Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

Just opened one of my bottles. No signs whatsoever of infection or off-flavors. Tastes incredible!

Bottle info on this one:

 

Just opened a 10/21 (14.3%) and if thats not an infection, I would concede my cellar. Very sour tasting and heavily carbed. I opened a bottle dated 9/30 (13.7%) right after and it was solid. I remember it tasting a bit better around Black Friday and the holidays, when I consumed a bunch of them, but that could have just been the excitement of the times clouding my memory. In any case there seems to be something to the 10/21 date. As a person who dropped the ball reporting my BCBCS and BCBW I hope GI takes care of this one. I can stand being out $50-60 on beer (the experience of Black Friday alone was worth that much) but with the regular added on I'm well over a $100 here.

 

Yikes man, that's pretty rough if you had 3 different infected variants!

 

Oh, so you're attributing motivations to everyone who has ever reviewed an infected/off beer? You couldn't possibly know the motivations of all those people. My reviews reflect the experience of the beer in front of me - no more, no less. It's not punitive. It's how the beer tastes. If a brewer screwed up, my review is going to reflect that. Reviews are not, & should not, be all puppies & sunshine if the beer is terrible.

 

I can understand not using the word infected in a beer review. What I don't understand is not being honest about what you taste in a beer, or being hesitant to review a beer that doesn't fit with the other reviewers' observations, or there being a prohibition against reviewing beer unless it is definitely not infected. I use the reviews as a tool for choosing beer, it would seem that the rule you mention impedes my ability to find out info that would help me make a better choice.

If it has flaw(s) not mentioned in other reviews does that mean no review?

If it is a foam-over bottle, maybe from fusarium, but tastes okay, do we not score it down for that? Do we not review that beer at all?

Rules are rules, and I always abide, and infections happen so infrequently I don't see this as a big issue, but I certainly don't agree with the rule, and I think, judging by past discussions, the majority of folks are of same opinion

 

I had a Prop '15 on Saturday and it definitely tasted sour. Had one on Sunday and it tasted great. All of the regular BCBS's I have drank have been excellent. I would be pissed if there is an infection on regular because I have a case and a half.

 

http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...-2015-regular-bcbs.406200/page-5#post-4689973

OK to review infected beers.

 

See, my thought is:

If you know/are relatively sure the beer is infected, giving it a numerical review is dishonest to the purpose of the numerical review. Now, I suppose here on BA there's no real purpose to a non-numerical review, because people probably won't see it anyway. I'm just of the mind that grading an infected beer outside of saying "this beer smells and tastes infected. It sucks, so beware" is simply skewing the beer's ratings/ranking in a way that I don't find helpful. But given the responses in this thread, it seems to be helpful to a lot of other people, so I suppose I'm in the minority here. Fully rating an infected beer doesn't help me because I essentially have two choices:

1) Buy the beer and hope it's not infected (in which case I'm buying based on the people describing the non-infected version)

2) Not buy the beer (in which case giving the infected version a 1 for taste doesn't help, because I'm passing because the non-infected version doesn't sound worth my money)

To me, the numerical rankings should rate beers based on their best-case; IPAs should be ranked when fresh, and all beers should be ranked when not infected. But again, I see that I'm an idealist on this one; either way hopefully people aren't getting upset on either side of the ratings debate.

 

My point is if no one mentions flavors that might be infected but definitely are bad, subsequent readers of that beer's reviews will see nothing wrong, and those people will buy the beer, be dissatisfied, not review it, the next folks read the reviews, see nothing wrong, buy the beer, don't review it...

Does not reviewing these beers make any sense to anyone? To not review bad beer is it really other than a wink and a nod to the brewery that, don't worry, your secret is safe with us, we won't let the cat out of the bag?

 

I review infected beers. Mikkeller big blend was a gushing mess that was thin bodied and tasted like shit. It deserved the rating I gave it. Not many other reviews reflected my experience, but a few ba's were squeaking about it in the forums. If more people had the same experience I wish they had shared it through a review.

 

I'm opening one of mine this weekend. I'll report back.

 

was there ever a comprehensive list of BCBCS and BCBBW bottling dates? I think it would be interesting to overlay those dates with the these BCBS infection reports.

 

Those dates had nothing to do with anything.

 

There weren't any known kegs of BCBCS or BCBBW that were infected. It's been only a bottle issue to my knowledge.

 

Just opened one, purchased in Sarasota with October 21st date, it's infected.

 

I agree with that sentiment, just not the numerical portion. But yes, we should definitely let the word out in general.

 

I had heard the same, but thought it was odd that no kegs of BCBCS or BCBBW came to Omaha for Migration Weekend (we did see kegs BCBS, RegalRye, Prop14 bottles BCBS, Prop, BCBCS 14). I'm watching migration weeks to see if a pattern develops.

 

Florida again - JUST did a side by side of 10/21 bottling vs 9/30 bottling.

NIGHT AND DAY.

10/21 a tart cherry mess. Not undrinkable but not as delicious and perfect as the 9/30 I'm drinking next to it.

 

I just opened a bottle dated 10/21 that I purchased on Black Friday at the Total Wine University in Sarasota. I either have a non-infected bottle or in too stupid to notice the off flavors. All I taste is bourbon goodness. Not saying anything about anyone else, just my opinion on this one bottle on front of me.

 

I expect that by now GI is well aware of this thread so must be getting an inkling that there is an issue at least with Florida shipments from 10/21, and possibly other dates and locations. Whether they admit and refund these, who knows. The main thing I wonder is what they'll say publicly by next November to restore confidence. If they say nothing, or say they don't know what happened, then I have to think sales will be impacted. If they at least come out and say they had a problem, believe they know the issue, and have taken steps to avoid and detect - then I'll be back. Otherwise I'd be inclined to skip a year or at least wait and see what others report.