What’s The Difference? Share Your Side By Side (2024)

Russian River's Velvet Glow vs Von Trapp's Helles Lager. Velvet Glow has a tighter, more condensed head that doesn't dissipate as quick Von Trapp's Helles. VTH has a bit of a sharper/toastier taste to it. But the biggest difference for me is in the mouthfeel. Velvet Glow has a light-bodied super smooth and creamy feel which VT's Helles lacks. Russian River wins this beer battle.

 

Ok, so I am finally getting to the last different beer gift from @jonphisher - Carton's Unjunct stout, listed here as an American imperial stout. I was going to enjoy it for the Russian imperial stout tasting, but it didn't fit the requirements.

However, since I bought multi-packs for that event, I am able to compare the American to the Russian sub-style with this beer in this thread. Granted... I am using the styles entered into BA in this distinction. I ended up going with three options in this comparison, with two west coast imperial stouts going beside the east coast one - North Coast's Old Rasputin and Sierra Nevada's Narwhal. I had to check for sure, but Narwhal is listed as an RIS here (and I do recall seeing it in the tasting thread), and it is the only one of the three that has been aged (it is a 2002 release).


Narwhal has the least amount of head, barely showing any bubbles, while the other two built up similarly. Unjunct had the darkest head, easily.

Narwhal has a very bitter roast aroma to it, almost burnt coffee. There might be a little amount of oxidation in the mix affecting things, as well. Old Rasputin has a similar bitter roasted coffee - without the burnt aspect. It does seem a little fresher, and might have an ever so slightly fruitier accent to it than Narwhal. Unjunct is less bitter, yielding a little bit of dark chocolate and a medium to medium-plus roast coffee.

Narwhal's taste also has a bit of oxidation - but not very much. There's a more astringent feel meeting my palate than expected lessening the bitterness or distracting me from it. Hints of citrus and maybe some pine exist, as well.

Old Rasputin isn't perceived by me as being as bitter as Narwhal. It is a little more bubbly and feels a little lighter, overall. There's more of a cola and spice in North Coast's beer than Sierra Nevada's. It seems to have less hops in the flavor than the previously described beer.

Unjunct turns me back towards a fruity vibe, surpassing the mild sensation of such that I got from Narwhal pretty easily. The taste carries through on the chocolate that the nose promised. It's not sweet, but especially next to the more bitter west coast beers I just tasted, it almost comes across as such. I am getting a little late pine note in the finish as it warms up.

Unjunct is a little thicker than Narwhal, which I mentioned was a little heavier than Old Rasputin. I do wonder if the final gravity of the eastern brew is a little higher.

Despite some hopes of noticing differences in styles, I can't say I accomplished much in that sense. I kinda didn't really expect to - more a curiosity if anything jumped out. I've had it in my head for a while a RIS shared some features with Baltic porter (smooth and lightly fruity atop roasted malts). No idea where that came from, but it's stuck.

Using that vague concept as a guide, Old Rasputin fits the bill more than the other two. The two west coast beers were more similar. If anything was found, maybe it was that old school west coast brewers use similar techniques/ingredients when compared to an east coast brewer. But I'm sure using just three random beers can't justify any such claim.

Still a fun comparison. And thanks, @jonphisher for another enjoyable beer!

 

@Resistance88 you might enjoy this comparison.

 

Ok, so in the next stage of the clearing of the cellar that is basically taking as long as it has to build it, I decided to crack open my two Virginia-made bourbon barrel porters. Having re-visited Dark Hollow earlier this year, getting to sample another of the Virginia O.G. barrel-aged beers has nostalgia dripping off of it for me.

I've aged this beer before, and I am a bit fearful I have let these go too long. I'm not sure if Alewerks has stuck to the schedule of producing this beer over time (anecdotally, I think not in a strange seasonal creep sort of way). But even approximately, these BBP (formerly Bourbon Barrel Porter) releases are almost two and three years old (2021 and 2022 batches).


The older beer foamed a little on opening, but it didn't expend itself, as there is a medium-mine collar to this. The newer beer has a razor thin ring.

The better nose comes from the beer one would expect - the newer one. It's chocolatey with a brown sugar bourbon thread. Dark chocolate wins out, but I am expecting some sweetness (granted, this brew has always been a bit sweet, but I do mean the nose more than experience here). The older beer has a much lighter aroma, and in general, it has a dry brownie vibe.

Both beers are sweet, but they seem to reveal a ruse... the newer beer seems to still have some spicy bitterness to counter it while the older beer's bitter side seems to have given up. There's a also a little fruitiness in the newer beer that seems more "porter-esque" while the older beer is very much in the BBA imperial stout realm.

I'm going off my own interpretations of style here - deal with it

The finish of the older beer has a little licorice in it that I am digging, especially when paired with the softer, slightly thicker feel. The newer beer, relatively, has a more cola spice and soft drink thinness to it.

The GF liked the newer of the two, feeling it had more flavor. That made me re-examine one last time. I think she's right in the sense there are a few more interesting things going on in the newer beer. The older beer does have a slight dullness that may be some oxidation hiding under the sweetness.

I think I was partially right - there's no need to age these. They don't suffer hugely from aging, but for me, there's no real reason to hold onto them. I'm not sure how/why I missed last year's release, but I am looking forward to this year's, if I can track it down.

 

Comparing temperature differences, cellar vs. fridge temp, with Free Will's Dystopias. This is their homage to Utopias and I really like it. These bottles can be opened and enjoyed over an indefinite period of time, like a bottle of liquor. They don't offer a lot of details, it is-

stock aged for multiple years, even more time this time, in many types of barrels, utilizing a unique fermentation technique along the way, with multiple yeast strains and sugar additions. 20.1% abv.



This bottle is about a year and a half old and I opened it 2 months ago. My original review was at cellar temp and it's ringing true tonight. I would add a leather note though.

They don't list any specific barrels, but I get strong bourbon and port vibes. There is a strong raisin flavor, covered with a very thin layer of chocolate. Cherry is also prominent along with some vanilla and honey. The booze isn't shy but the overall effect is pretty mellow for the ABV. Overall this a treat and a fairly priced one.

So that was cellar temp, on to the colder glass which I have to say is pretty different. It's sweeter and less boozy, fewer layers I think too. Lots of honey and brown sugar while the fruit elements are far more subdued. I definitely get bourbon barrels but I don't get a strong impression of any other barrel type.

Overall I'm surprised by how stark the difference is. I love it either way but I think I prefer the heavier, more ponderous version at cellar temp.

 

Fantastic side-by-side. We should do more of these cellar vs. refrigerated comparisons.

Come to think of it, it would be fun to do an online tasting theme, some weekend, with all varieties of side-by-side comparisons. Could be several categories, new/old, warm/cold, barrel/base, x/y, etc.

 

For someone thinking long term, I think it would be fun to compare something aged long-term in the fridge versus at cellar temp. I think I'll set that up with the latest Bigfoot vintage.

 

Dovetail Pils and Goldfinger Pils-

Both really good, but different styles.

Dovetail has a softer mouthfeel and lower bitterness with a hazy appearance. I thought it could have been a chill haze with the first one, but I would say it’s probably unfiltered. (Don’t mind the lack of head because I noticed that the glass was a little dirty, so I drank and refilled with what was left in the can. Head retention/look was similar to the Goldfinger. They say it’s like a combination of a German (I’d say southern German) with a Czech style and I’d agree.
The Goldfinger has a much more noticeable hop presence and “crisper” style (dryer?). I’d say it’s more like a northern German (crossed with, may I say it - Italian Pils) feel.

both fantastic, my personal preference leans towards Goldfinger, but that may change with the day or phase of the moon. Can’t complain with either and I love having them both available with less than a month since canning.

 

Well, it's been a while since this thread received a post, and over a month since I delved into a wordstorm to describe two or more beers I am trying together.

Today's comparison is from Firestone Walker, more specifically their barrel-aged series, and most specifically the 2022 Whistle Monkee alongside the 2021 standard Stickee Monkee.


A local Total Wine had a bunch of FW barrel series beers earlier this year (I want to say around the winter / spring switchover timeframe). I believe both of these were purchased then, though I might've had the Sitckee Monkee in the fridge from around the time it was released. As I think, I might lean to the latter, but it is very likely no one knows.

The Whistle Pig barreled quad seems to have a slightly lighter head, but neither beers stand out with an appearance that draws you in with an inviting top. Whistle Monkee isn't quite as sweet smelling, with the fruity side of dark fruits more evident than the Stickee Monkee. The standard brew is sweeter and seems as though the barrel is imparting its sweeter bourbon more readily/forcefully than the rye barrel.

On the taste, the Stickee Monkee is more rich and chocolatey - almost leaning into stout territory. Part of the stout impression could be the slightest bit of oxidation... maybe. There's a little dark cherry in the standard, while the Whistle glass is exhibiting more fig and date with earthy baking spices.

The standard Stickee Monkee is a bit more mouth coating, and each sip seems to weigh on my palate a bit more than the Whistle Monkee. As I go back and forth, I think the rye whiskey is more noticeable starting in late taste but drifting and expanding into the aftertaste, in a quite enjoyable way.

I am definitely digging the Whistle Monkee more. FW's website didn't have the regular listed, unless I missed it, so I wonder if the Whistle Monkee is working to be the "new standard." I also note they have a few amburana beverages listed, and I am upset I've seen none of them.

Lastly, I am not surprised the GF likes the standard more, as she called it, "the sweeter one."

 

Good Word Brewing in Duluth, GA just came out with a different Kolsch – At The Altar (4.7%). The previous one was At The Altar Of The Sun. I asked the brewer, Todd DiMatteo, what the difference was and he said he used a different yeast and changed up the malt bill. Halfway Crooks Beer in Atlanta makes a very popular Kolsch called Farina (4.8%). I had one left from a recent four pack I bought, so I decided to do a side by side. These are two of the most respected breweries in Georgia.



Appearance: Both are pale or light gold. At The Altar is a little more clear but both are not quite a brilliant as you see with German versions. Both pour to a frothy white head with good retention. Very slight edge to At The Altar.

Aroma: I favored Farina on this one. It has a very pleasing floral aroma, while At The Altar has a more herbal and grainier one.

Flavor and Aftertaste: Very close here Low sweetness. Spicy/herbal hops and low to moderate bitterness. Farina also adds a floral and lemon/lime-like note while At The Alter has a grainy (not corn) note in the aftertaste I like, but some may not. Bitterness lingers a bit in the aftertaste, but not offensive or harsh. Slight edge to Farina.

Mouthfeel: Both are light to medium bodied and drying. Crisp clean medium length finish with a trailing bitterness. Moderate carbonation. This was a draw.

Conclusion: These are two well crafted Kolsch style beers from two respected brewers in Georgia. Quick background note: Joran Van Ginderachter is the co-owner/head brewer at Halfway Crooks Beer. He has a nice pedigree, as his uncle is well known former brewer at New Belgium Peter Bouckaert. Joran is also co-founder of Brouwerij’t Verzet in Belgium and spent some time a Three Taverns before founding Halfway Crooks. Todd DiMattaeo is a respected brewer in Atlanta who was a former manager of Brick Store Pub in Atlanta. A self-taught home brewer, he has collaborated with dozens of well-know brewers around the country to hone his skills and knowledge. This side-by-side was indeed close, as each beer brought something a little different to the table in either aroma or flavor. I had to give the nod to Farina; however, because its aroma added some to the overall experience of drinking the two beers. Fun exercise. Cheers BAs!

 

Ok, time for a big side-by-side. Both of these beers are from Dogfish Head, and both have numbers in their name; in fact, its the same number. I am pretty sure I bought the base beer after the variant, but the bottles have codes and not dates, so I can't confirm that the regular 120 Minute is newer than the Utopias Barrel-aged variant. However, I do know the Utopias version has been in the fridge for quite a while, while the regular 120 Minute was in the cellar until about 2 weeks ago.


(Note: I did a search and see I did this same side-by-side back in March. How could I have forgotten that? I will analyze the differences at the end of the post.)

Neither pour is very pretty, each with a sludginess in the body. The regular had a fair head, especially for such a high ABV brew, while the Utopias beer had a thin collar, though that, too, isn't wildy unexpected for a barrel-aged beer. Utopias does have more of a straight light brown color, while the regular 120 Minute leans more towards amber with an Arnold Palmer heavy on the iced tea.

Ha! My mind might be slow to adjust, as the first sniff of the regular 120 Minute reminded me of iced tea. My first whiff of the Utopias version reminded me as much of a quad as a barrel-aged American barleywine (which some might argue is what I am smelling). The Utopias port-like beer is definitely influencing the nose quite a bit. Back to the regular, it's settled in a little more as a hoppy beer with a solid malt presence and a slightly citrusy pine hop profile.

These two beers don't smell like they'll taste too similar, though what I am perceiving as the malt in these beasts is the one commonality I am sensing so far.

Regular 120 Minute hits with a toasted grain bread and a slightly acidic note that accentuates the citrus vibe. The second sip avoids this acidity, and the citrus is much more pithy than flesh/juice. The ABV I think is providing the spice I get as the piney hop notes start to take hold. When the bite fades, the resinous bitterness creeps ever more over my palate. Caramel notes underly the bitterness in the late taste, though the bitter notes carry longer into the finish and linger a bit.

Utopias 120 is easily sweeter than the beer it sits next to. The dark fruit of date and prune (and even a hint of fruited chocolate) combine with the hops of the base beer to produce a somewhat anise-like flavor more than the resinous pine note the regular had. This Utopias barrel-aged 120 flavors continue the impression of a quad the nose opened to me. It's a little bit bitter hoppy for a quad, but not extremely so. I could even argue this reminds me of some of the "white stout" experiments in my past.

Trying to focus on the similarities, the beers open fairly similar (though the Utopias is a bit more flat). Fairly quickly, the sweeter notes of the Utopias barrel-aged beer start to differentiate it from the base.

If you are one who wants the additions to a base beer to come out, I feel you'd be impressed with the Utopias barrel-aged brew. I vaguely recall being mildly impressed with how well the Utopias represented, and how it worked with 120 Minute in ways I didn't think it would. After quite a bit of time, I have to say I don't think that opinion has changed.

I find myself liking the regular 120 Minute just a little more, today. The GF disagrees. However, since I would now say these are significantly different beers (with a thread of similarity), that I could see myself liking the Utopias variant in a different sitting.

Comparison of comparisons (I may really have a sickness):

• Funny, I mentioned flesh and pith of citrus when describing regular 120M in both reviews
• Utopias easily came off as sweeter in both reviews
• I had the U120 as potentially a mix of English BW and Belgian Farmhouse versus the Quad/white stout I brought up today
• My eventual favorite of the moment came down to essentially the same reasoning. The GF was more definitive today in her choice.

Edit: found my original NBW review, and the citrus hoppiness seemed to come out a bit more when I first tried the Utopias 120M than it does today, almost a year and a half later.

 

Very

Very cool progressive side-by-side.

 

Just like I planned

 

I lost my notes for this, but please enjoy a nice photo of Duvel Strong Blonde on the left and Unibroue le Fin du Monde on the right.

They were both very good.

 

Taking a little break at work to give this side by side a try. Two oktoberfests from two California stalwarts, San Diego's AleSmith brewing on the left and Chico's Sierra Nevada (with an assist from the Gutmann brewery from Germany).

Alesmith calls their a Marzen while Sierra says Festbier. Alesmith is also about 20 days older (7/18 vs 8/8).

On the nose their surprisingly similar, a warm breadiness that reminds me of rising and baking sourdough. There's a hint of minerality that almost comes across as sour in the Sierra beer. But both are very similar.

Taste is also astonishingly similar. That breadiness carries through and finishes with just enough earthy/herbal noble hop character to make them crisp and drinkable. Alesmith's offering is a little more one note (a pleasant one to be sure) while Sierra Nevada's has that mineral note that reminds me of rye or maybe of the note that I see as separating Vienna lagers from German helles.

Ultimately, I think I like Alesmiths offering better. It feels more like what I expect from the style. But Sierra brings an interesting and tasty offering that I wouldn't turn down. It's close enough to the style as I've known it that I'm curious to know if the region gutmann comes from has this little twist as a typical note.

 

Based on mention in another thread with @zid and @REVZEB , thought I should do this side by side. Schilling Beer Co (NH) - Vorhe vs. and Notch Brewing (MA)- Zwickelbier

The former sub-labeled as "Franconian Zwickelbier", the latter as "Bavarian Pale Lager". Schilling describes as using German heirloom pilsner malt and Organic Perle hops. Notch says German malt and Spelt hops. Similar ABV's, 4.3% and 4.5% respectively. Both cans about a month old, that I purchased from the two breweries during a trip a couple weeks ago.

Quite different in color as is evident by the picture. The Notch malt character is bready and light where the Schilling tastes slightly toasted. Schilling aroma is dominated by woody, earthy hops, Notch is much more malt forward with hops in the background. Taste is similarly very different - Notch has a decent depth of flavor, starts slightly sweet, with a balanced finish. Schilling again has the hops dominate, with a bitter dry finish. Schilling mouthfeel feels thinner, with prickly carbonation. Notch mouthfeel is much softer and smoother. Overall very different approaches. I prefer the Notch but enjoyed both.

BA review scores:
Schilling Vorhe - look: 4.25 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 4
Notch Zwickel - look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.25

 

Awesome! I might have to do this too!

 

Ok, I decided to do a battle of local breweries that will be round two of Philly-area NJ vs DC-area Virginia (with round one being wheat beer). In this case, it is actually involving Tonewood vs Port City - breweries @jonphiaher and I, repectively, champion as places that generally make good "more classic" style beers.

Round 2 involves Pilsners, with Tonewood's Parkway to Paradise being lab eled as a "pilsner" and canned on in indistinguishable date likely in the first week of July, and the Port City German Pilsner being brewed on America's birthday - 148 years later.


Looks:
Tonewood's beer is a little more "white" in its lite haze with Port City's beer being a tad more golden. Port City has more sustaining head (I poured both fairly aggressively, but not necessaily similarly given the can size difference, but the PC head was more sticky)

Smell:
Port City has a grainy bread nose with a bit of floral hops surrounding dry grass notes. Relatively, Tonewood's beer is a little more fruit, or fruit blossom-like than the floral notes and grassiness of Port City. There's less influence from the grain, as well.

Taste:
Relative to the nose, Parkway to Paradise has a nice bitterness - unexpectedly grassy and herbal with floral edge more like PC's German Pilsner smelled like. Grain underlies this, coming through with a little sweetness after the bitterness subsides.

Port City German Pilsner starts off more balanced, compared to the hop-forward bitterness of Tonewood's beer. By mid palate, a metallic and slightly grassy bitterness takes hold, with a mineral-laced husky grain bitterness in the finish.

Feel and Overall:
Tonewood's beer feels a little softer, and Port City's a skosh more full bodied. I miss the pilsner malt a bit in Tonewood's beer - it seems to come as a generic sweetness that pairs with the floral notes. I find myself wanting a more distinctive grassy bitterness from Port City's beer, with a little less mineral / metal vibe.

The GF thought they tasted pretty similar, but leaned toward the Tonewood Pilsner. I'm leaning a little towards Port City's beer, but really like independent aspects of each more than the other.

An afterthought of combination that potentially had too much backwash actually worked better than I expected. The mid palate was a bit bland, but the open had a sweet breadiness and the finish avoided some of the mineral / metallic notes.

 

I’m not a fan of being forced to rate when I review but Vorhe was one of the higher beers a rated as of late. I LOVED that beer, fun read.

Thanks for posting @cjgiant i almost missed this. See your intended tag

Knowing that beer well I definitely see where the comparisons probably differ. Tonewood loves to dry hop a lot of their pilsners, they usually are quite restrained and balanced in it, but still; it 100% sticks out I think. Seems like that was definitely the case for you too

 

I figure you periodically global search the internet BeerAdvocate for "Tonewood" and would eventually come across it despite my fat finger