Tripel Tasting Thread (March 25-27, 2022)

Maybe my final entry for the weekend's tasting. Chimay Cinq Cents.

I drank an awful lot of this stuff 15-20 years ago when heavily into Belgian styles, but haven't had one in ages. Pours a golden orange. Much less clear than other offerings I've had for the tasting despite a fairly careful attempt to decant without adding the majority of the sediment. Nose is Trappist yeast & spice notes, mostly clove. Getting a little bit of ginger snaps cookies. Flavor is fruity and flowery - not sure that's a flavor? There are spice notes from the yeast and hops. Some herbal character. Some waves of vanilla and sweet citrus. The finish is a little dry but it also comes with some slightly off putting plastic-like note. It's not enough to ruin it, in fact I only notice it faintly here and there. Overall I really enjoy this beer. It feels familiar and nostalgic, which probably influences my perception a bit. I'll always have a soft spot for Chimay. Cheers!

 

The bottles which showed up here are BB 31.08.2023 so bottled August,2021?

 

According to the person at the @FBarber's beer store that beer was bottled in August 2020; so > 1.5 years now.

Cheers!

 

Trois Monks Tripel from Bent River. This bottle is over a year old and there’s some serious chunks in here. Overall pretty tasty, though, a well made beer. Wish I’d cracked her earlier. Cheers!

 

Starting this afternoon of with Westmalle.

This bottle has been sitting in my basement for better than a year and I didn't realize the BB date was 7/23/21, not to mention that there is a crap load of particulate floating in the bottle. I normally like to add the sediment about 2/3 of the way through, but that wasn't a possibility here.




Being eight months over doesn't seem to have hurt much.
The aromas are fruit and fresh grains and the color is a dense ripe apricot.
The flavors are pear, apple, banana, and clove with a mild pepper finish and a thick chewy mouth.
I know Westmalle is the classic, but it just isn't my favorite

 

I'm sadly predictable enough that you were half right... but only because my order was different.

For my final beer post in this thread, I decided to do a blind side by side with Gulden Draak (marketed as a dark red triple) and Bronzen Schild (marketed as a Belgian tripel). Bronzen Schild (Dutch for bronze shield) is brewed by Van Steenberge, the brewer famous for Gulden Draak. It is sold at Lidl supermarkets.

For anybody unfamiliar with these stores, Lidl sells certain budget/value priced non-brand name or store brand beer that is sourced from various brewers and sometimes designed to mimic other beers. Labeling often looks very cheap. Here's a picture of a good example - Blue Key, their obvious Blue Moon knockoff:


In the case of Bronzen Schild, I don't get the sense that they wanted a store brand in imitation of a specific beer brand, but I assume they simply wanted a generic brand that was in the "Belgian" category. As is (was?) the case with some of Trader Joes "Belgian" beers (which are far more well known for their value on this site), the brewer behind the Lidl brand is a known and respected brewer for those on BA.

I was left with the question: Is this the same beer as Gulden Draak but with generic marketing?

First off, there are two differences that are apparent before I even buy the beer... and both are very consumer friendly aspects of Bronzen Schild. One, Bronzen Schild has a best by date while Gulden Draak currently has an unknown code. Two, Bronzen Schild is $10 a 4 pack while Gulden Draak is usually between $20-$25 a four pack. Holy sh*t. Is this a different beer or an incredible value... or is it close to Gulden Draak but with corners cut? If any corners are cut, I would expect it to be in the realm of fermentation in the bottle, but who knows.

So... here's my take comparing the two:

Both are 10.5% ABV. Appearance, color, clarity and head are identical. I don't clearly see yeast sediment in either - there's simply a cloudiness. Everything seems to suggest that Bronzen Schild undergoes fermentation in the bottle like Gulden Draak. Gulden Draak's aroma is a little stronger and fruitier than Bronzen Schild.

The two beers are very similar in taste but there are some differences. Gulden Draak tastes of raisons, cherry, grapes. It's malty and with slight acidity and a bitter finish. Bronzen Schild tastes of pumpernickel bread, chocolate, grapes. The flavors are smoother and more cohesive. Essentially, this Gulden Draak tastes older and fruitier... and seems to have more yeast derived flavors.

Keep in mind that I get differences between two bottles of the same beer in side by sides often enough due to batch variation or age differences. The million dollar question is: Are the differences between these two Belgian beers a case of recipe/production differences, age differences or batch differences?

Well, it's safe to assume they aren't of equal age. I assumed the Gulden Draak was older before I tasted it, and I didn't change my mind after tasting it. I'm not sure recipe/production differences make much logistical sense given how similar these beers are. If any exist, they'd be there to save on costs... but I can't imagine a scenario where production differences between these two beers would really impact the price as drastic as these price differences are. I've seen it said that Gulden Draak spends two weeks in the bottle in the brewery warm room. Would this time be cut down?

In the end, I can't say with certainty that these are the exact same beer, but without further comparisons, I'm leaning in the direction that they are the same (or close at the very least). I can say with more certainty that if there are differences in these brands, the beer differences aren't as big as the price differences. Bronzen Schild is an amazing buy.

So... bringing this conversation back to style for a moment. I've made it clear here and elsewhere that I do not see the issue with calling these beers tripels. Some see it as disingenuous or inauthentic and shake their head. I am not sure I see the incentives for the brewer in that realm. I'd just like to point out how odd it is that people come down pretty hard against Van Steenberge for marketing Gulden Draak this way... but Bronzen Schild is even more clearly and deliberately marketed as a "tripel"... is listed on BA as a tripel... and not one reviewer on BA has made a comment about it going against their expectations for style.

@moodenba

 

I'd be happier if I provided less competition for you.

I believe that beer has an intentional sour component, but I can't tell if you were expecting some sourness based on the word "completely."

 

I think the way Gulden Draak is marketed is fine since the current label says "Dark Red Tripel" so there should be no expectation for a light colored beer. But what I do find odd is that if they are using the term "Tripel" to indicate strength, why is their Quadruple beer the same ABV?
https://www.guldendraak.be/en/the-beer

 

Thanks for your extensive analysis on all these .

When I scrolled down to your photo, before being able to focus on the photo, my first impression was something different from Chimay . Maybe that was what they were going for?

 

Really wishing I can participate just can not. Hoping to see somebody crack a River Horse Tripel Horse here.

 

Bill, my guess is that the stuff you are seeing in that bottle are proteins that came out of solution due to aging.

Bob Brewer (what a cool last name for a beer industry guy) likely ‘says’ it better than I could:

“The bad: Several things here. First – and probably most common – is that the beer is just plain old. Some craft beer has been known to get lost on the shelf for ages. While we all know that some beers such as barley wines and strong ales can be laid down for extended periods and actually improve with age, this is not the case with many other beers. Age can destroy beer. The liquid breaks down, the proteins fall out, the hop character goes away and the beer tastes stale, oxidized, and musty.

In this case, the floaters tend to look like *********s rather than the yeast sediment from bottle conditioning. “*********” beer should be avoided. Also bad but not necessarily fatal is poor filtration at the brewery, which allows particulates to end up in the bottle. This is mostly a cosmetic thing, but its presence reflects inattention or poor practice by the brewer.”

"Floaties" in Craft Beer | What Causes Particles or Chunks? (anchorbrewing.com)

Cheers!

 

Scroll back, both myself and @officerbill did yesterday
https://www.beeradvocate.com/commun...d-march-25-27-2022.665973/page-3#post-7491161

 

Thank you for this. I can not participate and was planning this exact side by side.

golden monkey seems to be a cultural icon here and in the Philly suburbs and river horses tripel is the backup when golden monkey sells out of small time liquor stores. I know I guy who got his license suspended 6 months after 6 rounds with the River horse.

but I agree. The horse is definitely a contender less talked about and not as sweet

 

I saw 2? upthread^. Looked for it, but no-go . Haven't seen the pils in quite awhile. Wonder if the distributor here stopped carrying them?

 

I’m in central Camden county. So about hour 15 min from Ewing and I don’t see much River Horse down here. The pils was great.

 

They are claiming that their "tripel" uses 3x more malt than a lager, and their "quadruple" uses 4x the malt. They likely are thinking of a typical macro lager. This comes from Westmalle who claim that their tripel uses 3x "the quantity of ingredients" as their standard monk's beer (a "single"). I've seen people (accurately or not) debunk such claims... or variations on such claims. I couldn't tell you how accurate the claims are, but they always seemed like intentionally loose marketing to me.

 

Cerberus

10% Tripel by Thirsty Dog

Twelve ounce bottle stamped 05–04-21. Paired with jerk wings.

The beer pours an orange color with a very small head. Body is a bit hazy. During the tasting there was little lacing.

The aroma is of banana, clove, yeast, malt and caramel.

Good mouthfeel and carbonation. Smooth and easy drinking.

Taste is a malty treat supported by a bit of hoppiness and sweetness. The expected banana and clove notes mesh nicely The ABV is only slightly noticeable,.

Note: there is a bourbon barrel aged version of this beer that clocks in at 12%.

Overall, a very enjoyable tripel.

 

Today will be all new-to-me tripels.

I'm starting with the only USA-brewed tripel in my lineup.

Une Année is a Chicago-land Belgian-style focused brewer.

Une Année Hibiscus Tripel - Tripel #43
ABV: 8.7%
IBU: NA

Short reddish-tint head with nearly no retention. And this was from a pour that started out gentle and quickly turned to down-the-middle vigorous once it was obvious this was not going to build a large head. The body is wine-red, hazy, with tiny bubbles rising to what is a very thin cap and ring after just a second or two (it seems - slight exaggeration). On its own, it looks OK, but the short and short-lived head is a bit of a deduction for a Belgian-style tripel in my view.

The aroma is quite nice. It is weak, though … perhaps this is due to the lack of any head at this point. I have to almost dip the schnoz into the beer to get a good whiff, but when I do, the reward is there. Apple-cherry aroma, floral with spice, presumably the hibiscus. TBH, I really don't know what hibiscus is supposed to smell like. I know it is popular in herbal teas, but I'm not into herbal teas. Hibiscus or not, the aroma is, as I stated, nice.

Very good flavor, bringing the apple, cherry, spice, and floral. Some tannin-like character, but no bittering. The initial taste starts slightly sweet, but this is quickly dispensed with by a somewhat acidic tannic drying. The apple and cherry mingle nicely on the tongue, enhanced by the floral spice and tannin. The middle becomes dryer, and the finish is actually quite dry. The aftertaste has the fruit tannin lingering. The beer drinks much easier than its ABV should allow. Quite refreshing, actually, almost like a lambic.

Mouth feel is wine-like; no carbonation, and a bit of tannin.

Overall, nicely done. I really, really enjoyed it, even if it is not a prime example of the tripel style. I like the creative extension of the style this beer presents. Just don't drink it too fast, as the beer invites this and your head may regret it later!

NB: The following rating is not a rating to style! This beer has several detractions from a strictly "to style" rating, including in the look, feel, and flavor aspects. I did not deduct points for being "off style". I chose to rate it hedonically (as @islay used to say; BTW, I miss his participation on these forums. His views were challenging, but in a good way to foster discussion, IMO. I miss him.). This beer is actually quite good; the beer is a much better "style independent" beer than it is a tripel.

L: 3.75 | S: 4.0 | T: 4.25 | F: 3.75 | O: 4.0 | Rating: 4.06