Interesting comparison. I mentally compared my go-to regular Harpoon IPA with a Maine Lunch (very different). Essentially my age explains my reaction. My taste buds were trained on 70s specialties (Andeker, Falstaff's Ballantine Ale, Ortlieb McSorleys), early craft beers (Anchor, Sierra Nevada), and range of imports. They were generally maltier than newer styles. At the time I thought SNPA was too thin! I preferred the Porter. Harpoon delivers a balanced (for me) experience that I look for. My tastebuds react to Maine Lunch with "What!" The lack of body in Lunch is a disappointment. At least there's a bit of bitterness at the end for me to enjoy. And the initial post by @cjgiant is a fine testmonial to the effort that goes into Sierra Nevada quality assurance. I don't think any canned beer would last this long (deterioration of interior lining), and a little live yeast is probably needed to preserve bottled beer. Even my mediocre homebrew (bottle referment for carbonation) retained its beery character after 40 years.
Ain't that the truth! I probably did this side-by-side at some point, but even if I didn't, I do recall generally that I enjoy the regular strength version better. Your post makes me want to find a single of DNN and see if my thought holds water, especially given you analysis ad conclusion. So a pseudo-cross post with the Cellaruary thread, where I focused just on the older brew here, I wanted to compare an older Parabola to a relatively newer one - going with a 3 year spread. In NBW, @jonphisher had me look up what my highest rated beers were. I did this to check out a DIPA, but I always forget how highly I rated Parabola (just behind the IPA, FWIW). Also in the Cellaruary thread where I only tasted the 2021 - it holds up as a really great beer for me. So, what can be learned here? I can say, after doing many of these comparisons over the years, I expected a... more tangy, slightly more warming, "younger" experience from the 2024. And (sure, this is a low-fruit embed) Yeah... not so much. I think the difference generally comes from some level of oxidation. And looking specifically for it, I can sense a slight difference. So slight that I can confidently say, tasting these blind, I'd have no more than a 51/49 chance of getting the older beer right over multiple iterations. Which I wish I had. This beer easily holds up to its #4 spot on my all time beer list. Do I have any notes of actual difference, as that is in the title of the thread? Sure... Looks, the 2024 has a razor thin extra thickness to its foam ring On the nose, the 2021 is more roasted coffee and the 2024 has more dark fruit notes, relatively Taste, mostly already discussed, I think the 2021 has a slightly deeper vibe, less highs and lows, and a little more bitter linger There are many of the typical differences you would expect from such verticals, but they are less diverse than I've noted in most - especially 3 years apart I will finish with the fact that the GF liked the 2021 a bit more. She also agreed with me when I said, "If you handed these to me and told me they were this year's vintage" that we'd say, "It's as good as I expected."
A nice paragraph to unpack here... First reaction - SNPA too thin?? I'm sure I wasn't thinking mouthfeel when I started interacting with SNPA, but I am also sure that wouldn't have been my reaction coming from the edges of liking (laugh with me) Molson Ice, Red Dog, Amstel Light, (maybe less so) Sam Adams, and Pete's Wicked. SNPA was just too dry / bitter to me at that time. I think there are a few people on here who better describe the East coast vs West coast IPA vibe of those days. Maine (another brewery this household loves) is a different animal, I think fits in the transition towards where we are now (along with other OG NE brewers). The GF often tells the story of why she is who she is, beerically - having had a Breckenridge IPA at the source, so many years ago. Thanks for joining in! Cheers!
Two at a time is more than I want to handle these days, and potential co-participants aren't close at hand often. After those 40 years or so, my palate has moved closer to SNPA (or vice versa?) Less body for me might be dryness to you. The bottle fermentation probably attenuates the beer a bit more, leaving fewer complex sugars.
I should've borrowed the GF's phone for this pic, as the quality of the image is far below the quality of the beers in it. Let's give you a look right up front. This is a little comparison of my favorite Virginia beer (Ocelot's Talking Backwards) versus one of my favorite beers of all time (Lawson's Double Sunshine). The local brew is a triple IPA versus the Vermont brew being merely a double. I expect Talking Backwards (TB) to be more juicy and a bit sweeter than Double Sunshine (DS). On the look - the pic adds a bit more contrast than in real life. I think the saturation is off, too, but TB is hazy bordering on cloudy, but not near murky sludge. Double Sunshine has some decent haze, but more towards the translucent side. I like Lawson's beer better on this aspect. Nose is the one area I ding DS on, and it is doing ok today - bitter orange marmalade on a lightly toasted bread, with grapefruit edges and tickles of pine. Talking Backwards has a sweeter aroma, almost floral in comparison. Ripe melon is involved, and lighter notes of citrus. The nose is showing the extra malt to get the ABV, I feel. It is also hiding the bitterness I know exists. I like the aromas from DS, but the power of the aroma from TB. The taste is where the battle sits, and I am going back and forth. Talking Backwards is a bit sweeter, but the transition to the bitterness is a nice journey. Double Sunshine starts of balanced, and grows more bitter from there. Talking Backwards starts with orange, tangerine, and unripe melon. Double Sunshine starts grapefruit peel, light toasted cracker malt, and vegetable stalk. Double grows more grapefruit pithy and a bit piney as it evolves to finish. Talking back-fills DS by getting a little grapefruit peel with other citrus. Oh, TB has a softer feel, and its ABV difference is almost completely hidden (maybe sneaking in at the very back). This is perhaps why I have claimed that Talking Backwards is the best TIPA I have ever had - it drinks more like a DIPA. Overall, I think Double Sunshine is a more composed beer and I am enjoying it a tad more today. My local fave held up pretty decently in this comparison, though. The GF concurs in that she likes DS a little more today.
Well, I still have some Double Sunshine and the GF often buys Little Sip - which I have actually preferred to regular Sip in multiple side-by-sides. So let's see which I like better of "the extremes" - with a single combination for fun... (I actually used a good phone camera, but it decided to focus on the UVa hat, which might make sense coming off a first round ACCT win) Pouring these, Little Sip looked darker, but in the glass, they are closer, with the extra haze in Double sip seeming to lighten it to the white end of the grayscale spectrum. Head is better in Double. Double Sip is more hop expressive on the nose, with a grapefruit, tangerine, and light tropical-inspired nose, whereas Little Sip is more grapefruit and grain, oddly. The mix is generally a bit pithy. Little Sip has a nice carbonation, an opening that resembles its nose, and then a nice pine-leading pithy bitterness. Some juiciness squeezes in from the sides. Double Sunshine is more robust and softer, with tropical notes laced with citrus zest opening it. Bitterness some in orange rind and light, dry pine needle. The combination has a balanced opening and an ever so slightly piney classic American IPA hop bitterness - its actually quite nice! Double Sip, overall, is more enjoyable by me. The GF had troubles deciding. But the big winner is the combination. I poured from the bottom of both cans after other pours. And I think, if I was heavy on either, I perhaps had an ever so slightly larger volume of Double Sip (did I hedge that enough?). By big winner, I mean it is more than a combination that is actually successful, but it is actually very good (but not as good as DS, but at least as much as Little). The GF does not seem prone to agree with any sense of enthusiasm. So I had to combine the "tops of the cans" with about a quarter of each left after the comparison... and yeah! This combination was a bit more orange citrus, but it still works! Now I need more Double Sunshine to mix with Little Sip
A quick comparison of Parabolas - the 2024 (previously pitted against the 2021, just above this post) and the newest offering from 2026. The 2026 had an odd *pfft* and didn't produce much head, while the 2024 looked close to still for a brief second before a groundswell of tan bubbles created a bit of a head. The GF's pours were a little more even, and smelling the 2026, I don't get any off notes. Moving the glass even brought about a briefly revived head, so I think we will be okay. The 2024 is a bit more rich chocolate cake than the 2026, which has a bit of a spice bite and dark fruit coming to my nose - at least in a relative sense. They don't smell very different, but I am expecting a richer, slightly more dry and bitter experience from the older brew. So... I don't know about richer, but I did get more of a bitter and dry vibe from the 2024. The 2026 had a little tang to it, but I also got a little of that in the 2024 (but to a lesser degree). There is some chocolate liqueur in the late taste of both. but I get a slightly darker chocolate in the 2024. The GF askedas I took my first sips, "Do you get much of a difference?" To which I answered, "Not much of one." After getting into the comparison, that statement mostly holds - and the basic difference is that the 2026 has an ever so slight fruity dark Belgain ale vibe to it relative to the 2024. I think it may be the freshness of the bourbon barrel. If I had to choose, I'd go 2024 today, but I'd also let you have the 2024 and would be happy with the 2026, if you preferred it that way.
Ok, for little more reason than I had both and they are both in the style of "lager" and produced by long-time brewers, I offer this comparison: Again, my camera doesn't do much for the looks too differently, but the first thing I noted was that there appears to be a very slight haze to the Prima Light - a beer I claimed was "very clear" in my NBW post. It might be the stark straw-light color must have haze making it more "white" than the more golden Summerfest. On the nose, I get grassy hay from the Victory product, and a little bit of a toasted malt on the Sierra Nevada. Funny, the lighter Prima has a more bitter vibe to it. Summerfest is actually more grainy in a grain cracker sense, with some husky bitterness. Prima isn't sweet, but is sweeter at the first touch of liquid to tongue, relative to its companion beer here. But right after - the bitterness is oddly at a similar level, I feel... but in completely different ways. The toasted grain that I assume leads to the color difference is very obvious. There is more mineral to vaguely metallic notes in Summerfest (I have no idea which is older, as one has best by and one has canned on) - almost as if it were a lighter, crisper British malt-forward ale. The hops in Summerfest, to reuse a word, "feel" more American, while Prima Light seems to be using old world hops (or good facsimiles... I just wanted to type that word as it popped into my head). Sierra Nevada's beer does weigh on my palate a bit more, mainly with lingering bitterness, but also seems a tad fuller (it is a bit higher ABV). In the end - this ended up being a more interesting comparison than I expected. In this sitting, I am actually digging Prima Light a little more. I was reminded of the Union Craft Brewing American light lager I had on Wednesday, and would be curious how it would compare here. I would think it would easily be the lightweight, but I also felt that about Prima going in. I guess technically it was lighter weight, but it did seem to punch above its weight class for me today. I wonder if anyone else in the mid-Atlantic has access to these and could offer a different perspective. Probably not anyone wiling to do so... @jonphisher
So I mentioned this back when I tried Double Sip from the can and a glass and ever so slightly preferred it from the can - forcing myself to pick one or the other. Apparently I forgot which photos were in use - as I deleted the picture from the linked post. But here is one for what I am trying today: I must admit, it smelled good pouring from the can. Of course, since I have the liquid in the glass that came from the can, I am getting the can experience with most of the liquid gone (since the GF got a pour as well). On the nose, the glass smells a bit more summer stone fruit with a light tropical edge before a bit of dankness fills in back. The can is not matching the intensity of the glass at this point, but seems a little more bitter / dank with the fruitiness filling in - so it sorta flipped things pouring into the glass. On taste, I am getting something fairly familiar to the nose. The glass has a nice malt sweetness, rounded out by the fruit and tropical notes. The grass-to-pine bitterness comes on strong in the finish and lingers. This is why I love this beer. The can seems to be lacking some of that opening sweetness, although it gets a bit more tropical than the glass in the middle. However, the bitterness is there from the get go and gets stronger into the finish. Similar to the previous post, I am noticing the effect of where the liquid is delivered and that is does seem to affect the experience. So, I did have the can on its side for 15 minutes or so before pouring. I poured the GF's first, so the glass is "middle" of the can whereas the can is obviously holding the "bottom" of the can. Might this affect the notes? Maybe. So I poured the remnants of the can into the glass, since it is harder to go the other way and I was actually liking the glass better today. And yeah... maybe there was a little more junk left in the can - the glass got slightly more cloudy and the bitterness pulled forward a bit. Eh - we got a few more cans, maybe I can do a proper experiment with two cans (shared, of course). Lastly, this can is lacking a date, but I can't imagine it being that old. Surely doesn't taste like it.
Nice comparison. I really like admiring the look of my beer, so I have a distinct bias against drinking from the can. I also, in a subjective way, think the beer smells better in a glass, but you’ve done a more objective comparison.
Thanks. And yeah, I rarely drink from the can, but I've done this experiment a few times over the years (mainly with Heady). This might be one of the larger differences I've noticed, at least as much as my memory can be trusted.
