Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pacific' started by calidelphia, Aug 28, 2013.
Just wondering when did you get this response?
Who is Jessica?
Emailed them yesterday morning, got it last night. It was part of a previous string of emails though.
Me, I'm a hot chick.....
But actually, name is Jesse and somehow they got Jessica out of my email.
Just shared two bottles tonight with a few buddies, one from my order and another from my bro's (both 2013's). No gushing, same slight tartness at the front of the tongue on the bite, boozy and smooth all the way through.
No problems here.
Hope everyone else's bottles are alright.
I'm just curious, did you meticulously remove all of the wax before you opened your bottle?
In addition, the color of that label looks off to me. #nottocallanyonealiar
Do you not see how over saturated all the colors are? It was taken without flash, I'm guessing and it picked up on the whites/reflections and not the label color. Call him out about his dirty sink, not the label.
I typically do that with Bruery bottles. I have a friend who collects wax to use on his homebrew, and it's easier to remove in one piece if you take it off all at once.
Turns out I don't know shit about photography.
Yes, I did. It's easy to peel off at one time.
Was taken with a phone w/no flash. These were two 2013 bottles purchased off the website. I'm trying to figure out what does the color of the label have to do with anything?
Because my sink is the most important thing to talk about?? Last time I checked this was called BeerAvocate, not Better Homes and Garden. Go post over there if you're worried about my sink.
The reason for the questions was because, at least to the uncritical eye, it looked like a bottle of something besides white chocolate. The first time I saw the no wax, yellow tinted label I thought hottenroth. Looking closer, it didn't look much like the hottenroth label design, which is why I asked about the wax.
I was sticking up for you dude. Sarcasm on the Internet is hard to pull off.
No, no - yours was hardly obscure. Poster was just being overly defensive.
Had one of these with a buddy last Sunday. I didn't notice any true signs of infection, but I was disappointed in the beer versus the 2012 vintage. The bottle went in recycling so I can offer any specific info. Glad I only picked up two this go around.
No problem...hung over this am and my panties were in a bunch...
It was a quick snap of the phone camera. I was more angry about it gushing all over the place so I threw it in the sink. The more I read about it, I don't think it was infected. I just didn't like the style and was wanting something different. On another note I haven't had Hottenroth. Is it worth giving a shot?
Opened another bottle during DDG and it gushed with the heavy tart taste. Guess I need to film opening the next as we already have pictures, but no video yet.
Not only do you drink an entire of White Chocolate solo, you plan to open up two bottles of White Chocolate in the future. Amazing.
If the weather doesn't cool down soon, definitely.
If the weather does cool down soon, definitely.
Prompted by this thread, I opened a 2013 White Chocolate this weekend. Happy to report there was definitely *no* infection, nor was there any sour, off, or rotten flavors to be found. I'd not had the beer previously, so didn't have prior expectations. Was definitely a bit of bitterness up front--but beer bitterness, not sour/etc. bitterness--and I wonder if that's what people might be harping on. My bottle was a 6/18 one and did not gush at all, so perhaps there's something wrong with the gushers in particular? (It had been in a cooler full of ice before opening, so it also may just have been cold enough not to.)
All in all, it was a good but not great beer. The bitterness up front was perhaps a bit too pronounced, but the finish on the beer was better, with nice hints of vanilla and chocolate.
I'm curious, partly because no one has really said anything about it yet and it occurred to me today, but is this "sour" like green apple? If so it could just be acetaldehyde, which would go away with time.
My experience was pretty much like apple juice. It was a bottle from the initial package and I opened it up a few weeks ago. It didn't taste rotten really, just like a weird mix of a fruited sour and what WC has normally tasted like for me.
I opened it up and immediately got a huge whiff of apple. I didn't say anything and let the girlfriend try it. She then asked if it was supposed to taste like apple juice and chocolate.
All in all though, it wasn't too bad even with the overwhelming apple. I ended up blending it with some Ivan the Terrible and got something that reminded me of a BCBS variant.
The initial package would have been WC '12.
I could ascribe it to acetaldehyde, but if it is, I'm not convinced it will ever really go away - this is a barrel aged beer that has already conditioned for time in the barrel, as well as over two months in the bottle, and Patrick says they force carbed it so I'm making a guess that they didn't re-pitch yeast at bottling. You would need some healthy yeast around to clean up the off flavors, and I would be surprised if that's viable at this point.
Yep. Haven't picked up my '13s yet.
The few I have opened so far have tasted fine (knocking on wood). I have about a case and a half left, hoping it all turns out well, if not I have confidence The Bruery will make it right.
I have had 2 so far that were off.
Crap, now I'm worried. I only bought one bottle of WC, my fault for not being a preservation/reserve member. It's 13' but I hope its not skunked.
Skunked is not the same as infected.
You're right, pour choice of words on my point. Hope it's not infected.
I'm just going to hope that the 2 bottles I have coming are perfectly fine. I enjoy white chocolate quite a bit.
After reading this thread, I was anxious to get home and try one of the two bottles I recently ordered online.
2013 Bruery White Chocolate (bottled 06/18/13)
This is my first time trying a Bruery White Chocolate, but I can't imagine this is anything like it's supposed to taste. It's definitely tart and a bit sweet. ..definitely nothing I would call a white chocolate flavor. The smell is a bit off putting. I've been sipping on it for about 20 minutes with no noticeable change, but I'll keep at it for a bit. Pretty safe bet I won't be finishing it. Very disappointed that I ordered two bottles at $30 a piece plus shipping. I was hoping for something of what I had previously heard this beer descibed as...liquid white chocolate.
p.s. - No gushing as a couple people had reported.
In all fairness, I don't think this beer ever tasted like "white chocolate", literally at least (to me). I've always thought the base beer with the added vanilla beans (and i think cacao nibs? Shoot I don't even remember) gave off subtle undertones that reminded drinkers of a "white chocolate", but not necessary giving off an entire palate packed with the stuff. That's at least what I've noticed over the years.
It's perfectly fine if it wasn't your cup of tea sbpyrat, and I'm at least glad that you didn't get a bad bottle. It's a bummer you didn't like it. Cheers.
FWIW, I've had it twice before, last year and then a new bottle this last weekend. Honestly, it tasted very similar to my memory of the previous years (and we know around these parts that memory can be deceiving). And we had no gushing.
It kinda does sound like he got a bad bottle if it's tart and has an off-putting aroma. The first batch of White Chocolate is the only one I've had so far, and it was not tart at all and had a very nice aroma.
If you read the description the Bruery used when they sold the beer, there is no mention of tartness whatsoever, and I've never heard any talk of the first batch being tart:
The Bruery's description of White Oak (which, like White Chocolate, contains White Oak Sap) also makes no mention of tartness:
I wonder how many of the most recently reported bottles are more people looking for an off flavor as opposed to an actual possibly infected bottle?
I've often had something, thought it tasted fine, then I get someone asking if I tasted a particular flavor, which initially I did not, but then after being told that the flavor is in there all of a sudden I taste it.
I fear when I open my next bottle all this talk of possibly infected bottles is going to taint my perception of it.
There is a fine line between the bottle being "infected" and for certain tastes to be "different" than previous batches. Patrick did mention this bit earlier in the thread if you missed it,
"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!
That being said, it does explain some of the initial tartness certain folks (including myself) had experienced. Does that mean NONE of the bottles are infected/bad or tasted like rotten sour apples ? Of course not, but it does relieve some stress from a good majority of the concerned.
The folks over at the Bruery are looking into it so I guess I'm just hoping for the best. I agree that this year's batch tastes different than the previous year's, but it wasn't as drastic of a difference for me than it was for the few on here who had bottles that tasted COMPLETELY off. I say all of this because many of us on here have only experienced the slight tartness at the front of the tongue and some gushing occurrences upon bottle opening, which according to Patrick seems to be normal in regards to this year's WC batch.
sbpyrat can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems like he just wasn't a fan of WC considering it was his first go at the beer. He mentioned only that it was off putting and not necessarily indicating that it was infected. He also mentioned that he didn't experience any bottle gushing so I just took it as him having a good bottle he simply wasn't a fan of.
To JesseLara's fear of tainted perception, perhaps you (or anything else trying this batch of WC for that matter) could try and consider what Patrick has said about this current batch vs previous years. Making a decision that a beer is "infected" or "bad" based solely on the premise of it not tasting exactly like a previous bottle year is a bit ridiculous if you ask me.