Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

Contaminated not infected. Infected means pathogen related.

 

FIFY

 

This has been discussed ad nauseum. Technically you are correct, but "infection" has become so widely used you may as well tell the rain not to fall.

 

Well, my bottle last night changed things for me. Oct22 date, purchased in Chicago either on Black Friday or a week or so later, kept in my basement around 60* since purchase. Very little carbonation, no head on an aggressive pour that dissipated quickly. Definitely had a metallic smell to it, taste was off with a little bit of a sour finish that seemed to fade as the beer warmed a little. It wasn't in every drink I took but some more than others. It wasn't undrinkable but it definitely wasn't of the same quality as I had originally and while golfing on Sunday, was missing the rich sweet flavors. I've got 2 left, we'll see how they go.

 

Had another FL purchased BCBS last night, Oct 5, 2015 I believe. **I enjoy the infection scare as I'm drinking these like local hops!

Tasted as great as ever. It's a shame there are bad bottles (or that ALL will eventually become bad) because this is the best BCBS year I've had fresh.

 

Sept 20th purchased in San Francisco or Sonoma County. Nothing off detected by any of the 3 people who drank it.

 

Bacteria doesn't fall under that umbrella?

 

To me, contaminated could mean it has chemical contamination (lead, arsenic, etc.) in the beer, whereas infected pretty obviously means the beer has some sort of microbial contamination that has produced off-flavors. I doubt anyone thinks the term infected means that the beer has influenza.

 

Just out of curiosity, has anyone with a bad bottle reached out to GI yet?

 

I agree, and would argue that infected is the correct term as the beer has a pathogen causing the issue.

 

Many people have mentioned that they have earlier in the forum

 

Thanks! Missed that, but I admittedly skipped a page or two :-)

 

In case you haven't tried a soured one yet, the brewpub's calling it "Playing with Fire" and selling it on draft for $4.

 

Damn! I have quite a few in the cellar. I think I have had 4 bottles since the release, and they all have been fantastic.

 

Opened another 10NOV15 1124 tonight. Seems like an appropriate beer for watching the storms roll through.

As before, this one's sublime. Will be holding off on opening the others for a while now. Cheers!

 

It would be if it was harmful to the person, but in this situation, whether it was lacto, pedio or acetobacter causing the contamination these are not pathogens. I haven't heard of anyone getting sick after drinking any of the bad goose island bottles as of yet.

 

I reached out to Goose Island again this week and they reiterated that "they are offering no further refunds"

 

People who have these infected bottles need to contact GI and keep the pressure on. More people who contact them, the more they understand the magnitude of this issue.

 

If I remember correctly though, many people ended up enjoying that batch.

 

Had a bottle stamped 20OCT15 1939 14.3% last night with no issues.

 

drank 3 10/21s after hearing about the infection/contamination (whichever you prefer) scare. 2 were undrinkable and one was noticeably turning in the same direction. All other dates i've had, including a 10/20 opened at the same time, were usual bcbs greatness. hoping its some sort of contamination that is localized to certain bottling dates/times, as I still have a dozen of these things

 

I have opened 3 21OCT15 1808 14.3% in the past week. They have ranged from slightly tart to just not up to par with what they were in November. The one last night had more carb than normal.

I have drank no less than 12 of 2015 BCBS's since release and absolutely can tell something is off with the past few bottles I had. Shame, as most of my remaining are 21OCT15

 

I am considering the beer the individual at this point, and yes, the yeast and bacteria that can cause infected beer can also be detrimental to the health of humans.

 

It was better than regular.

 

Can we nip this "contamination" bit in the bud right now? There is already enough confusion and uncertainty surrounding the idea of beer infection. The term is widely regarded as a beer having unwanted or rogue yeast/bacteria that contributes undesirable characteristics to the beer (off flavors, carbonation issues, etc).

As has been noted, the *beer* is the infected party--i.e., the beer is ill/sick. It is infected.

Contamination fails to effectively convey the meaning because even though yeast/bacteria may not be wanted in a particular beer, they are components of beer in general.

 

So which batch numbers are contaminated?

(Kidding... kidding... don't hurt me...).

 

They did, it allegedly inspired the creation of Madame Rose.

 

not that this is new as my opinion is all over all these threads. i would NOT bet on localized anything. not trying to rob folks of their optimism but also am stressing practicality, the reason i keep reiterating the same points. hopefully each time, someone else that didn't get the memo, at least has the option to re-evaluate & adjust their course to whatever is best/better for them going forward.

to rehash. [1] many questioned why everybody had the same bottle date for every bottle of coffee logged. pretty sure there's only 1 coffee release date because (as was previously known, GI dumped a large portion due to off flavors). the logical conclusion there, they tossed any would be subsequent date(s)/batch(es) - only a single date survived. as mentioned in a prior post, the fact that the remainder they felt safe to release, later turned, was a very big clue that this probably was NOT a batch/date/time controllable issue. [2] regardless of which was the chicken or the egg, when the issue spanned barleywine & coffee simultaneously, it ruled out a simple base beer issue. it also ruled out isolation of a specific range or grouping of barrels - barleywine re-used barrels acquired for the prior year's release of BCBS.

 

Just saw this pop up...

http://imgur.com/DLD5I8f

 

Yea, that's Whole Foods Bowery. It's been like that for months. The stock always dwindles and gets replenished. This is pretty normal for NYC though, it seems like the last few years BCBS sticks around on the shelves for 6+ months.

 

very true, and I agree that it is a broader issue. However, the fact that the same beer, stored under same conditions, that differ only on bottling date, have experienced a different rate of flavor change, may suggest that different bottling dates have had different exposures. Whether or not they all turn at some point in the future, my hope is that I continue to open BCBS (from dates other than 10/21) that taste fine to me, while acknowledging and understanding that they are all possibly ticking time bombs.

 

OK, seriously, don't hurt me here: Is 10/21 more or less the date that's having the most infections?

 

It is. I don't believe this has been updated with posts following this submission, but here's a comprehensive overview from @hambone85 :
http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...2015-regular-bcbs.406200/page-10#post-4704092

 

Infection is on its way my 11/04 bottles have been great, but have been drinking them more frequently than i like to, 2night opened one it had a tart smell but the brew was still sublime, did not smell this just last week ..all my bottles are 11/04. so drink these as infection may or may not come your way but it is out there for sure, and that ashame cause i love to age this brew.

 

i dunno. in December i said Coffee was probably just the weakest link and 1st exposed. here we are.

the more realistic explanation (same i felt in December & especially now) is in the 7+ months since bottling, subtle differences in storage and handling multiplied by time seems like the more logical explanation on the randomness. FL seems stung pretty bad. FL seems pretty warm. probably just another coincidence.

 

If I was a gambling man I would bet all will be showing infection in under a year from now, even those kept refrigerated. To me the bottling line is least likely suspect,

 

I think it goes with out saying, aging any of this years BCBS line is a wild goose chase. Personally GI has been loose as a goose to Chicago, Cheap pours, Parties, exchanges for reg with the full refunds for BW and Coffee, etc. If GI doesn't own up to the infection/contamination and educate the public on whats going on then I might Loses my "whats good for the Goose, is good for the Gander mentality and stop showing support when it comes to their everyday line. In the end I have faith they don't want to don't kill the goose that layed the golden egg and make right with the BCBS line if only from a marketing stand point.....

Puns intended I guess....

 

I will say that GI gets a bit snippy with you if you post about the infection on their Facebook page...

 

Drinking a 10/09 and definitely starting to turn. I had a case and previous bottles were ok. The one I opened tonight has a slight sour smell, metallic and sour cherry taste. Not completely undrinkable like the BCBCS and BCBBW I got, but definitely not right.

 

The Goose needs to quit setting on the problem and hatch a solution. When we take a gander at the decision to make the customers happy, it will be poultry in motion.