RateBeer
Russian River Beatification (Batch 001) 4.13 197

Russian River Beatification (Batch 001)

 (RETIRED)
Percentile
100
overall

bottling
unknown

on tap
unknown

distribution
unknown

Add Distribution Data
send corrections | shelftag |
RatingsAverageScoreSeasonalABVStyle PctlServe in
1974.17/5.04.13/5.0Special5.5%97.6Snifter, Tulip, Tumbler
Commercial Description:
Blonde Ale aged in New Belgium La Folie barrels for 23 months. Batch 001 is softer on the palate than Batch 001 - PH1. The PH1 batch was aged in one of New Belgium's favorite barrels. Refermented in the bottle.
 Most Recent Top Raters Highest Ratings Who's Rated This?  
 JohnC (2287), Mission Viejo, California, USA
3.8 Aroma Appearance Flavor Palate Overall
6/103/58/104/517/20
Jun 29, 2006  
Bottle, batch 001. cloudy honey golden color with a white head that quickly disappears. The aroma is like cider vinegar. this is a sour puppy.


 jazz88 (2239), San Francisco, California, USA
4 Aroma Appearance Flavor Palate Overall
8/103/58/104/517/20
Nov 20, 2006  
Bottle of Batch 001. A hazed golden orange color with a diminished white head. Banana, citrus, barnyard yeast, pepper, clove, candy spice, and bubblegum in the aroma. Sour, lambic or gueuze like rather than the Rodenbach or La Folie style of Flemish Sour Ale in that it lacks the rich cherry found in the latter. Rich and intensely sour, but this beer is more palatable with citrus flavors rather than the dark fruit or cherry (cf. La Folie). Sour, green apple and lemon flavors that finish dry and with a sourness that is just short of a pucker. Bottle purchased from Toronado (11/19/06) but sampled at home.


 bluevegie (2232), Perth, Australia
4 Aroma Appearance Flavor Palate Overall
8/103/59/104/516/20
Nov 22, 2006  
Thanks to Kook for this one. Didn’t take too many notes on this, mainly just enjoyed it, great nose, well balanced showing green apples mainly and then some other fruits.


 Kinz (2221), Glen Allen, Virginia, USA
4.2 Aroma Appearance Flavor Palate Overall
9/104/58/104/517/20
Apr 3, 2009  
Big thanks to Numenor for bringing this to the Richmond Gathering. PH1 bottling. Hazy yellow. Great horseblanket aroma, with lemon, cheddar, and pixie stick aroma. Flavor starts the same, and then finishes just a bit short with a faint honey note. Interesting stuff, and a great sniffer.


 BDR (2170), Roseville, Minnesota, USA
4.3 Aroma Appearance Flavor Palate Overall
8/104/58/104/519/20
Nov 22, 2007    Updated: Apr 30, 2008
Gold color with a slightly cloudy appearance. Sour barnyard aroma that cause my mouth to immediately salivate. Funky sour taste with a dry finish. Spectacular.


 Silphium (2160), Haslett, Michigan, USA
4.1 Aroma Appearance Flavor Palate Overall
9/104/58/104/516/20
Nov 5, 2006  
PH1: murky orange body, resembling peach pulp, with reddish tones anda quickly dissipating off-white head. Sharp sour aroma, oaky, with brie cheese rind and fruit skin (cherry). Essentially a lambic, puckeringly sour with brie cheese rind and fruit skin, kind of like a geueze trying to be a kriek.
9-4-8-4-17

001: body similar to PH1, but with a lasting off-white head. Sour, musty aroma, but not as sharp as PH1, lacking the fruit component. Body is much more typical of a Flemish Sour Ale, with sour funky notes immersed in a fuller, sweeter body. A bit less complex than PH1, and lacks the sharp bite that gives the former version its character.
8-4-8-4-15

Overall rating 9-4-8-4-16. Excellent per the norm for Russian River.


 mds (2112), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
4.6 Aroma Appearance Flavor Palate Overall
9/105/59/105/518/20
Apr 22, 2007  
Bottle. PH1. Pours a cloudy, nearly murky, effervescent orange body with a medium-sized creamy white head. Smells great - creamy apples, cookies, acid with lactic vinous notes. Spritzy palate with sharp acidity. Very grassy and lemon-esque including brett character and refreshingly dry overall. This stuff is truly phenomenal.
Sampled at the Pizza Port 12 Hour Belgian Beer Party on March 24, 2007.


 TAR (2097), Boulder Co., Colorado, USA
4.3 Aroma Appearance Flavor Palate Overall
9/104/59/104/517/20
Jun 25, 2006  
Batch 001- PH1: Hazy peach. Noisy loosely-packed foam fizzles into a sustained ring. Saliva inducing nose of sulfur, musty oak, brett, dried peaches, and dusty phenols. Interwoven suggestions of sherbet and soft malt. Weightless effervescence sparkles on the palate. Very airy. Irony acidity immediately awakens the palate just as an explosively flavorsome surge of juiciness ensues. Not just tart, but astonishingly adept in its jugglery of succulence and dryness, as well. Deeply quenching and quaffable, as a result. Elegant straw-like malts loosen the tightening brett grip and also provide a touch of body-lending sweetness. Tannins remain secondary to the graceful dusting of powdery-textured oak which complements the succulence as it lightly brushes the palate. As the complexity continues to develop, the acidity slowly wanes to create a remarkably soft and rounded finish of musty yeasty, peach fuzz, and vividly defined crackery malts which eternally linger. The addition of yeast imparts a chalky astringency and seemingly accentuates the bandage phenols. This is surely only a tease of what’s yet to come in regards to the magic Vinnie is sure to achieve with future batches/once he acquires more barrels and begins molding them into perfection through the art of blending. Wow!

Batch 001 : Hazy peach. Undying puffy white foam. Relatively soft and composed aroma of damp wool, maraschino cherry, lavender and musty wood. Light note of butter. Fluffy and feisty carbonation. Hard body. Initially much sharper, dryer, and more mineral-laden than it is succulent. Prominent malts are quick to establish their soft sweetness which meshes with the softer buttered oak flavors. Very musty and chockfull of brett, but the balancing succulence lies deeply buried within. As in the PH1, the oak delivers similarly soft and powdery textures, along with a restrained mustiness. Finishes adeptly balanced with delicate malt and peach flavors, which absorb much of the acidity, and coarser brett. There’s not much to complain about with this batch, but if forced to choose a favorite, I’d have to go with the PH1 due to the nose, alone. All around, the PH1 is significantly more polished (while the aromatic brightness is highly apparent in the PH1, it takes a heavy swirl for this to reveal its luster), and the PH1 is noticeably deeper/more complex, bears a juicier tartness, and possesses none of the butteriness of this particular barrel. Still something any brewer would be proud to claim as their own. (8,4,8,4,16 = 4.0)



We Want To Hear From You



Join us! RateBeer is made by beer enthusiasts for the craft beer community. Your basic membership is free and allows you to read all beer ratings. Click here to create your account... and give your opinion!

Join Us »

View Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Share Your Opinion!
Get started reviewing beers at RateBeer.com now.

First, choose your user name

About RateBeer | Add A Beer | Log In | Edit Personal Info | 100 Beer Club | FAQ | Feedback?
Copyright © 2000-2010, RateBeer LLC