January 2016 Cellar Reviews

I had batch #3 which I believe is the same vintage you have and I consumed it in 2014. My review of the beer has both the recent batch #10 from 2012 tried now and the batch #3 from 2007 tried in 2014.

 

I meant to do this comparison before the end of 2015, but it didn't work out. So here is my experience/experiment of a 2005 Bigfoot next to a 2015 Bigfoot.

The 2005 Bigfoot was purchased back then, and stored in the basement closet for about 5 years. The closet probably varied in temperature from 50 to 75 degrees depending on the season. About 5 years ago I put it in the fridge. The 2015 Bigfoot was purchased sometime mid-2015 and stored in the fridge since then.

2015 Bigfoot:
A: Clear amber.
S: Floral, citrus, malt sweetness.
T: Sweet, syrupy, piney, tangy citrus hops, quite bitter finish.

2005 Bigfoot:
A: Dark amber, after I dumped the small glass and the rest of the bottle into a larger glass, it was murky with sediment.
S: Oxidized, deep red wine note, earthy, dark fruit, very Belgian dubbel-like, dark chocolate.
T: Very chocolate-like. Very earthy. A little bit of tootsie roll sweetness. Somewhat lighter feel.

Overall, the 2005 Bigfoot was still tasty, but an extremely different beer after 10 years. I'm sure at least some of that was the aging method and conditions. I was very surprised at how chocolatety the beer was. The smell was better and more complex than the taste.

I've had 5 to 7 year old Bigfoot before and there was still a fair amount of citrus hop down deep, but in this case after 10 years it was gone.

 

Ballast Point Sea Monster. Drink by date Valentine's Day 2014. I'm not entirely sure when it was bottled. It's the old dating system. I've heard 90 days prior or a year. Either way, 2013. I previously had this beer in late 2013. I did not make any tasting notes, but I remember it to be a fairly boozy imperial stout. This bottle was purchased recently. I do not know for sure, but expect it was stored at room temperature in the box it left the brewery in.

It had a decent head (the picture was taken several sips in). Black. Roasty, cocoa, dried fruit, with a little hop bitterness. Medicinal flavor is beginning to appear, but at this point gives a pleasant sweetness to the slightly boozy finish. Medium feel for an imperial stout. Nice, but I would drink before the medicinal flavor becomes overpowering.

 

2002 JW Lees Harvest Ale.

Awesome, great Sherry flavors.

 

Stone Matt's Burning Rosids imperial cherrywood smoked saison. Bottled January 2014.

Slightly hazy, orange, very little head. Somewhat tart, strong dried apricot-like fruit, faint wood & citrus flavors, very slight saison characteristics that become a bit more prominent as it warms. Very nice complexity. This beer is excellent two years in, perfect with a good meal. @StoneGreg I would very much like to see this brewed again!

 

2013 Heavy Seas Siren Noire. Gotta say, I was expecting a disaster given how chocolate adjunct heavy this was fresh (although still delicious), but this is quite nice. Viscous body, booze is there but appropriate, very subtle cocoa finish. Huzzah!

 

Some friends and I recently did a 2007-2015 vertical. The favorites by far were 09-10. Seems to be the sweet spot.

 

2013 Heavy Seas Siren Noire was one of my biggest cellar surprises of the last 6 months. Delicious with a good blend of chocolate, dark malt, and barrel character -- none of them overwhelm but they all mesh beautifully. Easily the best Heavy Seas beer I have ever had, cellared or fresh, and I really like Loose Cannon.

 

2006 JW Lees Harvest Ale. Consuming this on a whim.


http://i.imgur.com/xvfRnpE.jpg




Hardly any carbonation. As you can see there is some head and some bubbling, but honestly in person the general effect is of a flat liquid. That's not a negaive assessment. It is very good the way it is. But effervescence isn't a word that springs to mind.

The smells are off the charts. Burnt molasss, old polished saddle leather, treacle. Very heavy and very cmplex. Not your everyday beverage.

Taste is also quite something tastes of honey and molasses but also slightly burnt charcoaled bourbon marinated veal. Okay, I'll admit it is nothing lke eating veal. But the tastes are luxurious and all the other adjectives apply so I was searching for an appropriate end to my metaphor.

The mouthfeel is smooth, thick and luxurious. It is lighter than honey but has the same smooth texture.

Just an awesome beer. Looking forward to seeing how they taste with more than 9-1/2 years of age.

 

Better squeeze this in while its still January...


2009 Ivan
Been hearing reports for years that these older 750's had some brett influence. This bottle was friggen spectacular. Huge black licorice character with backing of char, caramel, molasses, oak and bourbon soaked raisons. Never would have guessed this was ~7 years old, no oxidation or any signs of degredation whatsoever.


2010/2011 jo's ba dark app
As you can see, carbonation was nowhere to be found. This one did not hold out that great. Thin feel with more tang to the bourbon component and not much nuance/integration of base malt and barrel pleasantries.


CCB winter warmer 2010
I picked this up in 2011 out on long island and cellared it till now.
This exceeded all my expectations. Pleasant caramel/toffee character with some toasty/bready malt flavors, raisony alcohol and a firm backing of oily bitterness. Mild oxidation creeping in but not enough to distract from the experience.

 

We had a snowstorm last weekend that broke 20 year old records of snowfall so I decided to open a 21 year old beer.

1995 Samichlaus from the Hurlimann years.

I drink a lot of vintage/cellared beer and this experience was jaw dropping. For being in the bottle for 21 years, it held up as good or better than other "standard" cellar candidates of this time period. No degredation at all in the carbonation level or feel of this brew. No oxidation either.

The best way I can describe this was like drinking liquified tootsie rolls. Chocolate fudge, prunes/dates, caramelized sugars like molasses contrasted by almost a mild espresso bitterness and leathery earthiness.

Fucking timeless beer.

 

2000
Even wrote a review for it.
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/285/776/?ba=stakem

 

I like 3-4 years on my bigfoots. Still quite hoppy but blended better. I should do a vertical again.

 

2007 OSA

Greatly surprised on how little oxidation there is in this. It has mellowed greatly and there are hints of oxidation, but nothing off-putting (and I meant hints there is no cardboard to speak of). The spices still dominate the aroma and blend with malt on the taste. As can be seen the carbonation is well intact visually and in the mouthfeel. This is really quite enjoyable still.

 

Last night I got into these:


2007 three philosophers (10th anniversary)
This hasnt changed that much in 8-9 years of cellaring. The yeartiness has mellowed and it has seemingly dried out a bit allowing flavors of cherry pits/skins to shine through. Slightly medicinal but well integrated.


2003 victory grand cru. I think this beer predates the V12 of today. Initially I was very impressed with this 13 year old belgian strong ale: pear/apple/clove but as it warmed up and breathed, a lot of cork and oxidation became noticeable.

 

2014, 2015 Stickee Monkee. Bombers into snifters at cellar temp.

Look: the 2015 is noticeably murkier, and a bit ruddier in color, compared to the 2014. The two together are actually kind of similar visually to the Old Ruffian pic in the first post.

Smell: the 2015 exhibits the expected FW BA barleywine profile: coconut, toffee, tobacco, with a layer of sticky sweetness on top, and not much heat. The 2014 actually seems to have a stronger alcohol presence, and a kind of berry note, sort of like port or brandy.

Taste: the 2015 tastes just amazing. Very sweet, for sure, but just this side of too much, with crazy amounts of brown sugar, maple syrup, tobacco, oak... it's amazing how many flavors manage to shine through the strong sweetness. The 2014 again has more of a jammy character, along with a flavor I can't put my finger on... almost like oregano or something. There's also more bitterness in the 2014, which might be a touch less sweet than the 2015, but isn't correspondingly any more complex.

Feel: the 2015 is somehow syrupy and fairly medium in body; the 2014 comes across as a bit thinner.

Overall: I've never been a believer in the idea that FW beers don't age well (and within the last few months, I've had a 2012 Parabola, 2012 §ucaba, and XVII that ranged from good to amazing), but here, 2015 is the clear winner. The 2014 is just a bit harsher, while the 2015 is just deliciously decadent and rich. I've got a few more of both vintages in the cellar, so we'll see if additional time changes things. As it stands now, I'd go 2014: 4.1; 2015: 4.45.

 

n.b., I frequently do the same as @stakem, and in this case, an extra ~24 hours open (but tightly corked) worked wonders for the '14. I'd bump it up to a 4.5.