White Chocolate possibly infected; Patrick Rue responds

I'm with you on this. I thought the first sip was interesting, an ounce or two was palatable, and then I realized I didn't open the bottle with enough people to share...

I have bottles of '12 that are up for trade, for anyone that's longing for the past...

The easiest way would be to realize that WC '13 didn't come out till August, so unless The Bruery is rocking a time machine, any bottles you got in April would be from '12. Also, if there's no year on the top-right of the label, it's a 2012.

 

Fairly certain they are rocking a time machine...

 

I really wish I could try it on draft for comparison. I can't believe it's the same as what was in my bottle.

 

Bummer about WC either way (infection or weirdness), my wife loved that one and we dropped $120 on it this year since it's her favorite. i haven't broken the news to her yet, but i'll wait until PMR chimes in on their final statement (which i'm sure will be accurate/honest). This is probably just rough timing since it was close to E&O so people are paying more attention and sensitive, etc.

But that's honestly not what i'm thinking about right now. Right now i'm just thinking please please please please please, let BT/GM be good. I know i'm just being paranoid, the Bois variants were out of the flipping park, i thought MASH is decidedly underrated and Melange #8 was sex in a glass (in the morning... ya know, with coffee)... not to mention the great sours this year.

But, as someone who is ready and willing to drop $300-500 on Stouts next month, fully knowing that the Bruery will make it right if anything goes wrong.... damn, I just can't help but think "please be good".

 

I have a 06/18/13 WC 14.75% that I just got in a trade.. I can't just open it by myself to see if I'll have a similar problem. Just gotta take the risk I guess. Gotta give props to Patrick for responding fast.

 

I was happy with the Ebony and Oak infection, like Tart of Darkness Lite, but seriously disappointed in my two recent bottles of WC. I took two for camping last week, was going to make coffee cocktails for camp with one, and share the other straight. But both bottles so slightly gushed and were sour.

edit: I've still got 2 bottles of WC sitting at home.

 

Everyone who blind tasted the two bottles I opened while camping thought I was giving them sours.

 

I was away from the internetz for 10 days with only the 2012 WC in mind when I tasted mine. And the 2 bottles I brought were pretty disappointing with their level of tartness.

 

That's why I drank my one and only bottle of 2012 WC in 90 minutes on a slightly chilly day early this year. It was exactly as described. OTOH the two bottles of 2013 that I've had so far had none of the above except for a hint of vanilla.

 

The weird thing is that my '12 was the one that smelled and tasted like sour apple cider. The taste eventually transitioned to the WC taste I've had before. Actually wrote an email to the Bruery about two weeks before this thread started.

 

For the sake of research I drank a bottle of '12 and '13 side by side. The '12 definitely tasted as good as I remembered. However, the nose on the '12 was not nearly as nice as the '13.

I did think that the bottle of '13 was better than the bottle I had last weekend. I'll have to look at dates. Almost positive that the better '13 bottle was stamped the 18th.

 

Anxiously awaiting details on refund procedures from Bruery. Hope they don't say that this is "the way it is supposed to taste."

 

I think if more people had actually tasted White Oak Sap, there would be less surprise at there being some tartness.

 

Then why wasn't the 2012 tart? Infected or not, the 2013 is an entirely different beer than the 2012 and doesn't come close to the tasting notes on the current label.

 

I thought White Oak Sap was pretty damn sweet. Not sure I got any tartness out of it.

 

I agree. The craziest thing is just how different these beers taste (2012 vs 2013). If there is no infection after all, it's just such a disappointment this year and I guess I will no longer order multiple bottles of a new vintage until I've actually opened a bottle from that year. Not going to get stuck with gushing bottles and a beer that is noticeably different again.

 

Patrick has said that many batches of White Oak Sap exhibit tartness. Not all, many. So they chose tarter batches this year, or did a different blend, who knows? I havent had one yet, so I don't really have a huge opinion on '13 one way or another, but as someone already mentioned, don't we have favorite and least favorite batches of most other beers? Do we really expect it to be 100% the same all the time?

Edit: I guess I do kinda take issue with people tasting tartness and immediatly jumping to infection, that's all I was really trying to point out with my White Oak Sap comment.

 

Of course. But I've never had anything from anyone with the same label taste so entirely different than a previous vintage. I freakin' loved the 2012 and to me the 2013 is just gross. I'm mostly here for the sours, and I was fine with the infected Ebony and Oak, but the combination of flavors in the two bottles of 2013 I've opened are just nasty.

 

I still need to try my Ebony and Oak. I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't like the sour WC13...I can't imagine there was any intention for the beer to taste like that. I love sours, but that beer was just bad and not at all as described.

 

Exactly my thoughts, except I didn't have the pleasure of WC12, the 13 was my first. After hearing so many rave reviews of WC12, I quickly jumped on the opportunity to buy a couple bottles at $30 a piece plus shipping. Of course beers might vary a little from year to year, but from everything I've heard that's not what's going on here. And certainly the beer I drank, was not anything like what it was intended to taste like. I sipped on it having a few ounces over an hour, and then had to pour it out. I've had several beers from the Bruery and all have been at least good, most of them have been awesome. This one was undrinkable and certainly not as advertised or previously experienced.