§ucaba (Abacus) - all 3 vintages

Indeed. I drank a couple 2012s earlier this year, and thought to myself that they were excellent beers a year out, comparable to fresh. Then I opened a fresh 2013 over the weekend. No comparison, fresh just kills the year-old.

 

I had a Abacus b1 and a Recent Sucaba. They were very similar. The Abacus was cellared properly from day 1 and the Sucaba was bought off the shelf that day. I agree some of the barrel is lost, but I see no reason to age these. Fresh or go home!

 

+1 to aged XV anniversary
I cracked opened my bottle couple months ago and it was fantastic. One of my top 10 beers of the year so far.

 

This.

 

I'm curious if you could find even a single example of somebody mentioning a magical transformation to deliciousness or anything at all similar.

 

Have done the same. Am equally unimpressed with 14 these days (had mine a couple months ago and was disappointed an unimpressed).

You thoroughly misread and misunderstand me, despite my being achingly clear on the subject, that I'm suggesting you should enjoy older barrel beers more than you do, or that I enjoy older barrel aged beers more than the fresh interpretations. Neither could be farther from the truth.

I do think B1 Abacus has held up remarkably well. By which I mean it's still not nearly as delicious as B2, was is itself not nearly as delicious as B3. Compared to, say, Perfect Storm / Mother of All Storms it's a fucking miracle of the aging process. It's still nothing I'd recommend you doing.

My point, really, is that somehow Firestone Walker has somehow been singled out as this mystical entity capable or producing world class barrel aged beers that miraculously age worse than other beers. It makes otherwise intelligent people speculate about how and why it is that their beers don't hold up to the aging process, in particular. Which is bullshit. Their beers age just "fine." Which is to say, not particularly well, but no worse, and in many cases better, than similar products.

So depending on your particular tastes you will dislike the aging process on barrel aged beers more or less. That's your personal taste. But suggesting that All Firestone Walker Barrel Aged Beers In Particular Age Poorly, specifically implying moreso than those from other breweries, is ridiculous and incorrect.

And it's ridiculous for you to suggest that there isn't rampant groupthink everywhere on these boards and as to what the conventional wisdom is on bottles, styles, flavors, brands, breweries, etc. You might take personal offense at being lumped in, you might even provide a compelling argument about how I'm inaccurately painting you in with such a broad brush, you might even point out how I'm falling victim to the same thing I'm accusing you of, but if you're denying that it exists, and specifically denying that it has become orthodoxy with regards to Firestone Walker in the absence of compelling evidence (or that your set of tastings represents compelling evidence on its own) than I strongly disagree with you.

 

Er ... here? http://beeradvocate.com/community/threads/abacus-batch-1.102698/

You added a caveat at the end, but that doesn't really negate the beginning of the thread. It's allright - we can disagree on your beercrush.

 

I like this one within the first year. But to be honest, I like most barrel aged beers younger. It just seems that most of the time I find that the barrel characteristics I enjoy have faded slightly when I compare fresh to vintage. YMMV.

 

So you read that link, agreed it doesn't say that, and then post it anyway as supporting evidence?

Got it. Makes sense.

 

Quoth me:
"I just opened a bottle of b1 Abacus two nights ago, hoping that this much-spoken about magical transformation to deliciousness had occurred."

Quoth you (I'm guessing, quite angrilly. Like, slamming the keyboard style of typing):
"I'm curious if you could find even a single example of somebody mentioning a magical transformation to deliciousness or anything at all similar."

Then one site search for 'Abacus' in the title, which leads me to a post, by you, with this in the first line:

"Tasting phenomenal.".

You asked me to find a goddamned post where somebody mentions it transforming magically to something delicious, and so I did. Then you got angry again. Like I said, it's OK - we can disagree on this. I think it's comparitively gone down the shitter, and you love it.

 

Agree with the detractors. Haven't had any bad FW aging experiences, but in every case we felt it was not an improvement. We don't age FW anymore just as a general rule.

 

I never got angry. "Tasting phenomenal" =/= magical transformation to deliciousness. Please find a different/better example or retract your assertion.

We can and indeed DO disagree. I think properly stored batch 1 Abacus is tasting excellent. It has held up better than comparable beers. It's still not nearly as good as the fresh stuff.

 

I just wish people would take this nugget of wisdom and extrapolate it to other BA beers that do equally poorly in the cellar.

 

In my experience very, very few BA beers are worth aging, and they don't for very long when they do age well (BCBS). BT might go for a very long time, but that remains to be seen.