Armand'4 and Golden Blend

I see no reason why they wouldn't hold up under proper conditions. I just don't know if I would be able to hold one of those Golden Blends for 19 years. They are pretty amazing.

 

All of those beers should hold up just fine for at least 21 years. I think the labeling on some gueuze notes a 20yr "best by" date.

If you plan to keep them for that long, you would probably be better-off by keeping them on their sides and at a constantly lower temperature. People will give you 500 reasons why I'm wrong, so it is up to you. However, if Armand were storing them for himself, they would be laying on their sides.

 

I'll just say this: I don't have kids yet, but if I ever do I plan on saving at least one of my Lentes for a 21st.

 

Have you had them before? If not, drink one of each, no point cellaring something you've never had. You won't know whether the time was worth it if you don't drink one now.

Separately, as answered above, no reason to think gueuze won't last 19 years. Best by dates are frequently 20 years out and from my personal experience with bottles 20 years old, they'll still be delicious. Different--but delicious.

 

If you drink some now, no way you'll be able to cellar them long term. I can't keep a golden blend past 2 months.

 

Idk I had a pour from a bottle 1997 Cantillon Kriek that tasted way oxidized and had a rotten vegetable quality to it. I'm not sure if it was poor storage or what, but it was unpleasant

 

Mike, I though this thread was about Geuze... not Krieks

And as an aside, the 97 Kriek that Monks had was spectacularly funky!

 

Well sure, but kriek is just gueuze with cherries added

 

Nope. It's lambic (a single vintage) aged on cherries. Gueuze is three vintages of lambic blended together (or four, in the case of Golden Blend).

 

So if lambic was a series of stupid pop-economics books, then an unblended lambic would be Freakonomics, a regular 3-blend gueuze would be SuperFreakonomics, and a Golden Blend would be SuperfuckinfreakonmiXXX?

 

i don't have experience with either, but honestly i'd say:

those beers are too special not to drink somewhat early. they'd be special now, and special then.

3F regular oude geuze is an amazing beer, but not "special" in the way the beers under discussion are (just that they're difficult to get, relatively, and aren't made nearly as often if ever again). however, a 21 year old 3F oude geuze is something special. about as special as a 21 year old any-other-gueuze, really.

my advice: drink what you have, and cellar a few oude geuzes (maybe some cantillon as well, and a fresh j.w. lees and/or big stout) for the 21st.

 

I don't think it matters how you store it. Armand would store that way because it's easier to store a lot of bottles on their side. If anyone knows of any concrete reasons why aging one way or another is "better" please let me know because I'd love to see it.

OP, if you want to store bottles that long get a wine fridge. Over 20 years small differences matter, so you want to get it right. I can tell you for sure that gueuze can hold up that long. It changes, but if you like fresh gueuze you'll probably like it aged.

 

Just like I said......differing opinions.

From corked bottles aged 20+ years, I've only had them laying on their side. Fantome, Cantillon, 3F, De Neve. All were fantastic with a wet interior cork, no oxidation, no sign of cork in the flavor. As I've heard many Indiana folk say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

As for capped bottles, every damn one of them stored upright with the exception of Stille Nacht has been oxidized. Other De Dolle, Westvleteren, Chimay, Courage, etc. Maybe it is the cap, I don't really know in this case. Actually, I can say that my '82 Oerbier is being stored on it's side. The one other bottle I opened of '82 Oerbier (stored on its side for years) had only mild oxidation. If they wish to chime in, the others at that tasting can vouch.

This is me speaking from my experience. Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm not taking that chance with irreplaceable bottles when I know that laying them down has been statistically successful for me.

 

I had an Eylenbosch Kriek that was pretty gross and had been stored on its side.

Also, unless you have significantly more experience than it sounds, you don't have statistics on your side because your sample size is way too small. Also, we're talking about corked upright vs laying down. How does your experience speak to that at all?

 

Personally, I would only do this with lambic, or maybe a JW Lees.

 

Also, it sounds lik you were over yonder earlier this year and probably got the chance to try a ton of cool stuff at Sour and Bitter. From the bottles you tried, how were they stored?

Virtually no one has intentionally taken a gueuze (Cantillon Classic, for instance) and tested this theory for 15 years. People who have laid bottles down have had success. The same goes for the temperature argument. I rarely ever hear anyone complain about bottles of gueuze that have knowingly been stored laying down in a consistently lower temperature for a long period of time.

 

Some beers can't be saved. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to just assume that Eylenbosch Kriek is a good example. Like I said, I've had positive experience with beers that have been laid down. I can't stop you from disagreeing with my opinion based on my personal experience. This isn't some sort of contest, so I'm not going to argue with you about it. I can only state my experiences, just like you stated yours about Eylenbosch.

 

That people do something one way doesn't mean it's superior for everyone. Like I said, there's a good reason for places with tons of bottles (such as a bar or brewery) to age on the side, because it lets you store more bottles in less space while still being access any individual bottle.

There's a very good reason to store at low temperature: because chemical reactions proceed more slowly at lower temperatures. There's no comparable well founded rationale for aging on the side, as far as I have ever heard. Just "that's the way it's done in Belgium", which isn't an actual rationale, it's more of an excuse.

Also not that I'm not saying "upright is better". I'm saying that no one (as far as I can tell) can make any kind of convincing case for one way being better, so as far as we know it doesn't actually matter and you can do whatever you want.

And , since you asked, the beers served at Sour & Bitter were packed into boxes and stored upright. Most bars/breweries stored on their side, which makes sense for the reason I outlined above.

That you have no experience with bottles stored upright makes your experience close to useless (to be clear, mine is too). When no one has tried the experiment you can't make conclusions about it. You can say "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and that's fair, but arguing that it's absolutely better (which I'm not sure if you're doing, to be fair) is untenable.