bcbvs and king henry

I will do terrible things to get a bottle of that beer.

Terrible. Things.

 

Interesting...

 

Oh, I'm not sure if I'd say tragic death. If coffee is any indication, the worst-case scenario seems to be it turns into regular BCBS with just a hint of the coffee/vanilla/whatever as time goes on. Sad I'm sure for those that gave up walez to get the bottle, but still a nice consolation prize when it comes to drinking.

 

Coffee after a year is vastly inferior to regular bcbs. It gets weirdly bitter. For my tastes, KH is still great, and I was really surprised to hear all the negative comments because I'd never heard them before. I liked bramble better this summer, and also thought vanilla got better with age - but i dont think vanilla is getting any better. But, as they say, your mileage may vary.

 

Curious....did you find this with 2011 or 2010 BCBCS, and how old was the bottle? I've had 1 year old or so 2010, and going on (or over now) 1 or so year old 2011 recently (and going open one again next Saturday). However, I never detected any bitterness?

(Really, I try and drink my coffee within a year as I agree you shouldn't age it)

 

In Dec 2011 a group of us did a tasting of all the bcbs (except the 02/03) varieties that had been released - 2010 coffee was the unanimous choice for the "worst" of them (aged over a year and a half by then). I drank my last 2011 in August - and thought it was still very good. Not as coffee forward, but still had some, and wasn't bitter.

 

I thought the 2010 didn't hold up after one year NEARLY as well as the 2011 seems to be, so I'm hopeful that it stays nice.

 

I know this is, like, just your opinion, man.

But you say it like it is fact. Not true.

1.) If it were fact, logically, why do so many people have cellars?

2.) I was at a vertical for 08-11 Darkness awhile back. I traded my 10 and 11 pours for someone else's 08, as they were willing, and the 08 was THAT FREAKING GOOD.

A necessary post, so the noobs don't get confused. No offense meant.

 

The thing is that it's not. The vast majority of beer gets worse as it ages.

Because many of us have more beer than we can drink. Also, and probably more importantly for BAs, they hear that beer ages and then start AGING ALL THE THINGS!!!! Most of them will find out that most things don't age well and then tone it back.

I also want to point out that this doesn't logically follow. You assume that people only make logical decisions, which is obviously false. People could have cellars full of shit that doesn't age for lots and lots and lots of reasons.

Congrats. I think Darkness ages pretty well too. But a few things:

1) That doesn't mean it got better, which is my entire point. You don't have a before so your data point is completely worthless. (Darkness is not exactly the same each year, either.)
2) Citing examples of beers that improve doesn't change my overall point that MOST beers don't improve. I've never said "No beers improve" or "No beers decline slowly enough that you can age them without it being a disaster" or "Absolutely no one will ever think that any beer ever has improved over time". Those other things are false on their faces. I've said "most beers get worse". I could add "for most people" but don't believe it's necessarily, anyone who thinks that every beer ages well is trolling or deluded.

 

ISO: KH FT: The joy of letting someone taste the shadow of its former self.

 

You guys are all freaking me out about saving the bottle I got until my bachelor party. I tasted KH on tap for the first time at The Great Taste of the Midwest this past summer and it was amazing. We just pushed our wedding back so I probably wouldn't be opening this bottle for 10-11 months...painful decisions.

 

If you have to save it for the bachelor party, then put it in the back of your refrigerator and forget about it until then.

 

Well, here we go. I just wish his arguments were not so full of garbage. How do I start picking this apart now...

Come on. This is just a lame statement. The vast majority of beer is BMC.

So, when we bought it, we had NO CLUE we could not drink it all, right? Um, no. We bought more because we heard it ages well, and wanted to try it both fresh AND aged. Instead of speaking in inflated generalities like you, I will speak for myself. I age beer because I have tasted many that I preferred aged. (Both examples of same batch both fresh and aged, and different batches.)

This wasn't an ABSOLUTE statement, was it.
Below you start throwing up arguments where you say "most beers" and "most people". Where was that in this claim?

Let's just get to the point of this. You are making dumb claims about "most beers don't age well". You and I and everyone who intelligently cellars know we cellar particular beers and particular styles. So point that out before you start making general statements about "most beers" related to cellaring. That is the kind of thing that can confuse noobs, which was MY ENTIRE POINT, which your arguments have done nothing to refute. Making statements without giving the basis of your position on the topic, saying:

Almost nothing? That is pretty extreme. Maybe most of the people you drink with drink most of the styles you all drink fresh. That is ABSOLUTELY not the case with my drinking partners. So this is not fact. Actually, it is not even true for MOST. It is, as I stated in the first place, "like, your opinion, man."

That's not what I said, straw man. "...logically, why do so many people have cellars?" I didn't say they cellar logically. Come on. Next you are going to start saying people that buy TONS of BMC because it is on sale count as cellars. Garbage arguing, and you know it. (Or, at least now you should.)

Right here, you show your true colors in attempting to argue with me on this.

The problem is your original statement, and your argument, are based on YOUR beer knowledge, experience, and partners. In all three cases, yours and mine are different, as are those of many others. MY argument is based on people and refuting your semantics. Your beer knowledge does not match the argument you are making.

MY overall point was this is a flawed statement related to cellarable beers, and people's individual taste. You didn't refute MY point.

Thanks for playing.

EDIT: Please let me repeat, no offense meant. Only fair I refute your refuting of my refuting of your original point.

 

I still have 2. I really want to drink them, but i ran out of plastic cups.

 

I find it's best through a straw.

 

Speaking of logic when it comes to aging....

When a beer is released, it is released "as the brewer intended." Right?

Why is it that, if I review an infected or otherwise shitty beer that has nothing to do with the handling, I get asked to "please review it as the brewer intended" -- but it's ok to age a beer and drink it and review it, even though it's several years older than what the brewer intended?

 

Then lets open one soon!

 

I traded a Vanilla for a Dark Intrigue once. I gave a Vanilla to a friend just because he didn't have one. I was given one by another friend because he had two and wanted me to have one.

It's just beer, people. Damn good beer, but just beer.

 

Always note the vintage and date of consumption IMO. If it's in the stream of commerce, even if the brewer admits theres an issue, it's still important to review the beer so people have an honest aggregation of what to expect from a beer based on the batch, aging, etc. Not everyone follows individual breweries close enough to know of infections, even announced ones, but-for reviews on BA/RB.