What’s the Difference? Share your Side-by-Side (2021)

Ahh - I see. I think.

So basically the glasses are numbered twice, and what goes in the glass gets back-tagged by peeling the (hopefully at this point unknown) number from the glass into which it was poured.

If I have this, I now have 33% less reasons for the GF... but she still has that stubborn 2/3 majority

 

So I bought singles of Flying Dog’s Gonzo and BA Willetized Gonzo so I thought it might be fun to drink and compare. First of all I’d like to comment that I used to love FD and often drank their beer, especially Raging Bitch, which I also bought a single of this weekend. This weekend reminded me to buy more from this brewery.
Ok so let’s get to the side by side. Appearance and aroma are virtually identical. Jet black in appearance and slight chocolate malt aroma. The difference is in the taste and mouthfeel. The regular Gonzo has a somewhat thick mouthfeel and pleasant chocolate malt taste. The BA version has a demonstrably thicker mouthfeel and the taste has that hard liquor barrel boozy taste, although less than I expected. Both beers are excellent: what you prefer may depend on whether you like BA beers or regular. Cheers!

picture to url

 

Yes, the GF and I need to head up and hit Flying Dog in Frederick, perhaps as a test case starting to travel safely, again. Could easily do worse for a day-trip expedition.

Gonzo has always been a beer I enjoyed, but I, like you (perhaps), have slept on it.

 

New and old Fat Tire: I found two bottles of the old one in the back of the fridge at the vacation house. Label date "Enjoy by Jan 31 2016"....yes 2016. I really liked the bready/malty taste after mainly drinking IPAs for the last year or so. I brought the other one home, bought a new one (Enjoy by May 2021) for comparison and had Mrs. BillAfromSoCal help me in the comparison. We agree that the head characteristics were different. The new one was creamier and longer lasting while the older one was shorter lived and larger bubbles (see the side view in the first photo). The new one had carbonation rising from the glass bottom until we finished it. The older one had a slightly frosted appearance....not quite hazy or murky and quite uniform in translucency while the new one was bright and clear golden. The color seemed the same. The newer one had more carbonation (visually and in mouthfeel) and borderline fruity overtones on top of the malt finish but the older one had a less subtle and to me, more desirable malty/bready/caramel thing going. I did not expect a beer with an enjoy by date of 2016 to be so drinkable.
New version at right...

new at left ... carbonation rising and foam covered the beer to the last drop

new at left; perfectly clear

 

Cross post with NBW since these are both new beers to me...

Two for one! Suitable and More Than Suitable from Adventurous Brewing. Spoiler: These are great.
Neither can is dated. Both obtained from Tavour. Both served in Flat Stick Pub can-shaped pint glasses.
Suitable:
Pours hazy dark amber with a small head. Smell is surprisingly muted -- I get a little tropical juice but not much else. Taste is nice. Juicy and fresh, friendly, very tropical, a little creamy. Moderate pithy bitterness. Mouthfeel is soft and fluffy. Overall, this is a really nice beer.
More Than Suitable:
Pours a hazy amber with a medium to small head and medium to low carbonation. Smell is tropical, but muted. Taste is a little boozy, but a really bright tropical juice forward beer, I get some fruit skin / zest / pith bitterness. Mouthfeel is fluffy, creamy, smooth, nice. Overall, very good beer.
Side-by-side comparison:
The color is hard to distinguish. More Than Suitable might be a little darker. They're both very hazy with small head. Both of them have similar, muted aromas, slightly tropical. Not sure if that's the beer, temperature, glassware, or my weak olfactory system.
Taste is a bit brighter, fruitier, and definitely boozier in the More Than Suitable. Suitable is dryer and maybe a bit less exhausting on the palate, which is not a description I've ever felt inspired to write before.
Mouthfeel for both is really creamy and smooth, very pleasing.
Overall, you can't go wrong with either beer. If you're looking for a one-and-done, I'd probably go with the More Than Suitable (both for abv and palate purposes); if you might have another, I'd go with the Suitable.

 

Vienna Lager side by side...Fremont Dream City and Interboro + Oxbow All City.
Individual review of All City here.
Individual review of Dream City here.

Comparison follows...

Both are fairly clear, AC is a ruby-amber where DC is a pretty golden amber. Similar head, DC has a little bigger one, though. Smell of the DC is more straightforward grainy, AC is very grainy but stronger toffee / caramel characteristic.

Taste...DC is grainy tea, sweet and husky. AC has more bitterness, maybe more grassiness, again more of the toffee/caramel.

Mouthfeel is similar between the two, light and dry with an almost chalky feel to it.

Overall, they're both really tasty, but I really have no idea which one is more true to style.

 

Ok... this tasting is purely to see which new beer to me I like. Three Floyd's had a decent drop in northern Virginia, it seems, so I grabbed one of each of the names I easily recognized. I've only ever had Zombie Dust (maybe twice) before, so there is no preconception or even trying to guess which is which.


The assessment:
Old Ox (OO) glass is obviously the darkest, with the others beings pretty near each others. The tall Flying Dog (TFD) glass has the most haze, relatively - with most being pretty clear. The small Flying Dog (SFD) glass has the most lacing by a small amount over the Jack's Abby (JA) glass.

I started with sips instead of nose - and on the bitterness end, SFD and JA seem a little lighter than the TFD glass (which is sneaky bitter in back), with the darker OO beer seeming the most bitter. OO and TFD have some wood notes, with OO being piney while TFD is has some dry wood. TFD leans more on a cirtus pith bitterness with the wood coming in late. The JA seems more directly pithy, with SFD being more orange pith with a candied zest.

On the sweetness side of things, the SFD beer seems to have a little more than JA. JA and TFD have a more distinct citrus edge, with JA leaning towards grapefruit and TFD more tangerine with some tropical notes thrown in. OO has a more toasted note with a caramel sweetness becoming its darker look.

Going back the nose, the JA seems a little sweeter citrus and tropical than the SFD, sorta flipping the flavors in a generic way. TFD isn't straying too far from those two, but doesn't smell as floral and has a few bitter aromas. The darker OO beer stands out again with grapefruit pith and pine.

I like the Old Ox (OO), darker beer the best. The toasted malt and more classic bitter notes make it stand out. The tall Flying Dog (TFD) takes second as it also stands out, though with mainly a delayed bitter late flavors. The Jack's Abby (JA) and small Flying Dog (SFD) glasses are close enough, though I'd likely choose the JA brew ahead of the other more often than not.

So, briefly, the GF said she could almost interchange her #1 and #2, which obviously stood out more easily than the other two (which also she could interchange). She chose OO and SFD as her top 2.

So, on the reveal...
1. Old Ox (GF's 1) - Alpha King from far left glass - I recall random posts here and there about it, and I now agree with them
2. Tall FD (GF's 4) - Dreadnaught second from left glass - the mix of sweet and bitter had me thinking this might be the stronger beer, but I was not by any means certain
3. Jack's Abby (GF's 3) - Gumballhead from far right glass - a bit of a surprise here, but after knowing what it is, I can get the wheat more clearly
4. Small FD (GF's 2) - the vaunted Zombie Dust - I joked in WBAYDN about it "not being the same" as if I could possibly know after having it only once, but maybe I wasn't joking

End note #1 - I actually like all of these beers, and the positions are relative to this tasting; I'd likely takes any of these over many a newer style pale ale.
End note #2 - the position of the last two reminds me a little of how I like Lux better than The Substance from Bissell Brothers

 

Quick and dirty side-by-side tonight... Firestone Parabola and a beer that contains 16% Parabola... Firestone XXIV.

This was done with eyes wide open, and I started sipping Parabola - a roasty stout with sweet bourbon accents. The anniversary ale is a little sweeter overall, and definitely doesn't have the roasted malts. Parabola seems almost charred in comparison. This isn't a surprise given the makeup of the anniversary ale, but it was interesting to note having them together.

The barrel specifics are more acute in Parabola, and more mellowed in XXIV; again, this fits into expectations. This doesn't make XXIV boring, just more subtle and nuanced; Paraobla is more straightforward and bold in comparison.

I cuvéed the two as well, which made a 58% Parabola anniversary ale, of sorts. This through the balance of XXIV out of whack, and removed a lot of the nuanced interactions as the 10K pound gorilla both dominated but had its own power reduced. As usual, I should leave the blending to the experts (or to a truly focused blending process)

 

Small Step (NEIPA) and Giant Leap (double NEIPA) from Ferndale Project.

Look: Both very hazy, both creamy heads. Giant Leap is more of an orange/amber color, and Small Step is more of a pale yellow.

Smell: Small Step is more light zest/pith/citrus with some unripe mango, and Giant Leap is more overripe mango / pineapple / tropical fruit.

Taste: Pretty similar to the aromas, actually. Giant Leap comes across way boozier.

Mouthfeel: Giant Leap is heavier and stickier. Small Step is dryer, lighter, crisper.

Overall: Both enjoyable and quite good in their own ways, but I would buy Small Step again before I bought Giant Leap again.

 

A pair of double IPAs, Meowsa! from Georgetown and Hop Venom from Boneyard. Meowsa! was canned on 01/17/2021. Hop Venom was canned on 01/04/2021.

Appearance: Hop Venom is a darker amber. Meowsa's head looks a little coarser. They're actually pretty similar in clarity, Meowsa! might be somewhat hazier but not night-and-day.

Smell: Hop Venom leans more toward resin and vegetation, and Meowsa! toward tropical fruit juice.

Taste: Hop Venom gives me nice, piny bitterness, and Meowsa! gives me a nice balance of fruit juice, pith, and hop resin. Very different -- really depends on my mood which one I would like more, and right now it's the Meowsa!

Mouthfeel: Meowsa! is a little fuller but also with a little chalky texture, Hop Venom is a bit "cleaner" and smoother.

Overall: Yeah, these are both great beers. It's preference that makes a difference between the two in terms of enjoyment, IMHO.

 

Did a blind comparison between these two:



These ended up being the most similar beers I’ve compared. Although there are some noticeable differences, I’m not sure I would have noticed them without a side-by-side.

Appearance is mostly identical, with the Weihenstephaner having a thicker, creamier head that stuck around for much longer than that of Slice.

Aroma was indistinguishable

Taste was very close, the difference being Slice is just slightly more flavor-forward across the board. Slightly more sweetness, slightly more banana and the clove was ever-so-slightly more perceptible. Weihenstephaner was overall a touch more subdued in flavor intensity, but the flavors were almost identical.

Mouthfeel was very, very close.

Overall: I get the impression that La Cumbre set out to re-create the Weihenstephaner Hefe when the designed Slice of Hefen, and they did a fine job. The only difference to me was a slightly stronger flavor profile in Slice of Hefen. And the price!

 

Ok, today I have three variations of a style, which I will have bock-to-bock-to-bock. That very unoriginal pun aside, my main goal was simply to figure out how three different Virginia breweries produced three variations of bock beers, noting the similarities and differences.

What I have is Old Ox's Motor Goat (a regular Bock), St George's Raging Goats an "imperial amber bock" which I am taking as a doppelbock (even though my style suggestion change seems to have gone unaccepted on this site), and Commonwealth's Plassenburg eisbock. The ABVs are, in order, 6%, 9%, and 9.5%.


Initial notes:
The St George's doppelbock is the lightest in color, Commonwwealth's eisbock was easily the darkest, and the regular bock by Old Ox had the most haze. Eisbock had the most head, which was also darker, while the regular bock showed the second most.

On the nose, the darker eisbock has a more distinct toasted character where the doppel and regular bock has a more fruity character. All have a fig note and with a bit of malty sweetness, though the doppelbock seems sweetest. The eisbock occasionally has a light roasted coffee note to it, the regular bock sits a little more grounded with some earth tones.

Tasting notes:
Old Ox's Motor Goat regular bock has a more earthy flavor, as well - it has an amber malt sort of presence with a sweetness that softens the edges but doesn't push into the main flavors of the beer. It ends with hint of bitterness that lingers lightly into the aftertaste.

Commonwealth's Plassenburg eisbock has similar earthy qualities, but with more of a brown bread backbone. The sweetness is higher, but out of the gate it has about the same effect as the it did in the regular bock. However, where the Old Ox bock turns towards earthy bitter notes, the Commonwealth's eisbock turns to more of a over-bruléed sugar bitterness.

St George's Raging Goats doppelbock starts sweetest of all, or at the very least has the least other notes competing against the sweetness. It's a little lighter than the eisbock, so it's not a sticky sweetness, and it gets a little boost in my palate from hints of alcohol. Even though they're close in ABV, I'd have easily guessed wrongly that this beer had more alcohol than the eisbock. Pretty straightforward sweetness with a little toast and even maybe a hint of banana for most of the taste; however, the evaporation of the alcohol notes finally uncover an bit of woody to herbal bitterness.

So, I liked the more "down to earth" notes I sensed in the regular bock and eisbock, and the relative sweetness and apparent alcohol in the doppelbock didn't work as well for me. I actually found the eisbock to be a little more like the classic doppelbocks I've had than St George's "imperial bock," but that's based on memory - which is sort of the antithesis of this thread's goal.

Lastly, in the end I was a little more interested in the similarities than the differences (having had the St George's and Commonwealth offerings already), so at least the reason for the tasting was met, after all

 

What!?!

No reference to "I'll be bock"?

 

I thought the Bros. instituted a "max: one pun per post" rule a while back, wouldn't want to violate it

I did think of that one, however I think by now people know (or dread) that I'll be posting in this thread again.

 

This thread is a great addition to BA. I hope it has the legs I expect.

 

May you live to a thousand years old

 

I'm not sure I want to shoot for that long, but I do appreciate the thought

Slainte

 

Wayfinder Russian Circles
4.23/5 rDev +5.8%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.25

Can from lupulo Santa Cruz.
Can date: 2/8/21. So 1 month+ old.
Classified as Schwarzbier vs black Pilsner.
Appearance: dark brown-black with thick creamy tan head
Smell is bread, coffee, Faint herbal foresty hop notes.
Taste: coffee and/or mocha, toasty, malty, light. Minimal hop bitterness.
Feel: Medium. Standard pils. fairly dry finish.
Overall: description literally says minimalistic beer, so they’re not looking to smack you with any flavors. Abv not detected flavor-wise. Very solid offering. Enjoyed.

OEC Coolship Lager Black
4.39/5 rDev +6.6%
look: 4 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.5

Can from lupulo Santa Cruz.
Can date: not found.
Classified as Black lager.
Appearance: dark brown-black with minimal creamy tan head
Smell: bread, coffee, toffee, sweet, barnyard? Faint herbal hop notes.
Taste: coffee, chocolate, tootsie roll, caramelized or candied sugar, toasted, caramel/toffee, rye bread, tinge of funky sweetness. Minimal earthy/herbal hop bitterness.
Feel: Medium.
Overall: After reading label realized this was open air fermented. I think the little extra sweet funk adds something special.

 

Was fortunate to get to try the 3 latest Parabola variants side-by-side.
Though I didn’t have time for extensive reviews, here were the quick takeaways.
As you can see they all look identical.
Parabola: probably one of the best years I’ve had. A lot of chocolate notes. Full bodied and a little boozy.
DB Parabola: I thought this would crush the competition but honestly was very similar to regular parabola. Less chocolate. A little thicker and boozier, but maybe like only 10% stronger subjectively.
Amburana Parabola: this was a surprise winner for me. The barrel adds a unique tropical wood and cinnamon taste to the stout base.