What’s the Difference? Share your Side-by-Side (2022)

Nice comparison. As a reader, I, too, am a bit surprised that the malt would "crowd out" the hops. Mute them, maybe. Regardless, do you recall how the spruce played out in the blend?

If I am reading this right, that cans have enough benefits to outweigh the more slight perceived quality increase, then I would agree. In all the side-by-sides I've done, I've never really compared can vs glass, despite reading @zid's analysis and wanting to "peer review" in a way. You might have just pushed me to follow through.

My GF would disagree with you, I think. Have you gotten to try the Double Nugget I've been seeing in some people's posts?

About to write up my own comparison after reading a few today...

 

Ok, so I have done some non-scientific research on this in the past. I'm actually sure I've compared aged versus new Backwoods Bastards side-by-side before. I know I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't hold up for more than two years (cellared, at least, vs refrigerated the whole time). But I don't recall the nuances of any verticals in the past, so it's time to document them here.

Short (hopefully**) back story: I very much enjoy Backwoods Bastard. I have it rated top ten using BA's scoring system, but personally it is in my top 5 easily. Founders made it a year round beer at some point right after I bought a few cases. I hate to say it, but once it became less rare, I think sales dropped. Unfortunately, I had 3 cases to work through and though I bought an occasional fresh four pack, I wasn't helping things.

**since all hope is lost...

Then I stopped seeing it locally (if it even is still year round), and my cases were consumed (and I learned of the age degradation described above). On a trip to VT this past year, I ran across a year old four pack, and savored 3 of them along the rest of the trip. The one beer in today's side-by-side is the last of those. The other is from seeing the beer back in stores this year at the time they normally showed up seasonally. I did buy a case while they were on the shelves this time.

So, here is this past year's "seasonal" Backwoods Bastard versus the previous year's.

I noted the difference in labels, the newer beer I think seems retro.

In the picture, the newer beer is darker and the older beer a slightly more earthy/rusty color, comparatively - which holds up in real life but to a slightly less degree. There was a little junk in the older beer, and I think that is reflecting light differently enough to cause some of the difference. The head was both darker and more prominent in the newer beer (the latter of which isn't too surprising.

The older beer actually has a richer nose too it - there's a depth that delves into the fruit notes in the beer. The newer beer has a better expression of the barrel, which shares the stage with the beer, where it seems to be an extra in the older beer.

There is a vibrancy to the newer beer that is nice, but the barrel is a bit strong in this batch at this time. Contrasting that, the older beer has gotten a little earthy and a tad flat.

Even to me, these seem like harsh words, but I have memories of near perfection in this beer, so the detractions I note are against such lofty expectations.

So, the opening of the newer beer is near sublime, but then it gets/stays a little hot from the bourbon flavor influence more than the ABV. The older beer starts a tad flat. But the dark brown sugar, date/fig, and more subtle bourbon notes come together very well, before falling back to earth.

So, if I could have the opening of the new beer, the middle of the old beer, and a blend of the two finishes, I'd be a very happy camper.

Then again, having two Bastards in my hand right now is making my camp very merry right now

Follow up: I didn't feel like combining these, but sipping the newer and following it closely by the older is a nice little one-two punch.

 

Ok, spurred on by @TongoRad and his tasting paired by the coincidence that one of my favorite local brewers released a corn lager, I decided to do a blind tasting. I had noted the hops from the "craft beer" evoked a memory of the "skunkiness" in some imports, but my grocer didn't have the famed perpetrator, hence a replacement.

So Budweiser uses rice, while Stella and Royal Corn Lager use corn (or maize). I expect Vibrissa's beer to stand out slightly by being a little more bitter, and Budweiser to stand out by being a little sweeter. Let's see if I can even pick out a difference, let alone which is which.

All beers are quite clear, though one has a more prominent head. Based on preconceptions and biases, I'd assume that is not the Budweiser. I'm not so sure it's the craft beer, though. The beer with head volume between the others has a very slight haze, which would have leaning that is Vibrissa's. The lightest beer is the one that I am more and more thinking is Budweiser (Rocket Frog glass). But let's see if the nose leads me in a different direction.


On first cycle, the Rocket Frog aroma stood out more than the others. It was somewhat sweet with a light bitterness, and had that classic "beer" smell to it. The other two didn't really have much aroma. Digging deeper, the Blue Mountain glass (sporting the best head) gave me a corn vibe and not much else. The Kindred Spirits aromas still eluded me. Maybe I'll give some tastes and come back to the nose.

The Kindred Spirits glass (with its lightly hazed beer) is pretty clean with a soft bitterness that has a slightly peppery edge to it. The Blue Mountain glass was sweeter by comparison, with the corn more obvious than the Kindred Spirits glass and a balancing but more neutral bitterness. The Rocket Frog glass had a bit less character overall. It was about the same level of sweetness as Blue Mountain without the balance of bitterness. It isn't too sweet, but to repeat, there isn't a lot of character in it at all.

It took a little effort, but I finally got some aroma from the Kindred Spirits beer with a mild corn and even more mild grassy note. If it is the Vibrissa beer, as I now suspect, I am a bit surprised by the lack of aroma. It has a feel that is a little more challenging than the smoothness of the Blue Mountain glass (presumed to be Stella) and lightness of the Rocket Frog glass (Budweiser).

So, was I right?

Before I checked, I sipped the beer left in the cans to see if I could confirm my guesses before the GF revealed the results to me. I became more confident that the Vibrissa beer was in the Kindred Spirits glass. It took a second sip of each to gain full confidence that Stella Artois had the best head in the Blue Mountain glass, leaving Budweiser in the Rocket Frog glass.

Ok, so, finally, the reveal... and I got them right.

The GF and I both noted it would be interesting if one of these times she places the same beer in one of the glasses (since I always forget to do any triangle testing). In this case, I would've been shocked if that had happened.

Final thoughts:

• Would I have thought differently had I not gotten clues from looks? I don't think so in this case, since each beer did have a different flavor to me.
• Which did I like best? Vibrissa over Stella over Budweiser, though the smooth balance of Stella was kind of nice. Budweiser was more bland than I expected, though curiously it had the best nose of the three.
• I'm a little more bummed I didn't have a Heineken in the mix to see if the Vibrissa beer's bitterness is anything like my memory of the "Heineken skunk"

 

Nice entry into the thread, I'm sure we all appreciate it. I'm happy you found the exercise interesting, despite the work involved. We hope this thread isn't too much of a chore, and hopefully realizing things like what you mentioned in your results is the juice worth the squeeze.

Cheers, and thanks for joining in!!

 

Ok, so I decided to do some follow up my previous post. First, I was able to find some Heineken to compare to Vibrissa's Royal Corn Lager. Second, after finding Budweiser fairly bland, I wondered how it compared to a separately perceived "even more bland" O'Doul's. Then, I just decided to throw some Miller High Life in the mix for no real reason.

So step one was to try to be a little more blind and just see what I thought of the non-craft offerings, which would include an expanded version of the comparison of Budweiser with O'Doul's.

So first off, the hazed plastic cups still showed differences in shades of color (though not clarity), so I still need to improve there. The GF said this particular plastic foamed the beers a bunch, so pouring was slow. I think I will take @jonphisher's tactic and explain the results naming the beers, even though I did not know them when the notes were taken.


I went from right to left, and found that the first two had beer-like aromas, and the last two really didn't, though reversing things, they all seemed lacking to my olfactory sense. Pausing, trying again in reverse order yielded the same results - I smelled something in the earlier beers, and less in the later beers. I will note that this time, though, I did get a little bit of corn from Heineken. A third run had it and Miller High Life (which is also the darkest) starting to show just a little more character than the others.

Budweiser tasted sort of bland, with a mild grain and dry grass hop note. Since O'Doul's was showing the most similar nose, I tried it next - and feel it might be the O'Doul's. Between these two, Budweiser was sweeter, but the endings were in the same ball park as each other.

I moved to Heineken next, which exhibited a bit more depth of flavor, mainly on the grain side. It wasn't as sweet as Budweiser but had more body than O'Doul's. Miller High Life seemed in taste in between the two beers that it physically sat between (Budweiser and Heineken). It is actually a little sweeter seeming than Budweiser, but also has more of a grain note that brings more complexity.

So, for round one, O'Doul's stood out as the oddball; and if it isn't O'Doul's, I know to never buy it again at a sporting event or wherever my choices are limited. Heineken was the one I enjoyed the most. The last two would be toss ups, with Budweiser being the easiest to drink.

So, for the record, left to right in my photo is:

1. Budweiser
2. Miller High Life
3. Heineken
4. O'Doul's

Not that it was the goal, but I actually picked these all correctly. I think Budweiser's use of rice somehow stands out, although I sorta just guessed the "most bitter" and enjoyable was Heineken.

I will note that Heineken did not show any of the "skunkiness" my prejudice has attributed to it. Heineken seemed less distinct from the beers today than Vibrissa did against one of them last week. As such it did not stand out enough for a full round two comparing it to Vibrissa's beer.

That said, I decided to pop open the Vibrissa beer with a second pour of Heineken. Yeah, the Heineken is "sweeter" on both the nose and palate, with Vibrissa's corn lager being considerably drier and more hop bitter.