Roguer's Blind Tripel Tasting

As mentioned in WBAYDN?, and on New Beer Weekend, one of my favorite styles is the Belgian Tripel. Westmalle Tripel is one of the beers I encountered early in my beer journey that got me into craft as a whole.

As I cracked open a Delirium Tremens (technically listed as a BPA, but which I've always considered at the very least Tripel-adjacent) last week, I was reminded at just how good it is, and how even though I think Allagash brews the finest stateside Tripel, it's just not quite up to par with the best out of Belgium.

Or is it?

I decided a side-by-side between Allagash Tripel and Delirium Tremens was in order (I would have gone with Westmalle, naturally, but I don't have any on hand). And then on Friday I picked up the Victory Monkey variety pack, which includes - you guessed it - Golden Monkey, another American-made Tripel (with spices). Thus, today's blind test (courtesy of my very patient and understanding partner) was born!



This test has two purposes:

1) Determine which beer I like the most, second most, and least - the classic blind taste test. I know where I think these beers rank in order, but validating them blind is the best way to be sure.

2) Determine which beer is which. This is more of a test as to whether or not I can tell them apart.

I invite anyone else to jump in the thread with their comments - or, better yet, your own blind tasting!

 

Step one: Appearance.

Beer #1: the haziest of the three. Lively. (Nice lacing.)
Beer #2: the liveliest, with best head retention. Perfectly clear. (Decent lacing.)
Beer #3: least lively, not quite flat, worst head retention. Perfectly clear. (No lacing.)

No clear judgment on appearance alone.

Step two: Aroma.

Beer #1: smells like a Tripel, but softer. No notice of actual added spices. Mild banana and clove.
Beer #2: perhaps even softer on the nose, and slightly sweeter, than #1. Both have nominal Belgian yeast notes, but it's less prominent here.
Beer #3: also quite sweet, with a little more of a phenolic note. No noted added spices.

Putting appearance and aroma together, perhaps I'm getting somewhere here. Moving on.

Step three: Taste and Mouthfeel. I'll be tasting half of #1, rinsing, eating a cracker, then going to #2. Repeat until finished.

Beer #1: a little more banana than I expected, perhaps. More clove on the second sip. Slightly dry, spicy finish. Clearly a high ABV beer; warming finish.
Beer #2: lively bite. More yeast expression right off the bat; more banana and clove. Doughy. Pear. Softer finish, both in terms of alcohol and any spiciness (from yeast or potential added spices).
Beer #3: sweet, more neutrally sweet than the other two. Apple, banana. Very little clove, if any. Very slightly syrupy. Very late dry spicy finish. Some sting on the palate. Bubblegum? Mild but present back-end heat.

Halfway through, and I've got some ideas, but this is shaping up to be just as difficult as I expected. This is like reviewing AALs blind: they're designed to taste like the template (the template being Westmalle, in this case). Diving back in for round two, and going in reverse order.

Beer #3: very lively bite up front. More yeast expression than expected, but still not much clove. Definitely some bubblegum. I'm going to go ahead and say this is not Allagash; their house yeast has an expression with which I suspect I would be more familiar. The spicy finish is not entirely to my liking. Just a touch artificial with the up-front flavor.

I'm predisposed to rank Beer #3 last (and call it Golden Monkey) on appearance alone, and I'm trying not to let that sway me, although I think my second round through reinforced that guess. I'm thinking that between the slight artificiality, the strong back end dry spice, and the fairly noticeable alcohol (Golden Monkey is the highest in ABV of the three), that fits. But let's withhold judgment for now.

Beer #2: still think this is fairly sweet, and with more clove (than #3, anyway). That lingers through the sip. More bite if you savor it, but it's still pretty easy to drink. In some ways, it tastes more Belgian than #3, but it's also pretty traditionally a Tripel, so I'm leaning Allagash. Leaning. A little more back-end heat than I noticed the first half of the glass, but then again, this is going to build over time. (Plus, these beers are all within a total of 1% ABV, so identifying by booziness is mainly an exercise in how well the brewer hid it.) I liked this, and I think better than #3.

Beer #1: kind of in the middle. Drier and spicier than I recall from the first sip. Still pretty standard for a Tripel. Less sweet than the other two, perhaps. I think this is softer - no, I think this is Delirium Tremens, period.

 

So let's go to the board!

First, ranking them in terms of first to last .... I damn near can't. I really enjoyed them all, and none of them were perfect.

I think, gun to my head, I probably enjoyed them roughly in order: #1, #2, #3. But damn, was it close.

Now, as to my guesses: Beer #1 is Delirium Tremens, Beer #2 is Allagash, Beer #3 is Golden Monkey.

Here's my rationale.

The appearance of #3 (flatter, poor head retention, less lively) speaks to a beer with added spices. However, I'm not going to bank on that alone. It literally came across as spicier and drier than the other two, and a touch more artificial. All that said, I did enjoy it.

Beer #1 and #2 are almost too close to call in terms of enjoyment. Neither really stood out with Allagash's house yeast. #2 I described as more "Belgian," for whatever that's worth, but as I finished #1, I figured it was the softer of the three - and I associate that with Delirium Tremens over Allagash.

As with picking a favorite, identifying Allagash over Huyghe is nearly impossible. It's a guess, honestly.

 

Believe me, the beers I would have included if I'd planned this out ahead of time would definitely include La Fin Du Monde and Westmalle, and perhaps Karmeliet.

This was kind of spur of the moment, and was originally just going to be Allagash Tripel and Delirium Tremens, but since I happened to have Golden Monkey on hand by coincidence (and think it the lowest of these three beers), I figured it would be a very good control to include. In other words: if I ended up ranking it, blind, ahead of Allagash and Huyghe, then obviously I'm full of crap and easily swayed by my own biases!

 

Results time!



Beer #1 (which I pegged as the top beer by a hair, and which I identified as Delirium Tremens) was Allagash Tripel Ale.

Beer #2 was Delirium Tremens.

Beer #3 (which I had guessed by appearance, and which was my least favorite of the three - but still quite good!) was Golden Monkey.

(For comparison with my own ratings when I reviewed these beers officially, back whenever: Delirium Tremens 4.51, Allagash Tripel 4.31, Victory Golden Monkey 4.00.)

Well! If that speaks to anything, it speaks to just how good Allagash is at crafting Belgian-style beer. (If it speaks to two things, it's that apparently I like Allagash Tripel even more than I thought.)

I honestly had no idea how this would play out; I was prepared to be 0-for-3. With how similar all three of these beers are, I'm not the slightest bit annoyed that in a sample size of four sips each, I couldn't tell Allagash and Huyghe apart. Even when I bought the Delirium Tremens last week, while I felt that I enjoyed it more than the Allagash Tripels I've been drinking lately, I didn't think it was worlds better by any means; I felt it was close (coincidentally, perhaps, reflected by my ratings, which are not recent for any of these beers).
(Edit: on appearance alone, I actually had all three beers correct. I should have never tasted them, perhaps! )

That was fun!

If you bothered to read/respond, I hope you enjoyed this mildly narcissistic experiment. If you have your own blind test you'd like to conduct, feel free to jump into this thread and share your results!

After all, this is all about BeerAdvocate's motto: Respect beer!

 

Great question, and it definitely matters! Tripel ages OK, but it's not typically considered a great style for aging overall. That said, I've happily enjoyed Tripels in the 1-2 year range.

The Allagash is 3 months old; the Victory is 2 months old.

The Huyghe, as best as I can tell, is a year old - but I have had one bottle from that four pack as recently as last week, and can verify it tasted delicious (and better than Allagsh, I thought at the time), so I don't think the age disparity caused any great effect. One could argue if it were fresher I may have preferred it to the Allagash ... except that, last week (not blind), I very literally did prefer it to Allagash. In this case, my own bias and expectations seems to have had more of an effect than the age of the beer.

Again, great question, and a more controlled study would have ensured they were all relatively the same age. This was definitely a haphazard and random idea.

 

Another good one for the list. Also, perhaps the most surprisingly delicious Tripel I've ever had? St. Bernardus! I have their Tripel rated higher than Tremens or Allagash. Everyone loves Abt 12, and 6/8 rightfully get their love, but I feel that their Tripel is overlooked.

I would love to do what I did with a quad tasting near a decade ago: invite some beer nerds over, and do a small sample blind Tripel taste test with some of (what I perceive to be) the big hitters: Westmalle, Karmeliet, La Fin Du Monde, St. B, Gouden Carolus, Allagash, Chimay. Through in a Golden Monkey or something similar if you must.

The difficulty, naturally, is that these beers are by design so similar.

 

Negative; and, in fact, I've got Barrel & Bean in the refrigerator and passed on its inclusion.

I've generally kept Allagash Tripel and Barrel and Bean on hand lately, and happened to pick up some Delirium Tremens recently. I was pleasantly reminded at how good the Belgian breweries are at refining this style, even though I love Allagash's take on Belgian styles. That's what inspired the whole thing: a side-by-side to put my biases and expectations to the test.