HOTD just updated their vintage beer page with new prices. There's also some interesting text at the bottom. "Hair of the Dog is proud to be one of the first Breweries in America specializing in the production of high alcohol, bottle conditioned beers as well as experimenting with the barrel aging process since 1994. Currently, the Brewery has 180 oak barrels used to age Beer from 6 months to 8 years. We use new oak as well as previously filled spirit and wine barrels. All the Beer is made by two brewers, Jesse Shue and Alan Sprints." What could they be aging for eight years but a new batch of Dave? Aftw is only aged for about 4 years. Also they plan to raffle off 6 bottles this year. It makes sense to raffle these off before a new batch comes out to try to maximize the $$$ that go to charity. I apologize in advance if I'm getting hopes up with no real evidence but I tried to be as clear as possible in the title.
Dave was made in 1994 by freezing Adam 3 times, concentrating 300 gallons of Adam down to only 100 gallons. Aging it 6-8 years had nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, Hair of the Dog was open less than a year when Dave was released. Furthermore, there is a very real reason American breweries don't do real "eis" beers- it is illegal. Freezing is considered a form of distillation by the Feds. Unless you have a distillery license you can't legally make an eis-beer. I'd love a new batch of Dave as much as anyone, but there is zero reason to think your suspicions are correct.
All good points. Lets shift speculation as I'm clearly wrong. What could they be aging for 8 years? Adam? Something new?
I just checked and even though Dave was brewed in 1994 it was in fact aged for four years and debuted at a barley wine festival in 1998. However your points remain and it seems like Dave could not be recreated without the license.
I've run across this same conversation several times, and while the consensus is that it is grey at best, here is some more to chew on (this particular quote is shamelessly stolen fron another forum, but I'm on a mobile device and don't have time to fully credit. This isn't the first time I've seen this same quote though...) ______________________________________________ In the Winter 1995 issue of Zymurgy: It had an article by Dennis Davison on Eisbock. A sidebar in the article stated, "According to Bureauf of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms officials, the process of freezing beer and removing ice is called concentrating. A brewer may not employ any process of concentration that separates alcohol spirits from any fermented beverage, and since ice is being removed from beer, this concentration procedure is legal." ______________________________________________ Apparently, removing ice from beer is fine, but removing spirits from beer is not.
This more recent ATF ruling would seem to indicate that you can only remove ice from beer if you remove less than 0.5% of the total volume of the liquid: http://www.ttb.gov/rulings/94-3.htm In the case at hand, brewers have inquired whether production of ice beer is considered the production of a concentrate. During production of ice beer, the beer is cooled below freezing causing the formation of ice crystals. The beer is then filtered or subjected to other processes which remove a portion of the ice crystals from the beer. The resultant product contains slightly less volume than the beer which entered the process. After this freezing process, brewers restore to the beer at least the volume of water lost when ice crystals are removed. Discussion. ATF has examined laboratory samples of ice beer. In all cases, ATF finds that the basic character of the beer is unchanged; i.e., the product continues to resemble beer after the removal of small amounts of ice crystals and its alcoholic content is not increased to a substantial degree. The ice beer examined does not resemble a concentrate made from beer which typically contains less than 50 percent of the volume of the beer used to produce it, and has a high alcoholic content. Extensive research has revealed that the regulations relating to beer concentrate were premised on a process which concentrated beer to between 3/4 and 1 /4 or less of its original volume. ATF believes that de minimis removals of beer volume were not considered when the beer concentrate regulations were promulgated. Thus, ATF concludes that beer made by the removal of small amounts of ice crystals is beer rather than a concentrate made from beer. ATF has also examined statements of process for ice beers. Our examination has found that the volume removed as ice crystals does not exceed 0.5 percent of the volume of the beer entered into the process. ATF thus concludes that removal of up to 0.5 percent of the volume of beer through the removal of ice crystals is customary industry practice and results in a product which may be considered beer. Held. The meaning of the term "concentrate" defined in 25.11 does not include beer which has been reduced in volume through the extraction of ice crystals from the beer if: (1) the volume removed is a de minimis amount (not more than 0.5 percent of the volume of beer used in producing such product); and (2) the resultant product resembles beer. Under these conditions, the beer is not subject to the restrictions of Subpart R or to labeling requirements relating to concentrate. Such beer may be imported or removed taxpaid or tax determined and sold to consumers as beer. Further held. In order to determine whether a product is a beer or a concentrate made from beer, brewers or importers shall submit a statement of process to the Associate Director, Compliance Operations, for any product in which any amount of water or ice is removed. Such statement will describe each process used in making beer, will state the alcoholic content of the beer at each stage in production, and will specify the volume reduction of the beer by any process.
iirc, batch 1 of adam ftw was in barrels for 8years. Or maybe the second one? Released in 02, i think.
