BA beers actually improving with age?

The sweet spot with age varies by beer, there isn't any general rule, sadly.

"Improving with age" is also highly subjective, so you're not even going to get agreement on which beers improve with age.

My six cents on barrel-aged beers that do improve with age: Central Waters Bourbon Barrel Barleywine, Deschutes The Abyss, Dark Horse Plead the 5th, Goose Island BCS, Pelican Mother of All Storms.

Those are a few beers that, for me, improve dramatically with aging. YMMV.

 

I personally find that I enjoy many BA beers on the fresher side. I say this because I have found that as they age, the barrel characteristics that the brewer intended to impart into the beer take a back seat to other flavors as time goes by. Now, don't get me wrong, there are also beers that I feel have either too much barrel or I just didn't care for the barrel treatment, and with those I don't mind laying them down for a while. I think Rare is a good example of this. That beer, to me at least, was better in the first year and has been (only slightly) less enjoyable every time I've had it since.

 

Recently picked up a bottle of Mikkeller George vs Brian BA in Calvados. Is this something I should drink sooner than later? This is the first BA bottle I've purchased before.

On the bottle cap it reads. BF 28. 05. 24 KL 11:47

What does this mean? Best before 2028 haha??

 

The whole 'cellaring beer like wine' nonesense has got to stop. Very few beers benefit from extensive aging and like the OP implies, 4 years is generally the absolute maximum for even the densest highest ABV beers out there. Annoys me to no end but nothing like the beer and decanter thing. Now that gets my rage gun out.

 

I think the BA does all its going to do. After that it just mellows, I prefer it a little older because BA is still harsh for me. maybe around the year or 18 month mark. I don't think it gets any better, in the complexity aspect. I just prefer a milder burn or the oak/wood taste, especially from barley wines or old/scottish ales.

 

I think it varies from beer to beer, let me explain:

A good BA beer needs to have a good base beer; some brewers will take a subpar base, toss it in a "good barrel" and then pass it as a good beer, or rather how a novice palate will elevate such a beer in enthusiast communities such as this one. For these beers, subpar to begin with and akin to putting lipstick on a pig, will only get worse with aging. The barrel characteristics will fade, the poorly crafted base then comes to the forefront of flavors and often falls apart in a short time. Furthermore such beers many actually suffer from the barrel treatment by getting infected from the filthy innards of a barrel due to their low relative residual sugars and alcohol content.

BA beers that have a great base beer are augmented by barrel treatment, and if one finds the barrel characteristics too much at bottling (too smokey, too woody, too much spirits in the palate), aging will take these characteristics down a notch and integrate them into the overall flavor profile. So then you will have a good beer to begin with, with added barrel flavor that does not distract from the flavor of the base beer in a well crafted, and if needed aged, BA beer.

This of course is all subjective. Some folks like their BA beer to taste like you are licking the inside of a barrel. I myself like it more like a fine wine- a part of the profile, but does not dominate the profile so I can taste the base beer which should be well crafted, which indicates actual skill of a brewer. I find most BA beers lacking in skill, as the craft sector continues to grow, some Brewers want to capitalize on the profits, and thus throw anything in a barrel knowing enthusiasts will buy it. True skill to me is a brewer that makes a great beer on its own, and makes it greater with a barrel treatment/blend. Kind of like how glitter isn't the whole art project, it just makes the rainbow tail on that macaroni unicorn "pop". Sorry I seem to have lost track of the question at hand...where am I and who are you people????

 

It's all personal opinions/tastes, but in my opinion, some high ABV BA beers taste really hot when fresh, and I miss some of the subtelties that I'd like to impart when tasting the beer. Some cellar time allows those other attributes to come to the forefront. A couple of good examples (again, in my opinion) that I have cellared and actually taste better (notice I'm not saying 'improved') are Stone's Fyoder's Classic and Guardian's Slumber...and they haven't even been stored for very long. I pretty much put any BA barley wine or imperial russian stout away for a year (but always buy at least three bottles for a baseline). It's entirely a matter of opinion, and other cellar threads vary wildly, but I feel the same way about a lot of FW beers (Parabola, Sucaba...and I although I like Velvet Merkin fresh too, it's pretty tasty with a year on it).

 

Agreed, I think all the FW special beers have too much barrel fresh, but they are at least good base beers. Can't stand them fresh, but I have friends that will only drink them fresh.

 

BCBS gets better with age but most barrel aged bier gets worse.

 

Have yet to have found any aging experiment that went in the way of good. I prefer my stouts and barleywine with a bite. I am siting on some Juliet's which i hope will change this around

 

I've had very few beers where I noted an improvement and that was mostly due to personal taste. I don't like a noticeable hop presence in barrel aged beers, so for beers like Sucaba, I like a few months age on it to knock the hop presence down but not aged long enough for the barrel elements to significantly die off. That being said so far I've found Black Tuesday to be big enough where I haven't noted a real drop off for the older vintages, but I wouldn't say an improvement either.

 

I find all the Sisters to be best fresh

 

I just love em fresh or aged..

 

I agree that most stouts are better fresh. Even ones that get called "too hot" fresh I tend to prefer fresh still, as the booziness is all a part of the beer, and waiting for the beer to 'round out' will also mean losing some of the other qualities of fresh.

That being said, there are a lot of stouts I find just taste a heck of a lot better after a year or two (Abyss for instance). 4+ years is too long for most, unless they contain the kinds of malts that will oxidize into great fruitiness like Expedition.

I keep a few key stouts in the cellar but mostly I'm interested in cellaring gueuze, barleywines, and a few sours (though I tend to prefer those fresher too)

 

As with all things involving taste, its a personal choice. Im new to cellaring so I can't say much but BA stouts are a big part of my cellar so far.

Best advice is try as many fresh and aged beers as possible and keep notes.. Worst case is you find one you like better fresh but still gets job done aged..

 

Actually, I'd say that worst case is you find one you love fresh only to have it turn into an undrinkable mess over time.

 

I find that stouts with a good 7-8 months are best. Take bcbcs for example. Fresh it is amazing, delicious with tons of bourbon and coffee. At 7-8 months the blend of the bourbon and coffee is perfect for me. It tastes like a chocolate sundae with coffee added. It was phenomenal. I have a buddy of mine some who doesn't even like craft beer too much, and he loved it. He kept wanting more but i had to cut him off before he drank all mine.

But then take bcbcs at 2 years, i had a 2011 last christmas and the coffee was almost all gone and the bourbon profile was so mellow you could barely tell it was a BA stout.

 

Thanks for the insight here. Great perspectives. The idea that those 'in the cellar' could end up being worse than when I first had them is a scary thought.

 

Almost. It means best before 28th of May, 2024 (kl = time, so that would be at 11:47am).