White Chocolate possibly infected; Patrick Rue responds

LOL!

 

Just popped open a 2013 bottle rated at 14.75 ABV (Am I reading it right or do I need new glasses?). Noticeable tartness compared to previous years but definitely not with any indication of "infection" as far as I can tell. It personally smells similar to previous years but i seem to notice a bit more tartness with the usual flavor suspects along with the booziness, as opposed to the boozy sweetness. Still loads of vanilla and barrel character but there's definitely something slightly (but noticeably) lingering around on the initial bite.

- All in all, do I feel as though it's infected? Nope.

- Am I still concerned/worried? No not really, but my dumb ass will probably pop open another bottle or two just to make sure.


Looks like my first dip into this batch was positive, but will check back in when I share another bottle with the boys this weekend. Hoping everyone else is experiencing positive reactions.

 

There is a light tartness to the beer (as many batches of White Oak Sap tend to exhibit) that was there at packaging and at initial testing. It was also carbonated a bit over spec (force carbed), so that's why there's some instances of gushing occurring, especially if it's being opened on the warm side.

It's a bit different than last year's White Chocolate-- a bit drier and higher ABV. We're still testing to make sure there are no issues that'll impact stability. Given its high ABV, we're pretty confident that if there is any bacteria present, it won't survive / grow in this environment so the stability should be fairly promising.

We're still looking into this further and will be watching how this beer changes over time. In the meantime, I hope you all enjoy the beer!

Cheers,
Patrick
The Bruery

 

Well whatever it is, I wouldn't personally label the beer as "infected" is what I was getting at. I'm no expert, so maybe the tartness was all in my head or maybe it's just one of those subtle things that people pick up randomly.

As long as it doesn't taste like "rotten apple juice" or shows any indication of very off flavors and still encompasses plenty of the characteristics from previous year bottlings, I won't be so quick to call this batch a dud. Knowing myself though, I just halfway panicked when I saw the title of this thread and thought I'd give some more reassurance to the rest of the BA's who are on the same boat.

Hoping Patrick can chime in during the upcoming days with some more good news, but I'm pretty satisfied with my first try at this years batch. Will definitely take another stab at it soon.

 

Well don't I type slower than a 4th grader on a Macintosh. Thanks for the reply Patrick.

 

it seems like too much of a gamble to even buy The Bruery bottles, they appear to be having a lot of quality control issues lately. When they are charging $20 or $30 a bottle they should be 100% sure it is a good product. Some beers they make are great while others are total crap IMO. I also think its hard for a brewery to admit flaws in their beer when they invest thousands of dollars into it

 

The high abv comment makes sense, it does seem a bit high to have anything survive... But what the hell do I Know? beats me.
One is being opened at the jester king bottle share tomorrow. will report findings.

 

Had a '12 WC at a tasting in May, while it isn't my favorite beer, it tasted like White Chocolate and I didn't have any issues with it. Last night I opened a '13 WC for my tasting group and it had a sour apple flavor that made it undrinkable. A few from the group had never tasted it and asked if it was a sour (which doesn't make any sense when you think about it). I told them that is not how it is supposed to taste and I would look into it, then I found this thread. Ours did not have a slight tart flavor, it was full on sour apples. The white chocolate flavor never came through in the after taste as it did when I had it in May. Bummer

 

was it thin?

 

I honestly don't remember. I want to lean toward yes but I can't remember the mouthfeel.

 

High ABV beers are a less hospitable environment to bacteria, but it's not unheard of for them to become infected - for example, Angels Share Grand Cru (12% ABV) and 2011 BA Yeti (~11%) both had infections that developed after bottling.

 

true true. this would be the highest I have heard of.

 

Hmm...that would suggest either acetyldehyde, which is a normal by-product of yeast that will fade with more conditioning time, or malo-lactic fermentation, which would transition from sour apples to full-on sour, given time...

 

touché, riko. touché.

 

2 releases. One of which (so far) was fully refunded. And I can't even remember the time before that they had an infection.

 

Yeah, the concern isn't about anything more than losing the beer. The Bruery will take care of any financial concerns, but it sucks to miss out on beers due to issues.

 

A portion of the Autumn Maple last year was soured. I think it was limited to bottles with a certain date. Did anyone note the bottle dates for the off flavored WC?

 

That, I agree with. I'll be bummed if I don't get any good White Chocolate this year. I just think it's silly to call buying their beer a gamble when they've had so few failings and they've generally taken the proper actions to make it up to people when they have done something wrong.