-side, and I had the idea to do one today. Then I found I hadn't put the newest vintage of the intended beer in the fridge with the others. So, I corrected that to allow those beers to be judged at the same temperature. And then I saw these two beers in the fridge - which could've maybe snuck in to last month's Cellaruary thread, though they are both under a year since purchased.

The first beer is from a new Virginia brewery we visited later last summer, and was a standout farmhouse brew. Wheatland Spring is a farm brewery that seems to focus as much on saison and other farmhouse styles (including some wild fermentation) as the styles that a wider range of customers might enjoy.

The other beer was one that jumped to near the top of my all time favorite beers when I had it at the brewery. It seemed to come to earth with some age I didn't necessarily mean to give it, and that was a couple months ago I found that out. Hill Farmstead is... well, Hill Farmstead.

So, let the battle of [damn near king] Arthur and the upstart Westerly begin (and yes, I do want to see which I like better, although I'd have loved this battle with two fresh bottles).


The Vermont brew has a very light white haze to it, where the Virginia brew is a basically clear golden color. Both still produce decent heads, with Arthur seeming a tad more creamy, but Westerly maintains a thicker collar. I'm giving an ever so slight edge to the Wheatland Spring beer here, but it's only enough to be a dead even tie-breaker type advantage. (Actually, it was washed out be lacing after I drank a little of each)

That advantage is washed out in the nose. I was getting a familiar scent as I went to take pics, and I was pretty sure it was coming from Arthur. A quick sniff of Westerly and I knew it wasn't going to win the nose. It has a dirty type of earthy note to it, with a mix of tart citrus and wild flowers in the middle of a dry summer. Some dusty wood notes lean a little towards cardboard, unfortunately.

Arthur has a lovely mix of fruit tartness, light vinegar tang, and a hint of farmhouse funk. Age hasn't hurt the makeup of the nose at all. Taking a sip, the saison is clean and doesn't bring any extra carbonation at this point. It's not as soft as I recall, and the flavors seem to have more distinct edges in the opening. Grain gets a distinct addition of citrus, then finally the yeast seem to bring things together. The profile is quite good, but seems to have wilted in my cellar a bit (6 months to be approximate).

Westerly is sweeter, relatively, out of the gate. It also seems more completely composed from the get-go. That composition, however, is less complex than that of Arthur. It, too, has suffered from life in the cellar (I want to say up to a couple months older than Arthur). The floral notes that I assume are coming from the yeast have the most influence. Warmth brings a hint of minty grass in the late bitterness.

Looking at my review, I enjoyed a bit of tartness in Westerly on tap, and noted a bit of herbal notes joined in the first bottle we had. This and my overall pure enjoyment of both beers when I first had them drew me to this comparison. What I liked about Westerly is pretty much gone now - faded into the ecosystem that is our downstairs refrigerator. Arthur better held on to what drew it to me, but isn't one I would intentionally age beyond a couple months given another chance.

Oh, since this is already quite long, the GF questioned whether these were similar styles, given how different they seemed to her. She thought Westerly was quite bland, and thought Arthur was more sour-like (she was aware they were aged a little bit). In the end, we both clearly enjoyed the Hill Farmstead beer at this point.

I also don't think Westerly would win in a fresh matchup, as there's just enough in both beers to remind me of each when I had them at their source. Different, thoroughly enjoyable experiences that can't be compared like the beers, themselves.

 

Ok, a comparison to get me rolling down the back side of the mid-week hump. This one is a vertical I was considering for Cellaruary, but never got around to it. This is a classic, Ten FIDY by Oskar Blues - and there's three years involved. Unfortunately the print on the reflective silver-bottomed cans is small that I had to hope the dates were legible, but they are not:


But from left to right, we have a... well shit, I smudged the date. I could find it by looking at another can, but I'm pretty sure it's a 2021 (the month starts with a 0, for what little that is worth) So, the middle is 10/2019 and the right one is from 10/2015 (and I think I have just one more of that year left).

So the first thing to note is that the 2019 has a more active head, puffing up and slowly cratering while the others build more solidly and fell without much lacing. Of the latter, the newer beer stabilized with a little more volume than the 2015.


The 2015 is the most roasty, and I think the light oxidation is feeding this. To be honest, I didn't quite notice the oxidation until I sniffed the 2019. The beers generally lessened in bitter roast and gained some fruitiness. The 2021 had the lightest strength of aroma, and had a slight marshmallow sweet edge comparatively.

The 2021 is pretty heavy, but doesn't have a thick feel to it, with a moderate carbonation. The 2019 has the same heft, but is more coating and smoother. The 2015 is smooth, with less carbonation than the other two. It falls between the two in thickness. I sort of wonder if the thicker feel is what led to the more structured head.

The 2021 has a licorice edge to it relative to the others. The 2019 seems the sweetest, and that seems to fit with its thicker feel. It has a brief hit of spice similar to the 2021, but the bitterness invades and crescendos near the end of the taste.

The 2015 is not as sweet as the 2019, but overall resembles that year more than the newest year. Since I've often drunk aged Ten FIDYs, this one is the most familiar to me, but I think the noticeable (but far from overwhelming) oxidation is a part of it. It's bitterness starts at the opening, and is much more even-keeled throughout compared to the 2019.

Ideally, the 2019 would be a little less sweet (edit: sweet is totally relative here, it's far from the sweeter stouts we find today), but I think I like it just a bit more than the 2015. Perhaps it's my familiarity with this beer aged that led to me liking the 2015 despite some oxidation, but the 2021 has a little fresh spice that cuts the bitterness more than the 2019s sweetness does.


The GF's first comment was, "These don't taste that different, do they?"

After some warmth, she found the 2019 had more licorice than the 2021, reversing my thoughts of the two beers. She thought the 2015 was the most flavorful, without any licorice, and the 2021 had the least strength/distinction of flavors. I agree with her thoughts on the 2021 in the sense that it seemed to have the least progression in profile. Overall, she liked the 2015 and 2021 about the same for different reasons.

So she changed her mind from her original thought. And in the end, we officially liked them all

 

Since I didn't get around to certain tripel during the online tasting, I figured I'd do a comparison in this thread with one I did write up over there. The one I missed happens to be one of the beers @jmdrpi just blind tasted last post, Westmalle Tripel. The comparison companion is Allagash's Tripel.

First note was that Wetmalle had a waft of slightly old, slightly funky aroma "from afar" as I opened and poured it. Qhat pretty quickly followed was that its head production blew Allagash's out of the water. Westmalle seemed a little too explosive, but Allagash's head seemed overly tame, considering I gave it a decently aggressive pour.


Even though it seems in the shadows, Westmalle is a bit darker and duller than Allagash. It had a light-shading cloudiness whereas Allagash's beer ismuch nearer clear. As I typed up to this point, Westmalle held onto a cotton ball fluffy head, cratering slowly, while Allagash's head seems mostly sustained by the results of glass nucleation points.

Westmalle's aromas thankfully don't come across as off as I expected from its opening. Allagash's aromas are more fresh and lively, with banana and fruit notes atop some bubblegum. Westmalle has a little more bubblegum, a little less banana, and more of a dusty/earthy vibe than a fruity one. I'll note here that the bottle date is 10/26/21 for the Westmalle and 12/29 for Allagash (2 months difference).

Westmalle is a smoother brew to me as I take initial sips of both. Allagash has more carbonation in play, and seems to have a more biting spice note. That said, Westmalle does have decent carbonation, but the spice I get seems to want to do its own thing and not join the carbonation in creating an experience.

I do get a thread of sensations similar in both - grain, banana, bubblegum, and a base spice note of clove. They diverge when Allagash adds more "high note" spice and Westmalle seems to bring more in yeast-driven banana/bubblegum and earth tones. Allagash weighs a little lighter, and Westmalle seems to coat my palate a little better, extending each sip and allowing me to savor it a bit longer.

The GF liked the Allagash offering a little bit more, she says. When asked, she first notes that Allagash is a smoother beer (totally opposite of me), though we agree that Allagash's beer has a more powerful aroma. I mention my thoughts, and she agreed Allagash was more fruity vs earthy, and she preferred the former.