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

Nice review, and I do appreciate the post script

As I read your review, I was thinking I'd probably prefer Edelstoff between these two, as perhaps I "should" - if it is better. That said, I know I have had a similar reaction after comparing a beer I know and love and a competitor - the competitor is better, but I still want my old stand by.

 

Ok, it's a becoming stormy late July weekend and I decided to do the same comparison I did to start this thread. There is no snow to include in the pic, and I spent some time outside melting into saline-based water that I understand my body would likely prefer to retain, so it is the standard photo shoot location for this one.

I am comparing 2023 and 2024 Bell's Expedition Stout, from the same packs as the January 11th review. I am not certain how much basement and fridge time each has had, as I have shifted the fridge a few times in the last 6+ months. I will not look at that January comparison until after given this one.


The newer beer, on pour, appeared to have a little darker head. Swirling to compare now, however, they are both produce a rich mocha color foam that scurries to a medium / medium-thin ring.

The newer beer actually has a little more ashy roast note than the older, which has a high cacao chocolate aroma. There is a little cola to sarsparilla note in the 2023. pecifically looking for this in the 2024 yields a little minty pine I didn't note originally. This is the only potential sign of "freshness" difference that I noted that would confirm reality - otherwise I would've blindly guessed the bottles incorrectly based on nose (and actually probably still would have).

Taste-wise... I think I might've re-calibrated. But I am not sure.

The pine of the 2024 comes through atop the charred malt bitterness. There is a slight tang in the 2023 which brings a brightness that may indicate freshness, but the mid-to-late palate is a bit more dull, with a hint of oxidation. The newer beer is a bit more chocolaty, with the newer beer being a bit more spicy (or piquantly herbal).

As I sipped, I either noticed or cared less about the oxidation in the 2023. About halfway through this comparison, I felt I did not have a preference for either. So I took a little break to catch the end of regulation in the Euro Women's soccer final.

---

Coming back, the differences were more distinct and fell into what I had already experienced. And I still couldn't decide which I preferred more. If I ordered an Expedition at a bar, I feel would be less disappointed with the 2024, as I wouldn't expect and age/oxidation. But I could've drunk these beers fresh, and I know what I am deep into - I created the situation.

I keep stalling on a decision, but I do think the 2024 is micrometers ahead of the 2023 today. Going back to my January comparison, I see a lot of similarities, though I chose the 2023 then, by a small margin (though in reading, I think it was a larger margin than today's debate).

Lastly, trying to get ahead of a suggestion by @JackHorzempa - I cuvéed the last 1/4 or so of the two glasses. It's not bad, but the whole seems to have lost just something when adding the parts - one where I think it is specifically the uniqueness of each beer ("freshness" and "richness") was neutralized.

 

I had to look up your official review of Heady - which is rated higher than the Mortalis ratings you posted. But you also mentioned your differentiation in notes, so I am curious if you think you should alter your Heady ratings?

On to the post specifics, where you mention WCIPA and an general aversion to it. I would never have thought rubber was a part of old school WCIPA (cat pee, maybe) and associate it more with NEIPA. So, regardless of whether my impressions and outlook are accurate, but perhaps taking them into consideration, would you place Heady given the terminology of IPAs as they stand today?

 

Very interesting, as I think totally the opposite. I think early NE/hazy/cloudy IPAs had a decent level of bitterness and non-fruit aspect, with the dose of hop fruitiness being the main differentiator. I find today's to generally lack bitterness in any form (they are almost all pale ales, to me).

I found Heady, as of the last time I had it a couple years ago, to be different in this respect in that it did have bitterness (though it also had a soft feel despite the bitternss). I would not have classified it in the NEIPA category at that time.

Sadly, all this memory-based thought experiment has done is made me crave a Heady.

 

On this specific point, I seem to recall a video where Kimmich didn't argue that he was trying to make the same batch every year. I don't think he was talking about quality, but more along the lines that things will drift with an agricultural product. I am too lazy right now to try to find it, but it might've been in the video by The Craft Beer Channel (from pre-COVID days).

Then again, I believe (especially ambient) memories morph over time, so I could be making it all up

Lastly, I'd tend to agree that Heady is in between, though I'd say it's closer to the WC IPAs I grew up with in the teens than it does the hazies of today But there's also a wider set of beers available across the spectrum than existed 10 years ago.

 

Ok, I was going to do this comparison, regardless. But at some point, my brain short-cicuited and I thought they might actually be the same beer. The noted ABV on the new cans make it obvious now that I would not be aging Raison D'Êtra, but... I guess I will say I fear old[er] age even more now

So, this is meant to be a difference comparison, but not something that age would simply explain. The 11 year old Raison D'Êxtra (2014 release, can't quite tell the month) is more than two times the ABV of the newly canned Raison D'Être. I had no real reason to check out this cellared beer (literally in the cellar for most of its life, refrigerated just today) until the re-release of the original gave me an excuse.


So the higher ABV brew is darker and devoid of carbonation after its decade-plus in less-than-ideal storage. There are still signs of carbonation, but not nearly like the frothy light amber-tan head of the younger brew.

The lighter Belgian yeast notes are obvious in the canned D'Être, whereas D'Êxtra smells more like the dark fruit notes of a dark strong ale; yeah, it's Belgian in nature, but as a secondary vibe, in my mind.

Nice spice and phenols from the lower ABV brew, a bit earthy, with the raisins sneaking in as a side note. The higher octane D'Êxtra is sweeter and more sherry or port-like, with the Belgian-specific attributes mostly suppressed; there is a bit of a banana or plantain note in the finish.

The GF noted she actually doesn't like trying them back-to-back at this point, as to her, they are so different. I can't argue much with that, but I'm going to soldier on.

The older brew is not flat, but has a tingle that barely tickles the tongue. The younger brew is nicely carbonated, at a medium level, which I feel can accentuate spicy notes in a beer, as I feel it does here. In contrast, the feel of the older, higher ABV beer seems to help it fit a little more into the fortified wine world that the nose hinted at.

Okay, so I am describing two different beers. Just together. As I feared. But...

There is a middle layer in both beers that connects them. It is a mix of the raisin-like notes and the Belgian yeast, in my analysis. Outside of this core, they decided to live in different corners of the Belgian beer world.

When I tried the new Raison D'Êtra, I decided to raise my old (admittedly harsher than I rate nowadays) review upward a tad. I am not adjusting anything on the old beer. Overall, I think I appreciate both more than I did originally. And I am glad to have another beer out of the cellar.

 

Ok, I know this thread isn't getting much love these days, but I am going to soldier on. And I am going strong on this one (with the help of the GF, as I often rely on, in this case to prevent me from killing myself).

On a recent trip to Rehoboth, I was able to pick up some brewery-cellared Wake Up World Wide Stout - a variant Dogfish Head produced a handful of years ago or so. I had a couple recent purchases (regular and Utopias barrel-aged) in the fridge. I decided to pull out some from the cellar - not refrigerated for many years - Oak-aged and 2016 regular). I refrigerated the cellars for a few hours, and then pulled all beers out to our broken ridge that is opearting at wine fridge temps for an hour.


I am starting in the middle of the beers as pictured, with a more recent, regular WWS. Warming, with roasy notes and a hint of stare anise. The next step seems old regular, so... a bit more flat, and more directly cola- like, which I think is the star anise vibe aged out.

Gonna jump to the oak aged, one I don't recall liking too much. I like it more today - the vanilla and barrel have smoothed out - but the vanilla sticks out in the finish in a way that isn't my favorite.

Utopias seems the next best step. Definitely along the lines of the previous, but more well rounded and the dark fruit from the Utopias is more integrated than the vanilla from the oak-aged.

The newest purchase Wake Up (coffee), which I liked pretty well originally, stands up well against the others. I like the deeper roast notes the coffee seems to bring.

So initial reaction is Oak-Aged is the inferior option, and the age of the 9-year old beer shows up against the relatively fresher beers.



Second time through....
Oak-aged vanilla is still too perfumy overall. I looked back at my original review and apparently I liked it more than I recall and definitely more than I do now.

Wake Up version isn't as impressive the second time through, likely due to my palate being attuned to this tasting already. But it still delivers on the coffee - perhaps a bit more cold brew this time.

Utopias, in following the likely more bitter coffee version, leans pretty sweet. A second sip brings it back into focus, though I will say it seems a bit closer to the base this time, with the dark fruit notes drifting to the edges.

Jumping to cellar-aged original, and... it is very good. The oxidation, flatness, whatever, have evaporated for at least this sip. A second sip brings back more of my initial impression. Still tasty.

That leaves the newer original... and my palate agrees happily with what it has just received. It does seem to thread the needle of the sweet and dry, fresh and dusty, floral and bland, etc.

Which leaves, as I am trying to keep score, the Utopias, newer WWS, and Wake Up as the preference for this tasting.

I sipped... and I sipped...

And the GF said, "Can you really tell a difference?"
To which I answered, "Definitely, yes, but it isn't as much as I expected."

So, in a micro-decision, I like the Wake Up a tad more than the new plain WWS a tad more than the Utopias. I have recapped 1/3 or so of each bottle, sitting in the broken fridge. Will I try some alchemy? Almost certainly (the GF has already asked if I started combining them). If something interesting comes up, I may post it in this thread.