WLP013/ WY1028/ Worthington White Shield

Discussion in 'Homebrewing' started by pweis909, Nov 12, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pweis909

    pweis909 Meyvn (1,434) Aug 13, 2005 Wisconsin

    Have you brewed with both WLP013 and WY1028 and do you find them to be distinctly different? And for that matter, are you familiar with White Shield, and what's the ester profile like? Supposedly, the two commercial strains are derived from the White Shield strain.

    White Labs describes 013: Dry, malty ale yeast. Provides a complex, oakey ester character to your beer. Hop bitterness comes through well. Wyeast describes 1028: rich, minerally profile that is bold and crisp with some fruitiness. They don't sound similar to me.

    I just kegged a batch with WLP013. The taste has sort of a musty pipe tobacco thing going on. Could that be the complex oakey ester character? Fermentation was at the low end of the temperature range.

    It's the second time I brewed with this yeast. It also is the second time I got this musty thing going on, which I find a little off-putting. It was 7 years ago that I first used this yeast and about that time when I first encountered the musty tobacco flavor, but I'm not 100% sure that the earlier musty batch was also the earlier WLP013.

    In addition to the WLP013, the EKG leaf hops that I used in this batch seemed old. Very little aroma, no strong off-putting bitterness when I bit into a chunk. But nothing that suggested musty tobacco, either.

    What's bumming me out is I really wanted to try 1028 but had to substitute. Is the yeast to blame? Are the hops to blame? Or did I manage to repeat some undiagnosed rookie mistake 7 years later?

  2. marquis

    marquis Crusader (707) Nov 20, 2005 United Kingdom (England)

  3. pweis909

    pweis909 Meyvn (1,434) Aug 13, 2005 Wisconsin

    Thanks for nudging me there. I don't know why I didn't think of it. I tried to sift throw those reviewes and they suggested ester profiles all over the map. Given the diversity of palates and the likelihood that most of them were not drinking fresh beer, I'm not sure what to make of it. The freshness factor may also explain (to a degree) why you found the reviews disappointing.
  4. JimmyTango

    JimmyTango Initiate (0) Aug 1, 2011 California

    I've brewed with WLP013 once, and loved the results:


    Definately had an oakey thing, but nothing I would consider "musty". Pretty fruity, like red apples. I did ferment in the mid 60s and had a pretty big starter, and it was pretty heavily late-hopped FWIW.
  5. marquis

    marquis Crusader (707) Nov 20, 2005 United Kingdom (England)

    My point is that White Shield claims to be a traditional IPA and those reviewers who only know the new wave versions of this style don't recognise this.It isn't the sort of IPA which needs to be drunk fresh but rather one which can be enjoyed with a bit of age. Perhaps this will be of interest;
  6. pweis909

    pweis909 Meyvn (1,434) Aug 13, 2005 Wisconsin

    Thanks for the link. From reading Mitch Steele's IPA book, I knew that this one was based on the intepretation of a different era. It is interesting that it it seems to age fairly well despite its modest gravity. I'm probably not going to let my homebrew sit around for 3 years, but I'll consider drinking a less-than-fresh White Shield if I ever come across it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • About Us

    Your go-to website for beer (since 1996), publishers of BeerAdvocate magazine (since 2006) and hosts of world-class beer events (since 2003). Respect Beer.
  • BeerAdvocate Microbrew Invitational

    Join us June 2-3, 2017 in Boston, Mass. for beer, cider, mead, kombucha and sake from over 70 small producers.

    Learn More
  • Subscribe to BeerAdvocate Magazine

    Support uncompromising beer advocacy and award-winning, independent journalism with a print subscription to BeerAdvocate magazine.