New Beer Weekend #66

Excellent side-by-side, Jack - the perfect way to really assess the influence of wet hops (assuming Fat Head's did not alter the recipe in any other way). I appreciate the insight even more from an experienced brewer.

I found it interesting that you got more citrus from the wet hop version, and more tropical from the OG. I have to assume the cans are of similar age, or else you would have mentioned that. I often get more "green" or vinous notes from wet hop beers, but not necessarily more citrus (assuming the same varietals). But I have also never had the opportunity to compare regular and wet hop examples of the exact same beer, so this anecdotal observation is not necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison.

Cheers, Jack!

 

@JackHorzempa @BBThunderbolt

I believe that is the happy middle/common ground we have all found.

 

While I enjoyed Double Grid, I found it a big step down from the other Hop Butcher beers I've been fortunate enough to enjoy thanks to our fellow BIFers. Mainly because of some undue hop burn and astringency. IMO, "world class" NE IPAs don't have that flaw.

 

Between @MacMalt and SammyJaxxx, I've had the great fortune to try a good deal of fantastic Kane offerings. I had a strong suspicion just from the label and the wax, and while I wasn't sure it was that exact beer, I was pretty damn sure it was a BBA barleywine - even before you tasted it, which really confirmed it.

 

First new beer of the weekend is from @JayORear through the current BIF. Poured from a can at fridge temp. Pours jet black with nice light brown head.

Nose is very S'More heavy! Lots of graham crackers, marshmallow, and chocolate. It's eerie how much this smells like one! Vanilla ice cream, maraschino cherries, and vanilla. Really gorgeous nose.

The taste, to me, is very different than the nose. It's sweet, but the taste is where the roasted malts and bitter wood notes come out. An almost odd cherry sweetness doesn't seem to mix perfectly with the smoky burnt flavors. However, it is still really nice. It does round out the whole campfire experience! A bit of nuttiness. Dark chocolate, marshmallow, vanilla, and a slight kiss of soy sauce.

Mouthfeel and overall: The mouthfeel is medium bodied. Not quite as thick as other imperial stouts, but a really nice mouthfeel. Overall, definitely worth giving this a try! Really nice campfire-inspired beer.

4.08/5 rDev -1.4%

 

Inspired by @JackHorzempa , I decided to do my own side-by-side this evening. Granted, I was also not entirely drawn to any single new beer, but two new beers ... well that's different!

To set the stage, Tree House releases a number of variants of their beers: Green, for example, becomes Very Green, Gggreennn, and Very Gggreennn, among others. In theory, each time they modify these beers (Green, Julius, Haze, Doppelganger, and others have all gotten this treatment), they're aiming to amplify the hop presence in one way or another, while maintaining the core "feel" of the beer.

How successful are these efforts, really? Do they make much of a difference? I'm going to explore that right now, by taking two versions of the same beer, canned the same day, and see if they present differently. Both of these beers are brand new to me, and one of them has zero reviews of any kind, so I'm going into this as free of preconception and bias as I can be for a Tree House IIPA (or two).



On the right is Ghost Emoji, the "original" beer. On the left is Extra Spooky, the ostensibly extra hopped take on Ghost Emoji. Same canning date, same care, same serving temperature. ES comes in at 0.1% higher ABV, which is interesting but not compelling.

(And yes, I verified the cans do indeed glow in the dark.)

Since I'll be posting the full reviews below, I'm going to focus on highlighting the differences.

Right off the bat, the beers are basically indistinguishable visually. I felt that I gave them a similar pour, and ES also had slightly worse retention. I'm sure any visual difference is can-to-can and pour variation.

The aroma reveals the first departure. They're both juicy, with an emphasis on tropical fruit notes (vice citrus). ES (the extra hopped version), however, is without question greener. There's more dankness, more herbal and grassy tones, the tropical fruit is a touch more subdued, and there's a touch of pepper. I described it to my wife as, "Think of going outside: the grass, weeds, leaves." Her immediate response: "Oh yeah!"

The character of the tropical expression is very similar: melon, mango, papaya, pineapple. Citrus is on the sweeter side, as well: lemon, tangerine, perhaps a touch of grapefruit. The real difference is the amplification of those green notes.

So far: yes, there is a difference, and it actually checks with what I might expect from, in Tree House's words, "an extra kettle and dry-hopped rendition" of GE.

Does that translate to the palate, though?

Yes ... and no.

Up front and at first, GE (the OG) is sweeter and juicier, with less weedy and dank aspects. ES (the extra-hopped take) is greener.

But ... that doesn't really last.

The farther I make it through the glass, the more the sweet juiciness emerges, and these beers come closer together. ES always retains a greener, danker, pepperier (not a word) edge, but as you train your senses more to the taste (vice the smell), that weedy edge becomes an accent to the flavor, instead of the primary character.

In other words: they're both very juicy, and the high malt sweetness amplifies that impression, but the extra hoppy version simply has more depth and complexity. It literally has more - more hops, but also more flavor and more complexity.

For my tastes, I actually preferred the nose on Ghost Emoji (the OG), but those who love those danker, weedier notes will probably gush over Extra Spooky from the first sniff. I was surprised, then, that I eventually favored ES on the palate - but damn is it close.

Ghost Emoji:
https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/28743/514954/
4.43 / +3.3% (4th full review)

Extra Spooky:
https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/28743/573663/
4.45 / 1st review/rating

With the formal review out of the way, I can freely just go back and forth between these two, and ... I still do get that slight difference on the nose, enough to mark them as different beers. They are a little harder to distinguish on the palate, but I do stand by my comments (and reviews) above: there is, indeed, a difference, however slight.

Either way, you obviously can't go wrong with these beers. I wouldn't be surprised if all Tree House variants scored similarly close in side-by-sides (especially blind), but I also wouldn't be surprised to find that they are at least slightly different.

Different enough to warrant the new label and entry? Ehhhh .... maybe, maybe not, but when you've got 32 ounces of delicious, smooth, 8+% IIPAs to drink at the same time, you're unlikely to complain about ... well, anything!

Cheers!

 

No, I think we are all actually on the same page with add-junks (spelling may vary, but the spirit is the same).

We may not all agree on adjuncts, but that's fine. Like I said: happy middle ground.