Green Monster

Like with any beer, I don't see the point in aging it if you don't know what it's like fresh. With the Deschutes reserve series, I will try the bottle right away and if I like it enough, certainly I'd be willing to pick up another one or two to save for the best after date.

Can't really help you with this particular beer though, as I haven't had it. I just clicked on the thread because for a second there, I thought you were talking about Green Monsta IPA, and thought a cellaring thread about an IPA would be a bit odd.

 

I have only one bottle and haven't tried it yet. I'm going to try it sooner than later, but I'm not real anxious to break into it ASAP. Same thing applies to a bottle of Planete Rouge I have...

I have IPAs which I need to drink first!

 

It was pretty disappointing when it was fresh and it is still pretty disappointing now. I don't think this one is ever going to get any better.

 

Not sure how many of the Deschutes BA beers you've had but many of them say best "after" including this one. I wouldn't drink it fresh unless you want a beer that's not finished bottle conditioning.

 

They wouldn't release the beer if it wasn't ready to be consumed. The 'best after' is simply a suggestion for beers they believe will age well. If you don't drink the beer when it's fresh then you have nothing to compare it to when you try it aged.

 

Not sure I agree with you on that one but to each his own. I've had a Dissident a couple days after I picked it up and it was horrible. Keep in mind the brewers put the date best after not "ages well, like bourbon county". I listened to the brewers on my second one and it was awesome. That's the last time I think I know more than the brewers that brewed the actual beer.

Op - Just have fun with it. Don't let someone try and make you feel bad on what you decide to do with you beers. There are no rules but listen to the brewers recommendations. Enjoy, and get a little crazy and have a couple week old ipa every once in a while.

 

Straight from Deschutes' site, albeit about Abyss (which also features the "best after" date):

That said, I'm firmly in the "age it" camp, but only after you've established a baseline by having it fresh.

 

Abyss is a great example of the 'best after' deal too. I tried it for the first time last fall/winter sometime, probably about 2-ish months after release, and enjoyed it for what it is, but wasn't exactly blown away. I could have waited til the 'best after' date, but with nothing to compare it too, how would I know whether or not it was worth it? I could buy it again next time around, but if I wasn't blown away when it was rather fresh, I'm not convinced it will be THAT much better just by letting it sit in the bottle a little longer. I've had my fair share of great barrel aged beers at various ages, and I've never seen one change drastically that much for the better. Not saying it's not worth aging any of them, because certainly they can improve with a little time, but the changes are never that drastic unless it's completely fallen off.

 

Do you know what bottle conditioning is?

 

No idea.

"Then the final blend is bottle conditioned so all beer is alive when you get it. 2010 The Abyss was treated this way." Deschutes Web Site



Beer is all about having fun. I consider the date they suggest as the baseline and let it age after that. You don't have to agree with me it's just my opinion.

 

Green Monster was undrinkable fresh. It got slightly better at a few months, but I'm willing to bet it still tastes something like a cross between vinegar and windex

 

Yeah, I didn't think the fresh version was amazing, but I'm still looking forward to cracking a second bottle...always buy at least two (and preferably three)! All about the baseline for me as others have mentioned.
I just looked at the bottle and it says 'Best After 9.1.14.' Tasting it fresh has convinced me to wait until at least then for the second one...

 

Wait, are you suggesting that a beer that got infected and was bad that instead of dumping they poured into barrels wasn't magically saved by said barrels?

Strange.

 

I remember reading that it was a batch of Green Lakes Organic Ale that they messed up by using a non-organic ingredient. Instead of dumping it, they put in souring bacteria and barrel aged it.

 

Any reference for this? All I've ever heard (or found when I just went and searched) was that it was a beer that went bad, and instead of drain pouring it, they put it in barrels.

EDITED TO ADD: It just seems immensely strange that the language is all about a bad beer that they salvaged and not a perfectly fine beer that was no longer organic.

 

Haven't looked for a reference. But that was the story I always heard too. It was non-organic organic ale so instead of dumping it they made this.

 

I have one. Wasn't sure if I should pop it, cellar it longer, or trade it to some of the funkfreeks here on BA.

 

I am a big fan of Deschutes Reserve beers. I bought two bottles of Green Monster when it was released; I tried one immediately and am currently cellaring the other. I also did the same thing with 2012 Dissident. If I had to compare the two before their "best after" dates, Dissident is a far superior young beer and a phenomenal beer if you can put it away and be patient. Time will tell how much Green Monster improves, but patience surely doesn't hurt. If anything, I would hold on to it. Such a small yield would make it a desirable trade.