Odd Side Black Friday Bottle Release

WTF.... I can't make sense of any of this anymore.
Reports are all over the place. Some are getting big tartness, some not so much, some with big carbonation... I have very little carbonation and the beer carb is more akin to pop/Coke/Pepsi. Fizzy, and dissipates quickly.

 

But that's the problem (and my problem in general with the response to Odd Side): the didn't "dump shitty product in the market". The sold a product in good faith that they understood to be up to their standards. And for three and a half months, everyone--both Odd Side and their customers--were in agreement that the product was up to snuff.

Then time passes and all of a sudden Odd Side has now become a bunch of amoral, shady assholes who don't give a shit about their customers because they won't offer refunds or exchanges.

If people are mad enough about this to withdraw their support from Odd Side, that's certainly their right and I would encourage them to do it.

I'm not. That doesn't make me (or anyone who agrees with me) a blind homer or a noob or a plant (as some others have suggested). This issue hasn't happened in a vacuum and as far as I'm concerned, OSA has some goodwill built up from their quick and definitive handling of the Morningwood debacle. To me, they seem like they care about their customers, but are trying to balance that with the real (and negative) impact of "sticking by their products" with no real constraint on how much it might end up costing them. I'm more bothered by the character assassination than I am by people deciding to take their business elsewhere.

As evidenced by the single post that Odd Side put into this forum, which was derided as "blaming" customers for the issues they were having with beers. An interpretation that required a fairly loose read between the lines.

There's probably a combination of factors to blame. Since we don't know the exact source of the issue--whether the unwanted yeast was part of the final, blended beer or somehow contaminated certain bottles in the bottling process, etc... it's acting at different rates in different bottles. But also, the waters are being muddied by the fact that people's perception is different--I have no doubt that there are some people getting genuine, yeast-caused infection tartness/sourness/carbonation issues. But I'm equally sure that there are some people who are either suffering from confirmation bias or maybe don't know exactly what they are looking for--people who are suggestible.

When you combine varying levels of impact with a population evaluating that impact with varying levels of precision in their ability to recognize the issue, it results in reports that are all over the place.

 

To be honest, didn't get a chance to make it out there yesterday. Overslept and just didn't have the time to swing by. I'll try to give an update once I have a chance to talk to somebody there, although I honestly don't intend on providing anything regarding a resolution. Not my place to do something like that; it's up to the brewery that so many of you feel fucked over by...

No loyalties to anybody from me - I just happen to enjoy the majority of what OSA puts out. I also enjoy the atmosphere and service at OSA. I don't feel that I'm entitled to anything from anybody either... I know this is a hard concept for many to understand, but there's always an inherent risk of shit happening when beer goes into barrels... While a more robust QC program would minimize this, again, shit happens. If some of you don't want to buy OSA beers anymore, that's your choice. Much like it's my choice to continue to buy their product - again because the vast majority is very enjoyable to me.

Good on Goose Island for admitting a fuck up, and offering refunds. I have a hard time taking a freebie for any beer I've bought; I did consider calling for the 'bad' bottle, but decided against it as my bottle wasn't a drain pour - just starting to sour a bit. It wasn't what I expected, but it was still very drinkable...I've had much worse beer that wasn't off/infected.

 

I agree with almost all of this. The one defining point is that almost everyone agrees that it is turning after 3.5 months. Based on what we know from the style, is this "normal". I believe most are in agreement that it is not. So, with most people agreeing on those two points, should anything be done? That is up to OSA. In my opinion something should be done, even if brewery credit upon return of bottles. The real impact of this is not going to be exceptionally significant. The amount left in close enough drivable distance to return is not going to be a significant portion of what was sold, especially if a time frame is given like Goose did. If you came from Chicago and have 12 left from your case, it is not worth the cost or effort to return. Only those with significant quantities left or within an hour (or so) of the brewery will most likely return. I'm not out to lynch them, but will be currently taking my business elsewhere.

 

I have to be honest, I wish they would do this as well. I'm sure they have their reasons for handling it the way they are, but I agree that at least from this outsider's view, doing some kind of an exchange/credit for unopened bottles seems like a reasonable and minimal-cost thing to do. And to your point, taking that approach has the benefit of being the most worthwhile to the customers that are, theoretically, the most important/loyal--the ones who live relatively nearby and also purchased the most product.

 

I just wish the quality standards of these OSA apologists were applied to my industry. Life would be so much easier...

 

Wonder if this is just re-fermentation in the bottles, like what happened to Shorts bottles years ago prior to them flash pasteurizing their beers. Also, Hipster brunch isn't like a normal BA stout as it has ingredients like bacon in it so you can't really compare the shelf-life to things like bourbon county. I'll still buy/trade for hipster if they ever release it again...I'll drink my bottles within 3-4 weeks like I did last year.

 

It's too bad there's not any other maple bacon stouts or porters to compare it to...

Such as previous year's versions of the same beer. (or Funky Buddha MBCP, etc)

 

I hope this kind of stuff starts to shake out this craft industry. Not that I want to see anybody go out of business but I think that everybody needs to really start focusing on quality first. A lot of big breweries would have caught this in testing. Take a tour of Bell's and notice their quality lab looks like a scene from Jurassic Park. I get some breweries have more resources than others but think quality first and invest in that before buying more tanks, barrels, etc. And yeah, fess up when things get messed up.

 

LMAO. Big breweries like Goose Island, right?

I mistakenly figured that the Bourbon County mess would help people see that even the most resourced, QC-focused breweries can fall victim to the infection bugaboo.

If we actually do see this start to shake out the craft industry and force breweries into closures over struggles with infection, I think rather than seeing other brewers ramp up QC measures, you will see them either 1) shut down/severely scale back their barrel-aging programs, or 2) start pasteurizing their barrel-aged beers.

Neither option is great for consumers who want to watch barrel-aged beer availability continue to grow and/or age their beers to see how they change with time. But I think those outcomes are more likely than spending more money on QC when we've seen multiple times that even well-done QC isn't infallible at preventing these kinds of money-costing problems.

Though some want to continue (incorrectly) characterizing my (and others') willingness to take on some risk as being an apologist for a specific brewery, I see it more as a willingness to share the fact that barrel-aged, unpasteurized beers are risky even with state-of-the-art quality control, and that I'd like to see BA beers continue to be plentiful and show the ability to evolve and change over time. Being willing to give brewers the benefit of the doubt when something does go wrong is part of that risk. Whether it's Odd Side or any other brewer whose beers I like a great deal.

 

During all of this, everyone's mentioned everything sold on Black Friday except Scallywagger. It didn't seem to be a popular buying choice among the people that I talked to in line that day and it's the rum barrel aged beer in the bunch. Out of curiosity, I opened one today. There's not much as far as pineapple in the flavor, barrel's definitely there. This one's still a tough read on the taste, still ok, but the alcohol in this is still a mind bender. Kind of like the sign in the theater, way back when, with the three different sized Coke cups, this one's your "Best Value". If they offered a trade on this one (like Morningwood), I'd turn them down.

 

so what is the downside of pasteurization?

 

LMAO right back at ya son!

I'm sure these breweries are glad you're willing to "take a risk" and purchase these beers. Why should they mess around with QC measures when they can count on you to purchase whatever BS they put in a barrel? All in the name of innovation and increased availability right? Congrats at naming a big brewery that released, then fessed up, to an infected beer. I have a bottle of KBS for you in Grand Rapids that you can redeem when available, I'm serious. Oh, also, I haven't had an infected Founders barrel aged beer to date so I'm sure it'll be good. Bell's too, among many many others. Founders has either the first or second largest barrel program in the world yet they can get it right? Why do consumers have to be willing to take a risk at buying a barrel aged beer when others have figured it out? Especially when the prices are the same or even higher? It can be done right with the proper QC measures. Maybe we just need to expect this with small producers. We shouldn't, but maybe it is what it is.

 

I don't think Founder's makes any beers using wild yeast, do they?

 

Nope, but should that matter?

 

Absolutely. If a brewery can eliminate wild yeast as a possible infection source, its a eliminated one of two major players in the infection game.

 

I can tell from your posts you know a decent amount about this stuff...and I know next to zero, so I'll ask - is there a reason why breweries wouldn't then avoid using wild yeast? Cost? Something else?

 

My OSA April Fool's joke.

OSA to unveil a new barrel aged stout lineup in 2016. Three new beers named 60 Day, 90 Day and 120 Day will be released later this year. These BA imperial stouts are named so customers know how long a window they have to enjoy these beers. What will happen to these beers after the x number of days have expired? Well, we don't know but beer is a perishable food product, right? You say every other brewery does not have incredibly tight windows on their enjoy by dates for their BA stouts as we do? Well f@#k you & f@#k them. Drink our IPAs if you are interested in a longer shelf life.

 

Without it, they wouldn't be able to brew certain styles, like sours. These types of beers have gotten really popular and I can see why a brew master would want a piece of the pie so to speak. Since Founder's hasn't gotten into that game quite yet, they've avoided one type of repercussion.

As a side note, I had a Hipster a couple days ago. Still tasting pretty damn good, but not as good as release. Granted, I'm not a fan of aging adjunct type beers.

 

So you completely missed my point then?

Because it wasn't that I think QC is unnecessary.