Barrel Aging FTW or not?

I think some beers that are good beers before being put into a barrel will come out as a totally different beer that is also a good beer, but it's a different beer that is enhanced and should not be compared to its base beer if that beer is also one that the brewery markets on its own. But a lot of that enhancement depends on what type of barrel and whether the barrel imparts a dramatic new flavor.

My point is that we on this site continually refer to 'barrel-aging' but all too often we don't specify anything about the barrel. Is it a Bourbon barrel, brandy barrel, wine barrel or just a plain oak barrel that has not seen any previous use of any whiskey or wine? Each can have a very different taste effect on the beer, but the flavor of some barrels will have more effect that others. Bourbon is a strong flavor, but a Chardonnay is not, thus less flavor imparted and not so dramatic. Plain ol' oak aging does not impart any strong flavor. Each barrel can mean something different. So I'd just like to see more definition of terms when this topic is discussed so we're all on the same page. (End of minor rant. )

 

Not necessarily true. It depends on if your using spirals, chips, or barrels and how the oak has been treated. An oak barrel can impart a lot of flavor if the cooperage prepares the barrel to do so.

 

I don't think Barrel Aging necessarily makes a beer better, but it makes it more interesting if all you ever had was the base beer. I'd like to see more variety into the types of barrels being used.

 

Well you can't make it any worse than it already is.

 

Shit in a barrel is still shit. And FTW reads fuck the world to me...

 

Yeah I always take it to mean that too. What does it mean here?

 

FTW = For the Win.

 

As an example, I think the base beer for the 50/50 Eclipse treatments is just pretty good whereas most of the treatments after barrel aging are great.

 

I agree that OK beer should not be added to a barrel to try and make it amazing, but your examples make me scratch my head a bit. To my knowledge, neither of these base beers have been made available prior to being barrel aged. Again, I don't know for sure, but what if these base beers were incredible before and the barrel aging made them worse?

 

You would end up with a whole barrel of expired Budweiser.

 

thats what so great about this site... you can find out or at least get an idea of who is a lazy D bag

 

I have to disagree...I tried Old Viscousity 3 times and thought it was shit twice and just a nasty fart once...Older Viscousity was bottled crack for me

 

When Great Divide does a BA it seems to add extra dimension. The base is of course already quite good. So I'd definitely say that the Yeti's are a successful use of barrel aging. And while this might be trendy, there are a lot of trends that don't result in half as much good.

I might add that RR uses a variety of differing barrels to great success as well.

 

Lots of brewers barrel-age beer. Very few do it well.

 

It could also mean "From The Wood" as in "Adam From The Wood". I don't like abbreviations other than ISO: FT: at least those two I only see on this site and nowhere else. This abbreviation craze has gotten out of hand and I see it as a sign of laziness - just type the words out!

As far as barrel aging goes I'm all over the board. I think barrel aging can do wonders for an average beer but also think that it can make an already A+ non-barrel-aged beer turn to shit. There are so many possibilities and options out there that one can experiment with that I see no point to blaming a brewer/brewery of "copping out" just for throwing a beer into a barrel (regardless of its initial quality). They're trying to make a product that you as a consumer can enjoy as well as themselves all while trying to make a buck - that doesn't mean everyone is going to like the end result but it can defintely be appealing to someone no matter how bad others might think it is (insert Old English 800 here).