White Chocolate possibly infected; Patrick Rue responds

Looks like my man Marc will be emailing them shortly. Went through 4 bad bottles, with another 6 that we are not crazy about. I am happy to see they are willing to work it out with us. Good move by them.

 

I think this is just a classic case of "not infected, but enough warning signs to scare people" and poor damage control that resulted in the story blowing out of proportion.

I've had gushers of Black Tuesday, which is not infected -- they just have some force-carbing issues. The tartness was likely acetaldehyde (benign), but in the saccharine beetus-bombs* the Bruery makes, that can be scary with the other signs you mentioned.

This is absolutely top-notch conflict resolution though.

* They really need to make a beer called Beetusjuice Beetusjuice Beetusjuice.

 

I'm glad to see that the Bruery is offering some sort of compensation, but I'm honestly baffled how they could taste the same beer I tasted and call it "delicious and worth savoring." There seem to be quite a few of us who believe that the difference between 2012 and 2013 far exceeds what one could ascribe to batch-to-batch variation, and like others said, it casts doubt on future beers that are based on White Oak Sap.

 

Or you're thin-skinned that someone doesn't like White Chocolate. It's ok, people can disagree.

As I said above, this is top-notch conflict resolution, and I came in here to praise that, even if I don't like the beer.

 

I completely disagree. The very first thing I thought was "This is exactly why I have no problem loaning the Bruery $700." E&O was infected, they made it right and let people keep the bad bottles (who knows someone might like it). WC isn't even infected but they are still willing and going out of their way to make it right if you feel you have been misled.

As far as I see this situation, I am pretty sure before release this year the general review was WC '12 was too sweet. My guess is they made an effort to curb that and overshot.

 

They're doing a fantastic job taking care of customers, no argument there. But the 2013 WC I've had so far tastes nothing like what's described on the label and if that's going to be the case for future White Oak Sap based beers them I'm going to really unhappy with them.

"White Oak Sap is aged in used bourbon barrels for nearly a year and comes out rich in flavors of coconut, honey, caramel and vanilla." No mention of tart, and the 2013 WC barely has any hints of vanilla for me, and no coconut, honey, or caramel.

 

I don't think PMR ever stated it should have a tartness, just saying it does. I haven't picked up my bottles yet....torn on what to do but the 2013 description is certainly very far from what I was expecting.

 

I'm going to chalk it up to just not liking it. They made it up to me with E & O and I never had 12 WC, so I will not be emailing them. Patrick...we appreciate everything The Bruery is doing for the beer community.

 

As Always, their customer service is top notch. Still, 2 issueswith barrel aged beers in such closer proximity will likely cause me to purchasea bit less beer next year(though it did not stop me from reupping my membership).

And frankly, If we get a problem free stretch over the next 6 months or so, I'm sure I'll forget all about this.

 

My west coast brother and overall great human being mhksucess sent me a bottle of '13 WC. Yes Ive had '12 WC. I share my tasting notes from earlier this evening in hopes it gives some perspective.

A good wiff of the bottle once open: all tart green apple. No chocolate or sweetness.

A subtle pour created a very effervescent head, kinda like a 7up but faded fast. Another big smell this time from the glass: tart green apple almost entirely gone. Lots of super sweet chocolate, little tartness. Good color.

Taste: front of the palate is mostly tart green apple. BUT, as it moves to the back of my palate I notice tartness fades and creamy, sugary white chocolate takes over. As I patiently wait and take small sips I'm noticing as it warms up to room temp it's mostly creamy, sugary white chocolate.

Maybe it's something with the bottle? Once it's in a glass and sits for a while it completely changed and was enjoyable.

People also need to remember that regardless of the name and description on the label it's still a wheat wine style beer.

 

Pretty much spot on with how my bottle was. The warmer it got, the more WC it became and apple faded.

 

You have to wonder what the limit to their generosity is as far as refunds on these bottles are concerned. If I'm the bruery, and one of the dudes from this thread who bought twelve bottles and opened up several of them to "report back" on the quality of the bottles, I would be like, "Oh, the beer is terrible and yet you opened bottle after bottle?" I'd be looking at dude like Judge Reinhold glaring at the "This is NOT the best breakfast I've ever had" guy.

 

This is a great point. I could see someone opening two, maybe three, before stopping and deciding to, at the very least, give the extra bottles some more time, but for someone to open five or more, that would be hard to decide to refund them for all those bottles.

If I were a brewery, I would refund up to two of them and offer to pay for the extras you have to be shipped back, so I could sell them online or at the tasting room. Mind you, I am not as classy at The Bruery.

I am interested to see the response.

 

The one I had was great, and reminded me of the '12 I had earlier in the week. That aside, I am wondering how bad it could be, and so I'm torn about opening bottles till I get a bad one or saving them since when it's good, I love it so much.

 

I am not saying this to be a dick, but to inject a little perspective into the situation.

Wine changes year after year, even if it is made from the same vineyard by the same winemaker using the same techniques and skill. Some vintages are considered "better" or "worse" than others.

Can you imagine ordering a case of wine, having it shipped to you, not enjoying it as much as the previous year, informing the winemaker that you think it is "spoiled" because you didn't enjoy it as much as the previous vintage, which makes the winemaker take the time to dip into his inventory and waste a bunch of it on QA testing, the winemaker finds that nothing is spoiled about the wine, it is simply different than the previous vintage, and the buyer STILL expects a refund or similar remuneration? Even if the purchaser gets to keep the non-spoiled beer that simply isn't as satisfying as last year's vintage?

 

Fair enough but wineries (edit: at least the ones I've had, which is limited) don't write detailed recipes like this:

"Essentially a 'summer' barley-wine style ale, but made with a wheat heavy grain base, White Oak Sap is aged in used bourbon barrels for nearly a year and comes out rich in flavors of coconut, honey, caramel and vanilla. To compliment the already rich flavors of the beer, we've added cacao nibs and vanilla beans to give this beer the delicate flavor of white chocolate...hence the name."

That perfectly described the 2012. That is nothing like what I've had out of my two bottles of 2013.

This was not added until folks contacted the Bruery:

"Please note the 2013 version of White Chocolate is a bit different from the 2012 version of White Chocolate. It is less sweet, drier, more effervescent, with a slight tartness."

Again, it's doubtful I will contact the Bruery about my 1st two bottles nor my next two. But, I am going to be very leery of descriptions next year. This year I bought more than my allocations on everything that sounded good. From here on out I won't be doing so.

 

My man above me described it in detail, but wanted to reinforce: nowhere on White Chocolate's description does The Bruery mention the word "tart". Only after people voiced their displeasure did they add a disclaimer. You'd think if they did sensory analysis before it left the brewery they would know how different it was from the 2012 bottling. Now it just seems like they sent it out with fingers crossed that no one would notice.

Also, wine is made from one main ingredient that makes it extremely dependent on the growing conditions of grapes used. Beer is made in such a way that the process is largely repeatable, so the wine comparison is moot.

 

Plus White Chocolate is beer, not wine.

 

I think we've hit peak "Craft beer is the new wine".

For the record, many brewers have discussed the issue of batch variation in beer vs. wine, and most have also taken a negative outlook on how wineries just write off an entire year so easily. I think The Bruery has taken the best route in handling this issue, trying to keep everyone happy, and acknowledging the "difference" in '13 WC. It is most definitely NOT the same beer as '12 WC, which is most disappointing for The Bruery as they would have sold much more if it was comparable.

 

Wine changes year after year because the primary ingredient of wine - grapes - varies greatly from year to year, to a degree that the winemaker can't overcome through process alone. Beer ingredients vary from year to year, yes, but not in the same way that grapes do, and the differences in beer ingredients from batch to batch can largely be overcome by process. I understand why you're making this argument, but it's fallacious, because you're treating ingredients and process as the same thing.

This year's White Chocolate, based on what I've tasted and what many others have suggested, is a process issue - that's something that's within the brewer's control, and therefore, they're responsible for it. If the yeast got away from The Bruery and dried the beer out too much, or threw off flavors, that's not something where you shrug your shoulders and say "Well, we did all we could." They obviously feel that the result is within their acceptable parameters, but the existence of this thread would indicate that a decent portion of their paying customers disagree.

By no means am I trying to crucify the Bruery here, I've supported them for years and will continue to support them, but pretending that this is merely an issue of people not liking a minor variation is distorting the reality of the situation.