What’s The Difference? Share Your Side By Side (2025)

Ok, an interesting ending to the week has made me want to try to extend it into an interesting beginning of the weekend. And comparing beers interests me, so let's do a mini-vertical of western US old ale - Great Divide Hibernation from October 2024 and 2023.

First, somewhat shocking difference is the color. The older beer is more amber (maybe a rusty dark brown) 2023 versus the definitively dark brown to mahogany to black 2024. Head behave fairly similar.



The older beer has what I'd call a more complex, maybe slightly richer nose - though I am debating if it is whatever mild oxidation that can occur in a beer is involved. Given the older beer isn't that aged... I would think that whatever yields the body color difference may be involved.

So I dig in further with that thought guiding me and...

It might not be oxidation, but I do feel it is the hop profile that is different. The older beer has a lighter, more spicy and floral vibe to it. The newer beer is a bit more citrusy atop a muted spicy hops; it also has a more malt coming through - and that malt seems to have a more chocolate roasted aspect relative to what I do get from the older beer.

The older beer is lighter, with a perceived slightly more effervescent feel to it compared to the newer brew. It sounds funny to type, but the color of the beers seems to come through in the taste. That is to say, there's a more nutty grain flavor to the 2023 version than the, admittedly, somewhat acrid coffee note from the 2024 release.

Lastly, there's a somewhat minty flavor to the contents poured from the newer can. The 2023 has a little more sweet tea vibe compared to the coffee of the 2024. If I had the 2023 from a brewery and they called it an American barley wine - I wouldn't argue too much. And if I am going to randomly give these beers styles other than what the brewer has given, I'd lean to giving the newer beer a wee heavy style (though definitely a more hopped "Ämerican" version).

This might've been a bad decision. I am guessing I would've been fine with the latest version of Hibernation without a comparison. It tastes quite good. But in this sitting, compared to the 2023, it sits a notch, notch-plus below the beer next to it.

I can't see the 2024 "becoming like" the 2023 - the makeup seems a bit different, for whatever reason. But I do wonder how it might evolve, and have a few of them to find out.


So, I wrote this post's the preamble before getting into the beers. But this comparison was truly interesting - much more than expected.

 

Do any of us really have a clue? I’m pretty sure I’m making it up as I go along, but with a thin veil of feigned confidence

 

So I grabbed a newer batch of Dogfish Head 120 Minute yesterday. They had a 6-pack, or so I thought, of 2025 Sierra Nevada Bigfoot, so I almost grabbed that. Then I saw there were only 4 in the 6er, so I put it back, thinking I might have some at home.

I did not.

Then I channeled Aesop and figured, those 2025 were probably rotten, anyhow.

Actually, having both 2024 and 2023 in the fridge, I decided to go with the two year old, figuring it might have mellowed more to better compare to fresh 120 Minute. Plus, I had one more bottle of 2023 than 2024.


So yes, these are officially different styles, and the darker, richer looking beer (Bigfoot) is likely to have some more toasted malts in it to accentuate that part of the beer - the barley. The heads built and fell remarkably similarly, thought there might be a slightly bit larger coverage from a sheen of bubbles on the SN beer.

Bigfoot's nose is piney, earthy, and leathery compared to the more honey, apricot, and citrus aromas I get from DFH 120. On strength, Bigfoot is significantly more in my face than the fresher DFH, which is the biggest surprise here. This DFH 120 Minute is actually somewhat disappointing on the nose.

Given the aroma power ratings, I decided to sip the 120 Minute first. Thankfully, the palate easily outperforms the smell of this beer. It starts slightly honey sweet with citrus and apricot notes, which give a relatively tart impression (i.e. it is not objectively acidic in any way). Bitterness comes on mid-palate, with orange rind, then pine wood and some earthiness. Even with that last aspect, this beer comes across as "light" in the flavor profile, though not necessarily in feel.

Moving to Bigfoot, it starts on the ground, and seems to go even deeper. There's a tea-like opening, dark and with maybe a few flecks of citrus peel. Then the pine comes on, moving quickly from the wood to the green needles. The tea gets a squeezed-bag tannic note to it, becoming almost clay-like as the bitterness just continues to build.

Bigfoot is a bit thicker beer, by a little bit. It roughs up the palate a bit, leaving the sensation of lingering longer than the 120 Minute. The DFH beer does stick to the palate, but more delicately, leaving an orange blossom honey flavor for a couple seconds before evaporating. Going back and forth, I would argue the flavor of DFH lingers longer, but the experience of Bigfoot is felt a bit longer, if that makes any sense.

---

I tried a technique we use over in the Beyond Beer forum when pairing whiskey with beer - trying one right after another to see if a new experience (for better or worse) can be achieved, without actually combining them.

Doing Bigfoot before DFH unsurprisingly highlights the sweeter components of the IPA. The interesting thing here is that the Bigfoot takes a break while the DFH comes in, says its peace, and then leaves, leaving the earthy/piney bitterness of the Bigfoot in the linger.

Having 120 Minute before Bigfoot seems to accentuate the earthy tannins of the barley wine. Bigfoot stomps on wherever the 120 was going, but I feel like the sweet orange notes of the DFH beer sneak back into the mix late, smoothing the edges of the bitterness ever so slightly.

I like having a sip of Bigfoot before DFH of these two options. Unfortunately, cracking two big beers to get this experience on the regular is not a good idea - for health of the pocket book. Luckily both beers are very good.

Oh, and if I knew what I learned with this little experiment beforehand, and wanted to pick one of these beers to sip this early afternoon, I would have chosen the 120 Minute. The longevity of Bigfoot continues to amaze me, however, and if I was looking for more bitterness, the choice would easily be Bigfoot.

 

Ok, today doing a bit of a weird one, I guess it could be called a brewer mini-pseudo-horizontal. But whatever. I have two Jack's Abby beers, both Czech styles, both having similar names, but one dark and one pale - Bohemian Dawn and Dusk.

I mainly wanted to see if I could find a connection between the two other than the name. These aren't the freshest beers, but they're not dragging a bum hip, either. I think the Dusk is a bit older (edit: JA website says October vs February releases, so, yeah), and also an edit:

Hope I can remember which beer is in which glass...


First off, the dark produced a nicer head, and one that lasted longer. On the nose, the pale Bohemian Dawn has a mildly stale bread background upon which a grassy-like hop note lay. The darker Bohemian Dusk has a similar level of breadiness - maybe a little stronger - but definitely from a darker grain - go figure! It has some sweet dark fruit notes and a more mineral bitterness, overall seeming like it will be a sweeter than the pale brew.

The darker brew carries through on the dark bread notes, with much less dark fruit, but with a somewhat grassy bitterness that reminds me of the nose of the pale brew. So, is the grassy taste the tie that binds these?

Bohemian Dawn has a more citrus-like vibe when taken after the dark bread of the Bohemian Dusk. By the middle, a grain (more than bread) and grass flavor have danced to the fore. It is balanced until the late finish / linger. The Dusk's bitterness seems to grow earlier, but it might be because it is countering a more contrasting dark malt.

Trying hard, and maybe influencing myself, to see if the hop expressions are somewhat similar and I think.. maybe? I think the citrus impression I am getting from the Dawn is the most pronounced flavor, and contrasts with the darker malts (that might have less resistance from the hops in the older brew) enough to throw things off. The transition from malt to hops, though it happens at different points, is the thing I think is the most similar in these two.

Weird comparison, with almost no usefulness in the end, but still glad I did it.

 

Quick follow up, because I am silly - I combined the remnants of the two Jack's Abby beers in 50/50 and then 66/34 pale-to-dark ratios. Given these beers , at these ages, the 2:1 ratios was actually quite tasty.

 

I do get a mix of grass, sharper herbs, and light pepper notes, the combination sometimes being like a less vegetal argula in beers where I feel the Saaz is amped up. I definitely did not get that in either beer today; the hops seemed to be more countering the malt / grain influence in both beers than trying to be the star.

Maybe they were tamed a little by age? I seem to recall feeling Dawn was more hop-forward when I had it last year, which I think I found a little fresher. But I don't think it was that much fresher (maybe a month old versus two).

 

It was late September can date, which is older than I thought it was before seeing it was an October release in my research above. For 7 months old, it wasn't at all a bad beer, though probably a bit different than it was fresh.

 

Oops - sorry, that was the Bohemian Dusk date. The Bohemian Dawn is two months old.

 

Well, you're perhaps ignoring all the flaws in the beer taster, as well