I wasn’t aware of some of the debate about kettle sours until recently. Read a couple things that some think it’s a bad thing, .As long as it’s billed as a kettle sour I have no issues about it. Should kettle sour be a seperate category? |
I’ve had some that were tasty. Seems like most of the ones I’ve seen have been up front about that being the process. I don’t know...maybe it’s something that should be spun off eventually... |
No problems here |
I appreciate it being noted by the brewery and I do not think it should be its own category. |
I don’t care how you get there, just make good beer. |
Like all styles, I’ve had excellent kettle sours and I’ve had shit ones. Overall I enjoy the increased popularity and availability of them. As far as earning their own style distinction, that’s a debate from which I’ll abstain, since I really don’t care. |
Originally posted by Oakes +1 |
Originally posted by b3shine Yep |
For those not familiar with the Kettle Sour discussion here is an article. |
I think the bigger issue is how the Brewers sour the beer: lactobacillus, lactic acid, or random grain sprinkled on top. I’ve had some really bad beers where the brewer just sprinkled crushed grain on the mash and let it go uncontrolled for a few days. |
Was monumentally unimpressed by the half dozen or so I tried whilst sitting at the bar at Cascadia in Portland a year ago. Not really very sour at all, just a bunch of fruity sweet-sour thingies. I guess I’m spoilt by proper lambic. |
2000- 2024 © RateBeer, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service