side project origin

Is it unimaginable to think that group think may work in the other direction also? I understand that you greatly enjoyed your bottle of Origin. But all it takes is one person to mention, "Hey this may taste better than BVDL," to get the ball rolling in the other direction. Perhaps the other beers you tried alongside the Origin were stored poorly by trading partners?

Lampooned?! I strongly disagree with this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The review database is a collection of opinions that are then averaged. Just because you enjoyed the beer and another person/group did not doesn't mean that their review should be pulled. They didn't give the beer a 0. They just didn't rate it as highly as you. Thus, all the scores are averaged. I even think the weighted average on this site takes care of these "outliers" I can only imagine what would happen if people/brewers called for lower rated reviews to be pulled. What about the people that simply rated it at 3.5? Should those reviews be pulled? Some people may not just enjoy the beer. I think it's absurd to think that there are people out there intentionally sabotaging the rating of beers. So what if they mentioned that it may be infected. It's not hurting anyone except for "trade value" (OMG, the humanity). There's been a press release saying its not infected, and for every one of the so called negative reviews there are five positive glowing reviews. So people can form their own opinions with the facts presented. If you disagree with a rating write up a positive review, that should balance everything out in the end. That's how this system is supposed to work.

 

Wow, I seem to be getting called out on a few different forums over this.

The bottle of Origin I had was straight-up infected. I'm not confusing other flavors for infection - it was ridden with lactic acid and diacetyl, indicative of a pedio infection. Regardless of whether it's an imperial stout or a blend of stout, baltic porter, barleywine, etc, those are not desirable flavors. I've tasted and brewed quite a few beers and I'm not pulling terms out of my ass. I know what infected beer tastes like.

It sounds like it isn't a batch-wide infection. Maybe the infection occurred at bottling rather than in the barrel. Hell, maybe the bottle I tried was the only bad bottle in the batch. Given the rarity of the beer, I doubt I'll ever try it again.

I didn't trade for or purchase the beer myself. It was merely a warning to people thinking about giving up the farm for a bottle.

What don't you understand? It wasn't the worst infected beer I've tasted, but it certainly wasn't good.

 

Dude, are you listening to yourself? The bottle CLEARLY wasn't infected? Did you taste the same bottle I did?

 

The beer itself isn't infected. It sounds like the bottle it was put into and sent to California wasn't clean and infected that bottle. I don't understand how everyone can't be right, and how emotional people are about this issue. It happens.

 

Interesting that largadeer says motivation for review was so others don't think of trading the farm for it. I guess you feel as though your experience is somehow universal, not just an opinion on the bottle you popped.

At what point do you not rate a beer b/c your experience is not indicative to the beer overall?

If I accidentally leave my bottle outside in the summer heat, then open it a day later and it tastes terrible. Should I review it? Should I disclose what I did?

Sounds to me like largadeer and his buddy obtained a bottle somehow, someway... that just didn't work out by the time it got to Cali.

And again, the bottle the Alstrom brothers tasted received a 99/100.

 

The majority of the time you come across an infected bottled beer it's a batch-wide infection. It's incredibly rare to find a few isolated infected bottles out of an otherwise good batch. That said, it does happen and it sounds like that's probably the case with Origin. My motivation was to let people know that the beer may have a batch-wide infection. Some people appreciate that information.

And by the way, all beer reviews are opinions.

There's a difference between rating an infected beer and rating a beer you intentionally damaged. One of the two tastes bad through no fault of the brewery.

 

Had a bottle opened at a nice share on sunday and it was off... not overly infected but also not right for the style and blend. It wasn't like a pegs infected rare dos, but it also wasn't good. I didn't review it and I wouldn't unless I tried it again and it was different. Just my 2 cents on this one.

 

What style is that?
Cory said the oatwine tasted like sherry fwiw

 

When some noob shouts infection and describes what is obviously not an infection I am also one to take issue with it, and counsel to STFU. However, when largadeer says infection you can take it to the bank.

There was a lot of corporate speak put into a user friendly form in the brewer's post above. The most important points he made though is there is no guarantee a beer is not infected, and he does tasting of product to determine infection, which is impossible to do properly since some infections don't show at all at first. It is a problem that every beer must face, multiplied for beers with a barrel treatment.

Testing a batch of beer proves only that the entire batch isn't infected. There is a chance, since the beer is bottle conditioned, that an unclean/few unclean bottles got filled. Since this is such a small bottling I would wager that is the case here