Arcadia barrel aged Shipwreck question

it says 2007 vintage on the label in that picture, so if that is indeed it, good find!

The small (12oz red wax) bottles going around now are from the most recent batch, at least here in Philly.

 

It's the same beer. The bottle size and label format changed in 2010. Good find, it matures very nicely with age.

 

Wow...I remember passing on bottles with that exact distinct label on a shelf a while back...for reasons I cant remember...Bummer....enjoy OP

 

I'd like some. I'd also like some 12oz bottles if anyone still has access to those or has a bunch in their cellar.

 

Precisely this. I reluctantly accepted a bottle of BA Shipwreck to round out a trade, & it's head & shoulders above any other Arcadia beer I've had. Most of them are downright terrible.

 

I don't know about terrible... more like mediocre. I agree, though, BA Shipwreck is far and away their best work.

 

They are not the same beer, folks. The earlier vintages of Shipwreck Porter were Arcadia's Balls Porter aged in 10 year old bourbon barrels for only 6 months and it is supposedly about 7% ABV.

The first bottling of the new Shipwreck Porter was aged in 22 year old bourbon barrels (IIRC it stated this on the case packaging) and it was aged for something like 20 months. The second bottling of the new Shipwreck was aged in 10 year old barrels for 1 year according to Arcadia's website. These versions are both 12% ABV.

RateBeer correctly has these beers listed separately.

 

Wow! Terrible! Do brewery's need to brew everything over the top for you to like them? Arcadia brews most of there beers to style. And most are English. They are one of my favorite brewery's and I enjoy most all of there offerings. When I comment about a brewery being terrible It is usualy because there tap lines are dirty. Is it possible that you got some beer that was sitting on the shelf too long?

 

That beer tastes nothing like the 12 oz bottles. It is terrible in comparison. I have had 2 bottle of it within the past 12 months. Both times I was let down, as I was hoping it was as good as the 12 oz bottles. If anyone from the metro Detroit area want to try it I am fairly sure it is still on the shelf at Anthony's on Orchard Lake Road just North of Grand River. At least they had a few bottles of it the last time I stopped in there.

 

Over the top? No, & that's quite a dumb assumption you've made.

I've never had Arcadia on tap, so the probability of dirty tap lines is low. It's just one of those breweries that uses something - water, yeast, hops, goodness knows what - that disagrees with me across their whole line of beers. There are a couple of breweries like this for me & I've never been able to figure out what it is. For whatever reason I didn't get that unpleasantness in the BA Shipwreck.

If you love them, more power to you. I'm just not fond of them.

 

I apologize for my dumb assumption. I can see why people don't like certain styles of beer but there is not alot of brewerys that I can say are terrible unless there are unsanitary conditions.

 

Ha! I'm the opposite. Even styles I don't really enjoy, I've found brewers who make them really well - like wheat beers, which I don't generally enjoy, but love everything wheatish New Glarus has ever made. On the other hand there are a few brewers, probably a half-dozen or so, that I can't drink about anything they make. Which pains me because one of those brewers local to me is coming out with a beer in my favorite style, aged in my favorite barrels, & I'm going to have to go buy at least one bottle. Maybe it'll be another good Shipwreck surprise!

 

Can't think of the name, but any SW suburb people in IL, the liquor store on the corner of 187th and Wolf had a few bottles of the 2008 on the shelf. Grabbed one about a week ago and it looked like there was about 5 or 6 left.

 

I have to stick up for my home brewery here. One BA member can have a unique opinion about something in the beer that he doesn't like, but Arcadia is a better-than-average brewery. The Shipwreck Porter is the best of their beers, but I think all of their others are also good (Jawjacker being an exception to many reviewers, but it's certainly not undrinkable to many). The former 22 oz format of Shipwreck will not give you as pronounced a Bourbon flavor as the 12 oz version if you have one of these older bottles and drank them today in comparison, and I think a shorter period in the barrels for the older version as well as the mellowing over time has muted that flavor. But it's still a treat to drink one of them if you can still find them. (I had one last week, and still have one in the cellar.)

Arcadia has had some BAs over the years complain that they produce a marginal product, but those have been in the distant past with rare exceptions. Their current brewer has discontinued beers from the past that were less than good (Amber Ale), and has provided some tweaking for most of the rest that may have needed it. But this IS a better-than-average brewery.

 

Yes and no.
I formerly worked for Arcadia as Sales Manager. I can assure you that they are the same base beer. Balls Porter is a brewery-only, draft-only product that provides the base for Shipwreck.
Shipwreck (even the older vintages such as the 07 in question) are estimated at 12% abv.
The only thing that has changed is the barrels and the aging time. New barrels were brought in in 2007 and 2009 to expand the barrel program. Some held 10yr old Bourbon, some held 22yr old Bourbon, and all is blended before packaging.
They aging time was extended 2 years ago in an effort to smooth out the beer more. Current aging time is about 10 months. There was one vintage (2011 release I believe) that was aged for 22 months as a one-off, to unofficially celebrate the release in the new smaller format, as there was no 2010 release.

On another note, their entire portfolio is outstanding and true to style. (And no, I do not work for them anymore.) While there were issues in the past (infection, overcarbonation, etc), that has all changed since Josh Davies took over as Head Brewer in 2007. If you haven't had their beer lately, I highly recommend revisiting it.

 

I have a question regarding the 2011 batch that was aged 22 months. There was a batch released that hit the Chicago market in early 2011. 12 oz bottles, black label, and the red wax was dripping. Then another batch came out and hit the shelves in Chicago in the fall of 2011. They were also 12 oz bottles, black labels, but had the red wax that was dipped but not dripping. What is the difference between the two, and which (or both?) is the batch that was aged for 22 months?