St Arnold vs Founders

Uhhhhh, I must have missed the memo about lots of people not liking BB2. I think it awesome and will definitely accept all donations to my fridge if you are currently not satisfied with your purchase! Give BB2 a good home

 

God I hate Saint Arnolds.

 

Believe it or not a kolsch is a very hard style to brew and brew consistently. Lawnmower is a kolsch . Love it or hate it, they must be doing something right for winning 2 gold medals at the GABF with Lawnmower, the most most recent one being 2010.

 

God's away on business.

- Tom Waits

 

Lol, thanks for the quote. I had no idea you are so...never mind.

 

This is true. It's much harder to hide impurities in a light and clean finishing beer. IPA's, just throw some more hops in there etc. Ya get the picture.

 

I agree with you that BB2 is not in line with the style of an old ale. As champ implied, that doesn't seem to be what St Arnold were going for. Sure, maybe it was an old ale before going into the barrels, but quoting St Arnold here: "This is a beer for people who like their beers a little funkier, while not being a completely wild beer."

I enjoy old ales and while BB2 wasn't one, I think it's tasty.

 

I had no idea BB2 was supposed to be an Old Ale.

Huh.

It was ok.

 

White Chocolate is supposed to be a wheat wine, huh. Salt Lick is listed as a saison, or is it a wild ale, or is it a rauch? What about Funk Metal? Is it a sour? A stout? An American wild ale? I know I'll catch shit for this but what about King Henry? Good beer, yes. Does it taste anything what I think a barleywine "should" taste like, no. If I think of Creme Brulee as a stout, I would probably drain pour it. If I think of it as a sweet ass delicious sticky concoction of liquified diabetes in a bottle then I think its delicious.

Point being everyone has their own expectations of what certain styles are supposed to taste like. There are some purists out there who enjoy a certain style in the traditional sense and others who enjoy letting breweries put their own twist on things and try something more unconventional. I appreciate both aspects and unless someone is judging a beer by certain style guidelines then it really doesn't matter as long as you enjoy the taste of what it is and not what you think it should be.

To each their own though.

Edit: Just to not sound like a homer, another example is BB1 and BB3. Thin, yes. Stout, not really. Good barrel aged flavors (yes, IMO but I'm also a whiskey drinker). It's almost more of a BBA brown ale or something but I still enjoy it. If I want a barrel aged stout, I would do nothing but trade for and drink BCBS because that is one of the best and easiest to find IMO. I don't find too many other BB aged stouts that I enjoy as much considering all the other factors.

 

Good point. They have done well with some of their brews, Lawnmower included.

I may sound contrarian here, but it's not for the sake of disagreeing with people.

Maybe the problem is less with the beer itself and more with the labeling/categorization. As you said previously, everyone has expectations of what a style is like. That's to be expected when you tell the consuming public your beer (or anything for that matter) is X style. Maybe the brewery should reconsider labeling any of these beers as certain styles so they aren't invoking a certain set of expectations, but are allowing the consumer a "clean palate" for making his/her own mind up about the beer. This allows them to truly push the envelope and allow people to draw their own conclusions about the resulting "style."

 

I agree, but I still hope they rumble.

 

I don't think people fault others for not liking a certain beer. I can't stand Salt Lick. It might be exactly what Jester King intended, but it makes me cringe.

Also, BB2 had a Christmas Ale base, which is basically an Old Ale itself. On top of that, original Old Ales were known to have a bit of tartness to them, and a much lower ABV than many examples made in the States now. Often aged for a short time in barrels that might of had some bugs in them. Really, it is a little closer to an English Old Ale than some people might think.

 

This was my impression of BB1. Too much barrel, not enough stout. I enjoyed BB2 far more.

 

The good news is I think/hope they (St Arnolds) agrees with "us" and will continue to work on and improve the base stout. Like I mentioned, I really enjoyed the barrel flavors it just needs a bigger stout to stand up to IMO.

Contrary to what some people have mentioned, it is quite easy to f up a barrel aged beer as far as barrel flavors go (ie no detection of barrel, off flavors, infection, etc.) and I thought they did a pretty good job as far as that aspect goes. It may have been a little bourbon forward but a bigger stout would make it divine (pun intended) IMO. In other words, there is hope

It was also their first bottling and brewing of a barrel aged beer on that large of a scale so I take that into consideration as well. There are plenty of other BBA stouts that I can think of that have just as many, if not more, fallacies as Bishops Barrel by "reputable" breweries who continue to put out the same beer every year yet they don't receive the criticism SA's does because afterall this is TX and we love to hate St A's.

 

After doing some reading, I see that many sources state exactly what you said about tartness and incorporation of Brettanomyces (likely due to barrel usage and lack of modern sterilization/control in old times). Thanks for providing a good chance to learn about the style's history.

On the other hand most currently made American old ales I've had fall in line with what I previously mentioned; high ABV, caramel, toffee, and sweet. So in this context their beer is not like what I have had or expect.

So we're back at square one.

 

Old ales aren't a style as much as an aging technique, with the mashed...mashed at a high temp. to reduce attenuation and then aged like a stock ale. And according to the BJCP: 'strength and character varies widely. Can include winter warmers, strong dark milds, and lower gravity English barleywines. It is merely the aging character that makes them old ales, wherein wild yeast strains can take hold.

And there certainly IS hope. Nothing bad happened, the recipe just needs to be adjusted a bit. And 3 was better than 1, so that's something.

 

ANOTHER CLEVELANDER!!! - We need to go grab a brew and eat a Corned Beef Sandwich sometime.

As for Saint Arnold vs. Founders.... lol (the irony)

I can't comment on IPA's - However... Founders has better stouts, By far. FBS, FIS, KBS - Only thing SA can send that that party is BBs 1 and 3 - Basted on what I've had I can say the following....

Stouts
CBS > KBS > FIS > BB 1&3 > FBS > Pumpkinator > Winter Stout

Old Ales
Curmudgeon's Better Half > DR12 > BB2 > Curmudgeon > Christmas Ale

Misc.
Backwoods Bastard > Dirty Bastard > All Saint Arnold Seasonals / Regulars that are not Winter Stout, Christmas Ale, Pumpkinator, BB / DR

 

I'm taking Founders across the board except with fresh (within a month) Endeavour being as good, if not better than Double Trouble. I will, however, buy a 4 pack of DT over a bomber of Endeavour if I have the chance 90% of the time because I get to enjoy 4 of them over 1... I wish SA would do Endeavour 4 packs but I guess that is another topic for another thread.

Stouts, as mentioned by everyone, not even close. I will put up Pumpkinator up against any pumpkin beer in the country though.

I don't buy any of Saint Arnold's regular lineup or seasonals anymore. These are brewed for the general public in my opinion and they leave much to be desired.

Thankfully, Saint Arnolds is moving in the right direction with the BB series.

 

So we all agree? If it's not a Divine Reserve, Bishop's Barrel, Christmas Ale, Winter Stout, Endeavour or Pumpkinator - Pass?

 

I would personally trade Elissa Cask with Winter Stout.