BCBCS: not what it was?

Just had the 2017 version tonight and I was completely underwhelmed. Very little to no bourbon or barrel presence. The coffee was slightly noticeable to me. 13 and 14 killed it, 15 was infected and even 16 was better.

 

Some people in here are incorrectly thinking we are talking about BCBS. We are talking about BCBCS. Coffee.

I wasn't lucky enough to get BCBCS this year, but I did get to try last year's on tap. Nothing has really changed for me besides the obvious different coffees bringing different flavors. I'm jiving with the opinion that what people recognize as "worse" is actually related to the different coffees used. BCBCS is still one of the most pure expressions of coffee flavor in a stout (not just generic diner coffee), and I think most other coffee stouts still have a lot of catching up to do.

If 2017 is garbage, I wouldn't know, like I said, but I'm willing to bet it's not because apart from the infection year, BCBS (the base) is one of the most consistently great beers around for me. Goose does consistency well (they ought to with all the financial backing), and while they're not perfect, they're damn close by continually cranking out one of the best bourbon barrel stouts on the market on a yearly basis.

 

I had a 14 a few months ago and the coffee was non existent. Which I expected. I do agree that 16 and 17 were a let down for a coffee forward ba stout. I do believe it is due mainly because there are so many coffee forward stouts out. You drink a fresh Sump and you are smacked in the face with coffee, just like so many other great coffee stouts. The coffee is more subtle in bcbcs. Which is not a bad thing. I and most others pick up coffee characteristics on many imperial stouts anyway, so when I drink a coffee stout I want to pick up big coffee.

 

Is the decline in barrel notes directly correlated to GI's switch to using wet barrels rather than dry barrels?

 

In truth it's difficult for everyone. But it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking your memory of how something tasted 2+ years ago and how it actually tasted are synonymous.

For that reason, I tend to try taking the default assumption that if something seems to have changed significantly over a period of years, the most likely culprit is that *I* have changed, rather than the beer.

 

interesting question. i don't think so. i also don't think there ever was a time GI used "DRY" barrels. there probably were instances barrels were drier but i doubt that was intentional.

the fact that they were forced to use barrels coming in from a multitude of sources instead of the single or more limited sourcing they had been... likely led to barrels that were drier /dried out. but i doubt there was ever a concerted effort to obtain "dry" barrels.

 

I have not read the thread, but has anyone made the "Next Years BCBS Is Fading Already" joke?

I hear there is zero barrel presence on 2021 BCBS

 

barrels age spirit for years. the barrel walls, floor & ceiling absorb spirit in the process. there'll be an exchange often referred to as "cycling" where as a period of time the oak is taking in spirit, then for a period of time the spirit recedes out of the oak (back & forth is cycling). when barrels are dumped for bottling - they are "wet". the sooner the barrel arrives to the brewer, the "wetter" it will be. the longer the empty barrel lingers around in cooperage or elsewhere, the drier it will get.

when someone suggested "re-wetting" barrels that implies taking your favorite spirit & pouring some in the barrel to "wet" it more/ again. AFAIK "re-wetting" is illegal.

 

After reading comments from @Highbrow over the last few years on these BCBS threads that seem to surface every year, I'm waiting for him to write a tell all book about the GI barrel aging program. He reminds me of J Edgar Hoover - someone the craft community needs to uncover the Bourbon County infection scandal, and their other mishaps! (I kid, but seriously say this with nothing but #respect).

 

With so many barrel programs going on in the world there's going to be problems with finding quality barrels. I would also assume that wet barrels would be a bit hotter based on beers I've had from Foothills Brewing. Some of their in house only beers tasted like a shot and a beer in the glass, both with their IPA and Porter. And in talking with the Brewers they needed to do a lot of blending to dumb it down. But this is small batch stuff and not on the level with GI, but I'd think wet barrels would give more bourbon notes not less, perhaps the Master Brewer over blended if you think the barrel notes are off.

 

If you stick around this board long enough you will get the impression that no beer is what it used to be.

 

Barrel notes = wood, not bourbon notes.

 

i didn't read the thread but i accidentally know exactly what it's about. lol

 

in a vacuum, in theory that's probably correct. but realize, we're coming at it from a very generalized viewpoint. in reality, there are many variables, intended & not intended, that over the course of years, can easily defeat this & other generic logic.

i'm not a brewer but i suspect your conclusion probably doesn't work quite the same with beer even in a vaccum. the extraction of the oak i believe is reliant on the whiskey interaction & the barrel's charred contents over the years. the cycling aspect i mentioned before (i believe is reliant on temperature) & is what draws out "barrel flavor" along with the charred content that tends to flake off & fall into the barrel's contents. i assume brewers would be trying to keep barrels cool, so there's a good chance there isn't much "cycling" going on with the beer along with the fact that the beer is not in the barrel for many. many years. so in my estimation, a spent (emptied) whiskey barrel that dried out, probably gives less "barrel character" because the remaining whiskey & "wetness" of a barrel are probably more responsible if not equally for whatever barrel notes you get in a beer. remember, by the time the brewer gets it, the oak will be somewhat worn down from the spirit itself aging on it.

 

this is a valid point too. & my quoting it isn't me attacking or specifically speaking directly to / @ you. as a group we should examine this realistically.

the ownership, the management, the lead brewers, the barrels used & sourced have changed. the whiskey that's coming out the barrels has changed too. the natural resources used to brew the beer likely have changed to some small degree as well... you, me etc. changed some over the years too. it's kind of silly to imagine everything else changes over time... but any specific beer is going to be 100% the same for its entire existence. hell there's a current thread on the forum (paraphrased) Beer advocate 15 years ago then and now.

 

I can’t comment as to how every brewery runs their barrel program but I can relate how Goose Island used to (and still does?) run their barrel program.

In a conversation I had with the barrel guy at Goose Island of a few years ago (John Laffler) he mentioned that they would age in 55 gallon barrels for a minimum of two seasons to get the beer to expand into and contract out of the wood to extract the flavors from the wood (and the booze flavors from said wood).

Cheers!