Infected Barrel Aged Yeti

I wouldnt. he reviewed what was in the bottle... Great Divide has yet to address it.

 

If Great Divide says publicly that there's an infection, then he probably should. Otherwise he shouldn't.

In fact, I'd say they should be left up anyway so people have a reasonable way to find out that there's potential for infection if they're considering acquiring a bottle.

 

All reviews with infection should stay posted... and edited with the bottle number for those of us that dont know yet!

actually, someone creating a list of those bottle numbers that ARE infected?

 

I mean, if it's obvious it's infected, then it's obvious it's not the way the brewer intended the beer to taste. I think it would be unfair to post a review of it, just like it would be unfair to post a review of a beer when somebody's dropped some sprite in it accidentally.

 

Hmm, that's a good point, but isn't that what the forum/news sites are for? Considering the review contributes to the score of a beer that is represented overall as uninfected, I would think it's unfair to Great Divide to pull the score down because of an infected bottle.

 

Umm, if they released an infected batch then it's perfectly fair for their score to go down. The released a bad product! I agree that some slack should be cut at some level, but still...

Also, tons of people don't read the forums. I think it only makes sense for it to stay in reviews until GD tells us whether or not it's an infection. Right now it could be tasting as expected, for all we know.

 

I suppose waiting until an announcement is fine. But personally it seems pretty obvious.

Edit: Maybe it will turn out they dosed it with some wild yeast and aged in wine barrels with green apples?

 

Hah, yeah. I'm just glad that I'm not insane and when I had it there probably was some green apple in it. I also feel less bad about missing out on grabbing an extra bottle after that tasting.

 

Definitely sounds infected. This wouldn't be the first time they've had problems with the Barrel Aged lineup. A bottle of '09 Barrel Ruffian I got was just terrible. The lesser reviews for that beer all indicate the same thing http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/158/45249/?sort=low&start=0 (sorted by lowest grade). The odd thing is, I had the beer again at a tasting and it was mediocre, but not nearly as offensive and had decent carbonation which helped quite a bit. The bottle variation was striking which makes me wonder if there isn't just a QC issue when it comes to bottling these beers. Had a Barrel Yeti on New Years Eve that was just fine and not what the OP describes which again points to bottle variation and not a widespread infection. I'll be interested in GD's response for sure.

 

Why would he do that? If bottles are infected, a review is exactly where that sort of information should be displayed.

Edit: I didn't refresh before posting this. People have already made my point.

 

unfair, like someone spending $30 on it not knowing it was infected? dropping sprite in it is your own damn fault, spending $30 on a bottle of beer only to find the brewer screwed up is not cool, and people should know. Some people read reviews when shopping and dont visit the forums a lot.

 

I was acting under the reasonable assumption that GD would give a refund once the batch was deemed infected, meaning that a review bringing the score down for a problem that has been accounted for would be unfair.

 

Why should I take it down? That's the beer I drank. The only reason to do so would be if GD admits fault and reimburses me.

 

See the post above yours.

 

I dont think that is a reasonable assumption though. if it was someone with a history of admitting fault, then yes, but to my knowledge, GD has not... anyone?

 

That's not really a reasonable assumption though. Some breweries clean up their messes and make good on it (Deschutes). Others do the complete opposite (Flat Abbey). Where GD falls is anyone's guess.

 

i had one last weekend and LOVED it. bottle # 1306, definitely NOT infected. i do, however, have another bottle tucked away and this makes me debate if i should hold it or not. certainly wouldn't have a problem enjoying that wonderful beer again, but i wasn't in a huge rush to do so.

 

My last bottle of the oridinary (OK, it isn't really all that ordinary) Yeti was infected as well. Couldn't believe it.

 

bottle 2924 tastes pretty damn good!

 

Bottle 3483 is darn delicious.