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

The Allagash glass has a nucleation point? I feel like I’ve never noticed that before.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience here.

I've read that the Brett. character can come and go over time (e.g. https://appellationbeer.com/blog/monday-morning-musing-when-is-orval-best/), and I've met people who have enjoyed Orval up to a decade old. I suspect there is also significant batch variation (or maybe cellar conditions have a larger impact on Orval than they do for some high ABV quads/stouts/etc.?).

 

Poor head retention is a common consequence of dirty glassware. I did both side by side and I thought the SARA won handily. Much more complex, with a lemon/honey/hay note to balance the bready malt character. To each their own I guess, but I definitely wouldn't say the SARA isn't complex

 

I honesty suspect that the can I got was somewhat off. It certainly wasn't up to the standards that I feel SARA holds themselves to. I certainly wouldn't pass up another opportunity to try it, especially on tap.

I will say that the honey note you mention is one that I don't generally enjoy in pale lagers. Even handicapped for suspected canning issues I think I'd still prefer the Bierstadt beer. Of course that is really a commentary on the skill of the folks at Bierstadt and the whims of personal taste than any knock on SARA

 

Inspired by the discussion in the New Beer Weekend thread between @ovaltine @jonphisher and @cjgiant , I am about to set out on my most ambitious side by side of my favorite annual BA release. I have never compared the impacts of aging of this beer beyond a couple cellar review check ins, so today is the day to throw caution to the wind and compare the impact of four years and slightly different brewing to determine the impact of time on

Revolution Ryeway to Heaven.2021 (Left) vs. 2017 (Right)



Can Notes: 12/6/21 15.8% ABV vs. 12/1/17 13.8%. Both refrigerated, not cellared, since purchase.

OG Review Link (of the 2017 batch in August 2019)

4.72/5 rDev +8.8%
look: 4.5 | smell: 5 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 5 | overall: 4.75

Appearance: Primary difference is the 2017 base is a darker bronze, 2021 a lighter bronze. Creamy head on both both after the pour and several minutes in. Draw

Aroma: 2021 has a nice fresh raisin and plums leads, rye follows nicely. 2017 smells a bit oxidized, still welcoming but not as much. Slight cardboard notes, consistent with what I picked up on April 8th during a stand-alone cellar review. Rye really muted with the older can. Clear edge 2021

Taste: This is my first go at the 2021 release, and it is kicking ass right now. A bustle in your hedgegrow, if you will. As this warms further, the rye asserts full authority, even Cartman would back down in awe at this stage. This features a rye barrel at it's finest exhibition I've experienced in a beer. Very smooth, nice and spicy, pleasantly warm going down. Plum raisin sweetness and flavor follow, nice complementary tastes featured. Just really love this beer.

Taste on the 2017 can is simply not as sharp as the fresh version. The rye taste is the primary loss, mellow, there a bit muddling around. No longer the **** of the walk, simply a companion to the muddled plum and raisin, perhaps a box nearing its expiration date. Oh what a pity. If this was my first go at this beer, I'd like it but wouldn't love it. Time and tide waits for no man, and beyond select lambics and a few other beers, this holds true for Ryeway as well. Not quite Mike Tyson vs. Michael Spinks, more on par with Rounds 2 and 3 of Marvelous Marvin Hagler vs. Tommy Hearns.

Mouthfeel: Carbonation and full creamy body consistent in both. 2017 leans a bit sweeter, the strong rye is not as dominating. The ABV strength feels considerably stronger in the fresh version, partly because it is but also because of the rye whiskey strength at this stage. I prefer the sharper 2021, but can see others preferring the more mellow 2017 version.

Overall: Revolution states to drink these fresh. Haven't necessarily intentionally cellared these, but excess purchases has me with verticals of multiple Revolution releases. My cellar work over the past six months have put quite a dent in my excess stash, but this review was eye opening in terms of drinking each release within 0-6 months to gain peak condition. Refrigeration likely helped the 4 1/2 year old can, but not enough to warrant intentionally keeping anywhere close to this stage. Drink Early and Often!

Hope this is helpful for aging in general, beyond points germane to this particular release.

Also, there is no way in hell I'm finishing 24 ounces of this in one setting. I may make a blend of the two later today, and may return if anything of significant interest is noted during this excercise.

Cheers, and than you NBW for inspiring me to dive into this side by side. It gives me courage to do this in the future, real time (vs. day after next day comparisons), though likely this will take place with much lower ABV beers to allow me to complete both without a TKO.

 

I think you may have just inspired me to open mine this weekend as my Sunday sipper if I'm up for it, the maple jacket has been calling my name though... @ovaltine sent me one along with several other revolution barrel aged beers.

 

Fabulous comparison of a beer I have yet to try. I generally do not age my beer, but to each their own.

 

Looking forward to hearing your review of Maple Jacket. The core releases (Deth's Tar, Straight Jacket and Ryeway to Heaven) have most always been my favorites. My favorite variants typically come from extra barrel time (VSOD / VSOJ), but that is consistent over nearly all brewery releases.

I didn't intentionally with these either, especially since they are canned. The one aspect I am not sure of is whether any degradation of a can seal adds additional risk. It's why I have refrigerated as many cans as possible and sparingly cellared any cans. Just got caught up into buying a lot 2017-2020.

Once I clear the remainder of my cellar in 2023 / early 2024, I plan on drinking everything fresh in the future, targeting 24-36 cans/bottles on hand and rotating through all within 2 months. Still enjoying the older ones during this process, thankfully.

Yes, this would be helpful on my end, though I do enjoy sharing with my brothers and the few friends who are interested in craft (most are happy with Miller Lite and White Claw , a few more with bourbon ). Thankfully I have many great BAs to discuss beer with!

That said, I've lost the tolerance I've had previous (the past 3 years), and frankly I'm glad about that. 5-8 ounces is a perfect serving size for 12% + beers. Will never buy a 22-25.4 oz BA bomber again.

I've cheated the side by side process in the past, going back to back days, though I really look forward to doing this with more reasonable ABV beers (4-6 ish).

 

Really liked your write up @cjgiant ! Sounds like a really great beer, and I’m glad Alewerks was recognized for what sounds to be a most excellent Porter.

Perhaps the answer is not to create new verticals, but instead enjoy the 2020 bottle as it approaches the 18th month mark, and age future releases accordingly.

I don’t intend on intentionally aging BA stouts in the future, unless I find a batch to be “too bitey”, which is a rare occurrence on my end in terms of BA imperial stouts. The single barrel “Easter Egg” BCBS are the only ones among very good BA stouts I can recall meeting this criteria (setting aside poor BA stouts).

I like “bitey” and bitter, within a tolerable range, which for me is high. Founders Nemesis is the lone beer I am currently aging for meeting this criteria. I don’t blame Founders, they delivered as advertised.

 

So, maybe a little unusual, and probably warrants an explanation: A while ago, I found a Sculpin in my "cellar." It was already over a year old. I decided to hold on to it until I had a fresh Sculpin to try it side-by-side...for science. To help me recognize specifically what old hops taste like. I finally picked up some relatively fresh Sculpin last week. So now I'm going to try it side-by-side with six-year-old Sculpin.



Old Sculpin's date is 14316, which I think is day 143 of 2016, which would be May 22, 2016.
New Sculpin's date is March 8, 2022.

For starters...old Sculpin was a gusher on open.

By looks, they're fairly similar. The fresher one is a little darker and much clearer, has a creamier head that is lighter in color.

The aromas are completely different. There is no way you would ever guess these beers were related. Old has a little wet cardboard and a lot of stale hops (which I typically describe as old hay). Maybe a little bit of a golden raisin smell. Doesn't smell appealing. New, on the other hand, smells delectable by comparison. Floral sweetness, citrus pith, maybe some bubble gum. Some resin.

Old's taste leans more toward a vague bitterness than an old hay character, but still has a pretty substantial wet cardboard note. Golden raisin is still there, but it's pretty muted. New is bright citrus, pine resin, grapefruit pith.

Mouthfeel...old is medium to thick, very smooth and creamy. New is lighter, crisper, dry, has a little bit of a bite.

Overall...of course I prefer the new one. I think I learned to clearly recognize the flavor of old hops in the years after I initiated this experiment, so this just kind of drives it home.

 

Don't take this the wrong way - You might have accomplished what you wanted, but with the two beers you used and your descriptions of them, it sounds more like you are recognizing the flavor of oxidation than old hops.

 

The wet cardboard for sure is more of an oxidation flavor. I get that in lots of old beers. The golden raisin thing completely surprised me. No idea where that's coming from.

What I'm calling "old hay" is something I pick up almost exclusively in hoppy beers that are three-ish months or older. That's one of the flavors that I associate with old hops. The "ambiguous bitterness" or "vague, dull bitterness" is something I've noticed mostly in older IPAs as well (though it seems to typically show up a bit later, maybe six-ish months). Those are the primary things I associate specifically with over-the-hill IPAs.

Not going to claim to be an expert -- these are the names my brain has applied to flavors I have come to associate with IPAs that seem to be past their prime. I don't know where they come from, and I don't know what an educated palate with a good flavor vocabulary would call them.

But, it was a fun thing to try -- and I finally got rid of this ancient can!

 

Troegs Perpetual vs Perpetual Haze - Troegs has a Summer Better variety pack out right now that has 15 cans in it, three each of Perpetual, Perpetual Haze, Field Study, Haze Charmer, Sunshine Pilsner. I paid $20.59 for the pack and that's one hell of a value for these here parts!

I'm a fan of Perpetual but don't drink as much of it these days. They claim it's PA's top selling IPA and I could see that with its availability and being a dependable choice. This is my first time having Perpetual Haze.

Perpetual - pours a clear darker yellow with a fluffy head. Smell is hoppy with some fruit, grapefruit and pine going on. Taste is fruity, with pine and grapefruit towards the end and it ends bitter and dryly; very firm bitterness. If you're a fan of the OS IPAs this is a good choice. It's actually quite refreshing and I'm enjoying the bite. As it warms the bite mellows but still makes its presence known.

Perpetual Haze - pours a hazy yellow but you can still see through it, fluffy head. Smell is similar to Perpetual but brighter and a little more citrus-y. Taste is nice, arguably quite similar to Perpetual but the big difference is that it's a little softer and ends less bitter and dryly and because of this I can pick out a few more flavors; I would argue just a bit more complex because of this combination. The description says that it combines the clean, crisp bitterness of a WCIPA with the softness of a hazy and that's accurate. My perfect combination for an IPA? It really could be, as it has enough of what I like from both. As it warms it maintains a consistent character.

Winner: Perpetual Haze for my palate but their differences is what I enjoyed about each beer. This was a fun side by side. Budmo!

 

Earlier today in the NBW thread I discussed the below side-by-side tasting:

Today’s tasting aren’t exactly new beers to me but it is a new drinking experience so…

The commercial beer is Orval and the other beer is my homebrewed version of Orval.

Orval is a unique beer in several ways:

While the other Trappist Monasteries brew a number of brands of beer (e.g., Dubbel, Tripel…) the Orval Monastery only brews one brand of beer labeled: Orval.

Also, Orval is brewed using Brett which is not used by the other Belgian/Dutch Trappist breweries. The other aspect that is unique to Orval is that it is dry hopped (likely only noticeable in very fresh bottles).

There is an interesting backstory to Orval (from the article linked below):

“According to legend, around 1070, Countess Matilda, from Tuscany, went to Orval, shortly after the death of her husband Godfrey the Hunchback. Sitting on the banks of the source, she dropped the wedding ring, a souvenir of her late husband. The search for the ring proved fruitless. After a prayer at a nearby church, Matilda returned to the stream. Suddenly a fish leaned out of the water, holding the countess's ring in its mouth. Delighted Matilda exclaimed: "really this place is Val d'Or" or the golden valley. Out of gratitude, she decided to found a monastery in this area.”

https://www.morebeer.com/articles/Brettanomyces

The aspect of a fish/ring is depicted on the label on the bottle of Orval:



Now, when it came to homebrewing a version of Orval I leveraged a blog by Ed (I don’t know his last name) who visited the Orval Monastery in 2015. I provide a link to his blog in the article.

I keep using the verbiage of “version” for my homebrewed beer since not all of the needed brewing details are provided in Ed’s blog so I had to do some guessing plus I also leveraged my past homebrewing of Belgian Trappist style beers to influence the recipe of my version.

I think I should also caveat that these two beers are not of the same age; Orval was bottled 10/13/21 and my version was bottled 5/14/21. I think folks might be interested in knowing that Orval provided a best by date of 10/13/26.

So, how close does my homebrewed version come? Let’s find out!

Beers served in small tulip glasses:

Appearance

Jack’s version of Orval: Deep golden colored with a BIG fluffy white head. This beer has excellent head retention as the beer is consumed creating a beautiful Belgian lace.

Orval: Light/medium amber in color with a BIG fluffy white head.

Aroma

Jack’s version of Orval: An enticing and vibrant combination of fruity and funky aromas.

Orval: Muted in comparison with noticeable but subtle funky and fruity aromas.

Taste:

Jack’s version of Orval: On the palate the flavor profile is skewed towards funky (barnyard-like) than the fruit and there is also a tiny bit of phenolic (e.g., spicy) flavor as well. Just a bit of biscuity malt flavor. A moderate bitterness.

Orval: Follows the nose with subtle but noticeable flavors of funk and fruit. The is a noticeable biscuity malt flavor. A moderate bitterness.

Mouthfeel

Jack’s version of Orval: Highly carbonated (spritzy for the first few sips), medium bodied and a very dry finish.

Orval: Highly carbonated, medium bodied with a very dry finish.

Overall

Jack’s version of Orval: This beer is very good – excellent.

Orval: Very good.

These two beers have a very similar aroma/flavor profile but there is a notable difference in flavor intensity; likely due to the difference in bottle age.

For those of you that homebrew you too can make your version of an Orval; the recipe is included in the article linked above.

Cheers!



@KOP_Beer_OUtlet @rotsaruch @RobH @NeroFiddled @TongoRad @startingatBeer-30 @Rug @Giantspace

P.S. Orval is a beer that very much evolves over time; below is a video of a vertical tasting of Orval.

 

Bro. If the Brewers in Philly used city water the ninja turtles would be real. It's purified in house and any added mineral are just that. Added for texture and ph