Does BCBS17' have the potential to age?

I'm pretty sure they still claim "up to 5 years" on the label. Whether or not there is any data or science behind that, I don't have an answer.

 

Yes, everything has “potential” to age

Grab 2 bottles, drink one, save one for 12 months.

 

My notes on the '16 was it was meaningfully improved at a year as compared to fresh. I also had a fresh '17 within days of the 1 y.o. '16 and didn't think it was as good. So for me, it definitely changes (and improves) at least at 1 year of aging.

 

I had a 16 last night, loved it. Still had coffee smell and taste. Very smooth and unlike regular which I love too, it doesn't taste sweet to me.

 

It definitely still ages because of oxidation. Although that means that for you to detect any differences from fresh bottle it would probably take a year or more of cellaring.
The flash pasteurization will really only be noticeable to those that have had vintage BCBS prior to '16.

 

People say flash pasteurizing stunts the aging process, but honestly, I think that's a myth. Unless someone can show me proof. Deschutes has been flash-pasteurizing Abyss for years and 8/10 people prefer that beer aged. Like youradhere said, drink one and age one #d1a1

 

I had a 13 a month or so ago that I thought seemed thicker too.

I remember reading yeast will slowly consume more sugar over time, so I would think we should be seeing the exact opposite...that is, 17 bcbs should be thicker. Unless there was a change to the recipe or process of course.

 

As a homebrewer I can assure you that this is not true. Any living yeast will eat any residual sugars rather quickly unless left at cold temperatures and no brewery would want living yeast eating sugar in bottles creating additional CO2. By doing flash pasteurization GI has killed any yeast wild or not left in the beer.

So to answer the question of this post, yes you can age the beer and the flavors will change like any normal year. A number of the flavor changes is a result of oxidation which would be bad in a normal beer but can add some very tasty notes in high ABV beers and barrel aged beers.

 

13/14 weren't pasteurized. The other poster and I were comparing those to 17.

 

I was just pointing out that any yeast left in the 13/14 would have no effect on changes in that beer as the yeast would have consumed all possible sugars well before the batch was bottled. A bacterial infection on the other hand could still be there since there was no pasteurization but you'd likely notice that in the taste.

There's a number of factors that can lead to a beer tasting thinner or thicker so its hard to say why the newer versions are coming across as thinner without knowing the details of GI brewing of BCBS.

 

Ultimately, I think the question is: assuming the recipe has not changed, what could lead one vintage having a thicket or thinner mouthfeel than a fresh bottle if not the residual sugars/yeast issue?

 

Thanks, this is exactly what I'll do although I thought the fresh 2017 was the best I had all year.

 

Below is a quote from Jared Jankoski, the Goose Island brewmaster, which sums up nicely what you wanted to know about flash pasteurization.

The full blog is available here.