Praecocia Infected?

I would rather they have a label of analysis with the carbonation levels and tartness on a scale of 1 to 5. Then a small italic quote with "Hey, we're no Lost Abbey!"

 

I'm not sure either of these are good ideas. Some proportion of buyers won't even bother scanning the QR code, and of those who do, will still find a reason to gripe or complain about it. The Bruery is not going to spend the extra time putting flavor and compound analysis on labels - where would they possibly put it? Instead, they could use the same effort to enhance quality assurance or provide more training toward sensory analysis to A) avoid wrong flavor interpretations and B) incorrect label descriptions.

Also, having a carbonation and tartness scale is way too subjective. Who's to say The Bruery is the end-all-authority on this matter? What about other breweries? One man's poor carbonation is another's perfectly fine carbonation. And even if there was a scale, people would complain and gripe about it because it's inaccurate, subjective, and not up to their "laboratory standards". And what about the variability in carbonation among the same batch of beer?

 

Didn't order any of this, didn't order any Cocoa Nut. Ever since the bad order with the White Chocolate, I just stopped making orders. I am going to be very picky with my bottles from them from now on, especially given the price tag.

 

C'mon now, if someone mentions Lost Abbey in a post you should know damn well it is a joke!

 

True, but my understanding is that the bruery has been force-carbing their big, barrel aged beers (at least as of late). IMO, the force-carbing has been a bit too forceful.

2013 White Chocolate, Praecocia, and Cacaonut have all been turbid jacuzzis of roiling carbonation.

 

The label didn't have me thinking 2013 White Chocolate should taste different, the 2012 bottles I had were what gave me that impression. There wasn't much, if any, tart green apple in 2012 but that's all I could taste in 2013. I'm glad they are offering refunds. If you aren't satisfied with something a business should do something to make it up and The Bruery always does a great job with that. Some of us aren't lucky enough to live close to the brewery and try things before buying them. I expected White Chocolate to taste like the candy or like the 2012 release and I was disappointed to say the least.

Oh and FYI I have brought back a 6pack with one missing to a store because the taste was awful and they refunded the money...it's called good business and keeping your customers happy.

 

I agree that the Bruery has great customer service, and breweries/bars/stores should take back beers that are clearly infected or have something wrong with them, but I think what GhettoFabulous is getting at is that people should not expect to buy beers and get reimbursed just because they don't like the taste of the beer. Ebony & Oak had infection problems, so it was great to see them reimburse everybody (and let people keep the bottles already picked up...so far 2 of my 3 haven't been infected), but now we've seen three beers since that release where people are wanting refunds, or someone says they taste flavor X, only to get several other people chiming in saying "I think I can taste some flavor X too, I don't like it/it might be infected", when in fact, it might just be they don't like it. Two of these three beers are new beers, so no one really knows what they would taste like, aside from label/email descriptions.

I've had a lot of beers I remember tasting a certain way and then upon having them again find them to be different, for better or worse. Sometimes it is due to my memory being wrong, changed taste buds, learning more about flavors, or beers being brewed inconsistently (look at some Fantome beers, Dark Lord vintages, etc).

I also think when you're blending or barreling aging beers (like all 3), there are bound to be some inconsistencies; especially when the base beer of some of them (White Oak Sap) was admittedly tasting different than previous years.

The fact that they are still selling these 3 beers makes me think they are fine from a QA standpoint. If people still don't like them then maybe it is because they just aren't great beers.

 

Have you had both WC 2012 and WC 2013? If so, did you feel that WC 2013 was up to the standards that WC 2012 and the Bruery in general set forth?

The theoretical discussion of what merits a beer that should or should not be refunded is actually interesting, although not many people seem to be touching on the fact that a premium price point should dictate a premium product rather than simply a passable one, but I've seen a lot of people defending WC 2013 without actually saying that they personally believed it tasted fine. Everyone's palate is different and perhaps some people genuinely do believe that WC 2013 is a good beer, but everyone I served it to - some of them without any warning about this year's batch being off - thought that the beer was seriously flawed at best, and infected at worst.

 

I've had 2012 White Chocolate several times, but I have yet to have 2013 White Chocolate; I will most likely be opening the 1 bottle of it I bought in the next couple weeks. I'll make sure to report back on what I think of it.

My point was more wondering if the beer was just not good, vs. being infected, due to people's perceptions or inconsistencies in the base/barrel/blend. Seeing the Bruery handle an infection situation well and then threads popping up for several more beers where they say the beer is fine, is what makes me think this. Maybe it just isn't as good this year as last year.

I think you bring up a good point that considering the prices of Bruery beers, people are expecting a top notch product, and consistency. Overtime if consistency fails, people will stop buying their beers (in theory), but I don't think the fact that someone doesn't like the taste is grounds for a refund. I used to love buying Fantome's beers but after getting a few dud bottles and considering the cost of them, I don't buy them anymore for fear of getting burned. You see a lot of people who loved Dark Lord years ago who think the newer vintages stink, so they stop going for them.

 

Agreed, I actually don't believe WC 2012 was infected, although I do think it was quite flawed.

I agree, to a point. There's no clear line where a given beer should taste a certain way, but based upon what PMR said about White Oak Sap - finishing with a higher ABV and more of a tart character - it's clear that there's a difference between 2012 and 2013 that goes beyond barrel character and/or the perception of the drinker. One thing he didn't specify is whether those differences in White Oak Sap were intentional, which would provide interesting context for the discussion.

Several people have theorized that the flaw in WC 2013 is acetaldehyde, which based on what I've tasted is likely to be correct. If it is, then the flaw can be characterized as a fermentation byproduct that the yeast was unable to clean up, leaving a flawed beer. In that context, is it simply something that people don't like? Or is it a flawed product?

There is no right answer, but I think that framing it strictly as a question of like vs. dislike is doing a disservice to the discussion. It should be framed in terms of what are acceptable variations in beer vs. what are flaws that a brewer is responsible for. It's by no means a black and white issue, but as breweries become more dependent on revenue being collected before the beer is available, the issue will likely come up more frequently. Additionally, and as I alluded to, a brewery charging a premium is likely to be held to a higher standard regarding the ability to manage fermentation and stand behind a high quality finished product.

That said, I think you're right that complaints about Windowsill and Praecocia probably gained traction only because of Ebony & Oak and WC's issues. I haven't picked up my allocations of Windowsill and Praecocia yet so I can't really address those beers specifically, but I would anticipate at least some tartness in both.

 

Good point. Can't comment since I have not tried it yet but like you said, it isn't quite as cut and dry as I mentioned.

Agreed...I think this would be a pretty interesting discussion.

I think this is what made me think it could just be people not liking the beer. Maybe lumping WC in with the other two was wrong if it does have real issues, but I found it hard to believe they could release 4 beers with "infections" in a row and handle 1-2 situations great, but then not the other two. I've yet to get my Windowsill and Praecocia either, but I'm looking forward to trying them both.

 

Wait, people are claiming Windowsill is infected? I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous, the label actually says "rhubarb sourness" and that beer is fantastic. These people are crazy sometimes.

 

I went back and found the relevant posts, and it was people surprised about Windowsill having a sour component - before it was released. However, The Bruery's online store and Evan's blog had both mentioned tartness during the creation and sale of the beer, so that line of discussion dried up pretty quickly. Had WC not been overly tart, I suspect no one would've batted at an eye at a rhubarb pie beer being tart.

 

the difference being that if you eat a white chocolate bar, it will taste of cocoa, a hint of vanilla, and be sweet, and if you eat a rhubarb pie, it will be tart.

 

I forgot about the rhubarb being in windowsill, so my first sip was a nice WTF, why is this super tart? Then my wife came by, read the label and asked me why I bought a strawberry rhubarb beer since I dislike rhubarb so much. Glad I married someone smart.

 

beer was awful. had one sip and poured the whole bottle out. gushed when opened, had a shit ton of stuff floating in the beer, and tasted horrific. if not infected, its one of the worst beers ive ever had

 

This gushed when I opened it. I think it was infected. I am a huge bruery fanboy, and this was by far the worst beer I have had by them.

 

Don't know if it's infected or not, but it's fucking disgusting. I've opened two bottles, shared the first one, everyone who tried it thought it was disgusting, too. Drank some of the 2nd one just to see if I was missing something. And I still have one bottle left. Between Praecocia and WC2013 I'm going to be a lot more careful on my purchasing of Bruery non-sours.

 

For the record I had WC2013 last night and loved it. Irs more tart, but it is not infected. If the bruery had bugs that could live in ~15% alcohol we would have sour Wednesday.

 

Oh, I know, my comment was directed at tasting notes on the bottles rather than potential infections. I liked the one confirmed infected beer this year, the Ebony and Oak. I don't care for WC2013 because of the tartness, but at least it doesn't suck like Praecocia.