What's the Difference? Share your side-by-side (2023)

Happy new year from a few weeks into it. No one has started a this year's version of this thread started in 2021 by @jonphisher. We had a decent run with last year's thread, including comparisons of similar beers in the same style, of the same beer with different vintages, of the same beer in a can versus a bottle, and of similar styles. In the last quarter, we had a couple interesting side-by-sides, including a Braggot comparison and an 8-year vertical on Pliny

Thanks to @WickedBeer and @Beersnake1 and all the others who contributed last year; please feel free to join in again this year. And a big welcome to any other who want to participate in 2023. The "rules" as they sit are basically:

• come up with some reason to try two or more beers together for any reason you have
  
• obtain said beers and conduct the side-by-side
• take a few notes along the way as to what you are finding similar and different in the beers
  
• provide the information from the previous three bullets, plus anything else you care to share, for our reading pleasure

---

So I purchased the Extreme Beer: Big Stout Box, and one of the beers in it was a Barrel-aged Ten FIDY. Now I have had this beer before, but this year's version was marketed as a blend of 3-5 year bourbon with 8-12 year bourbon barrel aged beers.

Admittedly, I do not recall any previous marketing claims as to the barrels chosen for BA1050 (which the Oaskar Blues site indicates was first released in 2016), but I happen to have one can left from 2019, which will be used for comparison in both age and possible barrel constitution.

In looks, I thought the initial head a little darker on the older can, but once they fall to a nicely holding sheen across the surface, they look similar in color. The newer beer looks slightly more creamy in makeup, but I'll call them essentially the same in this category.

On the nose, the late 2022 beer has a more fruity edge to it - a mix of dark berry with a splash of prune - that the older pour doesn't seem to have. The newer beer is more aromatic overall, which isn't a big surprise, but both have a tinge of sweet borbuon that leads to a more nutty aroma than the bitter dark roast of a regular Ten FIDY.

The barrel influence seems tame in the 2022, though like the nose, then heavy roasted malt of the base beer is tamed by the barrel aging. The 2019 has a little more bourbon influence in the first sips. The 2022 has more of a cola vibe that a slightly more carbonated feel helps to promote. There's a different fruit note in the newer beer than I got in the nose, but it is unique to that beer in this tasting. As I near the end of a warming beer, the barrel tannin grows a bit stronger in both, but especially in the 2022.


(your left is older, right newer)

The GF and I agree that we like the 2019 BA Ten FIDY more. She thought it had "more flavor" though she found the newer beer "smoother" (which I disagree with). I can't say that the barrel selection process, if different, is the primary reason for the 2022 falling flat. If anything, it seems more like the beer spent less time in barrels last year than anything to do with how long the previous occupant was in them.

---

To join the thread, you don't have to be as descriptive as I tend to be, but some amount of information as to why you tried your beers together and what you found is key. Happy comparing!!!

 

Ok, it just so happened that I have three (3) smoked bers in my fridge at the same time. They are all different base styles and each has a small amount of age on it. I wanted to do a comparison to see how the different beers expressed the smoke.

On the lighter end, we have a pale beer with Oxbow's Smoke Helles. In the middle and amber in color, we have local brewer Port City's Rauchbier. On the darker side, we have von Trapp's Trösten.


On the nose, I was a bit surprised that Smoked Helles had some pop, coming as a clean smoke from a freshly started campfire. Trösten seemed more powerful at first, but I think the darker malts are playing into my thoughts, accentuating the smoke more than the pale malts of the Oxbow beer. Port City seems to be the smokiest to me on initial assessment, and falls on the meaty side compared to the others.

The Helles brings lighter flavors from the malt and the smoke seems to be at an appropriate level because of this. The honey sweetness contrasts slightly with the smoke to bring a metallic tang as the co-mingle.

The amber Rauchbier starts with a mineral note (I tend to get this in amber beers) and the malt flavors ease into the smoke a bit better than the Helles. Maybe because of this, the beer doesn't seem as smoky until the back end. Comparatively, Port City's beer is a bit more campfire compared to the Helles being a bit more ashy.

I feel a pattern continues with the darker von Trapp beer - the darker malt is pairing with the smoke to shift the flavor profile rather than using smoke as an additional or separate note. Trösten is that of pumpernickel that spent a bit too long in the toaster paired with a thin spread of dark mole.

So, on the first run through the darker the beer got, the less the smoke got an identity of its own. As the beers warmed, Trösten and Smoked Helles' smoke became a little less distinct, while Port City's seemed to hold its profile a bit longer.

I'd be curious to see the malt bills for each of these to see how much smoked malt was used to produce the levels I perceived. While I could take a little more smoke in all the beers, I wouldn't want very much more in any. I like the initial levels of Oxbow's smoke before it started to fade. I also could use a little more smoke on Trösten to stand up to the dark malts.

 

Today I am going to redo a comparison I did last year, in which Jack's Abby Sunny Ridge ended up the better beer to my liking in the style of Czech Pilsner against Vibrissa's Degrees.

It wasn't a big surprise as Sunny Ridge was one of my favorite new beers of 2022, although it sat on the shelf for a while last year. So much so, I wasn't sure about the dates when I saw it the other day, which aren't the easiest to read on the bottom of the can, but I am fairly certain the can is from January of this year, as is the Vibrissa beer.

The looks are a little more equal this year, with Sunny Ridge having a little more head, though Degrees had a slightly better structure. Sunny Ridge has a bit more haze again this year.


Pouring them a little too full, I dive into taste first. One quick gulp of each and I'm left with a grass and mineral aftertaste. Sunny Ridge had a slightly softer feel and a more bready malt flavor than Degrees, but they tasted fairly similar. Relatively, I would say Degrees seemed slightly more toasty, but I also think that the water profiles of these beers might be a difference I am picking up.

Of course I'm talking out my ass, but it "feels" like that may be true. And I have to laugh that I mentioned the same thing last year, as I just now re-read what I posted then to see the difference. At least I'm consistent with my BS.

Now that I can get my nose in, Sunny Ridge is more bread and grass where Degrees is grass with a slightly mineral graininess. Both also bring that overall nondescript "beer-like" aroma.

Both are very good, but Sunny Ridge proves today my enjoyment of it last year wasn't an anomaly. I'm going to have to hit the store again in short order to grab a few new of this fresh batch. Vibrissa's beer also had a good showing, and if it weren't sitting next to Sunny Ridge today, I'd be looking forward to grabbing it for the next sip.

 

Do "elite barrels" make a difference? Well, obviously a little more goes into the process of producing a batch of barrel-aged than just the barrels used, including time in barrel. Firestone Walker gave us Parabaloid for the Big Stout edition of the latest Extreme Beer Box, and their video mentions that the beer was aged for two years in 14 year old Old Forester barrels and 18 year old Sazerac rye barrels.

In contrast, the other side of this comparison is Parabola, which they mention is aged for at least a year in a variety of bourbon barrels. Another difference I am inferring is the Parabola relies more on the blending process based on the results of sampling the various filled barrels FW has. The "elite" barrels are certainly less in number, and therefore it seems like it would be more a case of "this is what we got" in the bottle.

Anyhow, let's see if there's a big enough difference in these that I may like to see something beyond this inaugural batch of Parabaloid or if I'm fine with regular old Parabola.


Both pour dark, and both have lasting full-coverage head. Parabaloid has a little bit thicker collar and a shade darker color in my pours. The noses start fairly similar, but going back and forth, the Parabaloid is a little more chewy fudgy and Parabola has a hint of barrel wood that seems better integrated in Parabaloid. Both have a hint of something like oxidation, but I do not think that is age, I just think its the mix of roasted malt, barrel wood, and dark sugar from the whiskey.

Parabola is roasty bitter in taste with a dark brown to burnt sugar whiskey influence. Parabaloid isn't as bitter, and the roasted malt melds with the whiskey to produce a coffee creme filled bon bon with a thin thread of caramel.

I know that sounds pastry, so I want to claim that Parabaloid isn't "sugary" and nowhere near cloying.

Going back, dark chocolate and an after dinner Irish coffee comes to mind with more sips of Parabola. It's an American stout that gets an injection of sugary barrel-aged spirit and recovers to end roasty. More sips of a warming Parabaloid brings a hint of coconut to the aforementioned flavors. The evolution in Parabaloid is a little more smooth and the beer seems a tad more cohesive.

Both are very good beers, but I do think Parabaloid is slightly more enjoyable this evening to me. The GF, who is drinking blind bu I suspect will also like Parabaloid, says...

"It's really hard to pick. They're both really good. I think I like [Parabaloid] more as it's a little smoother."

So there you have it - two people's opinions to use as you see fit. Cheers!

 

A quick one, as I wanted to compare the two remaining peanut butter beers I have from the Extreme Beer Box. These beers have a fair amount of differences beyond the similarities of peanut butter and stout: Ecliptic's beer is a relatively lower ABV oatmeal stout compared to Weathered Souls' imperial stout that adds coconut as well.

The differences expanded as I got sight of the liquids out of their containment, with the higher octane PB Fusion Technique looking like tar pouring out of the can and generating a small, dark brown head. The lighter Gravastar produced a pillowy cloud of light tan head.

The GF, having them blind, said one is much better to her and thought one didn't even smell like beer. For me, I am getting peanut butter from PB Fusion and not much else; not much also describes what I get from Gravastar, a light roast coffee with a little effort. So to me, Gravastar smells the most "like a beer," but mainly by default.

Gravastar has a nice, drinkable light feel, with more of what hits me as an Irish stout vibe. I enjoy the opening taste, despite the sightly fizzy feel. I am not really getting peanut butter (the brewer mentioned using PB powder and a chocolate pb powder), although there is a bitter dark chocolate in back.

PB Fusion Technique is thick and oily, with a liquid chocolate opening and a dry peanut butter middle. It seems sweeter on opening than it presents throughout, as the beer gets some dark fruit (date, raisin) and cola notes before the named ingredient comes into play.

An interesting case of the beers tasting like they looked. I actually think I like Gravastar just a bit more, but neither challenged for my favorite beers in the box. The GF likes PB Fusion better, but I also think her Gravastar glass wasn't rinsed as well as it could have been, as there was a light soapy note in the aroma that explains her previous comment.

Epilogue: I mixed about a 2:1 ratio PB Fusion:Gravastar to get a beverage I enjoyed more than the individual beers.

 

Awww… don’t cop out with that

I mean that semi-seriously. You truly didn’t enjoy one more than the other tonight? I’ve learned that a single side-by-side is rarely a definitive thing, and what I find today might be different next week. However I usually gravitate slightly towards one, for whatever reason it is that day.

Thar aside, I’m a little surprised at your description of the two based on my previous experience of finding Focal more fruity. But each year is a bit different with The Alchemist, and I don’t get enough chance to test the concept, regrettably.

Thanks for posting, always like seeing others comparing beers I have compared in the past!

 

Interesting, that is different than my general experience, so explains it pretty well. I think Heady is Simcoe hops, but could be mistaken.