Le Temps Noir Batch Two

Reads 1098 • Replies 14 • Started Wednesday, March 9, 2016 1:02:39 PM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen

Message northropfrye beers 4425 º places 327 º 13:02 Wed 3/9/2016 FYI there is a new batch of Le Temps Noir and it’s fantastic. I see, though, that’s it’s been added as a distinct beer. Does anyone know if this it correct? My understanding is that it’s the same beer just more time in the barrels this time. Does that qualify as a distinct entry?
Message kbudd19 beers 1033 º places 2 º 08:21 Thu 3/10/2016 So sad we didn’t get any this time:( I’m pretty sure your right, I think it’s the same base beer as last time but aged longer, or at least that’s what I’ve heard anyway. Don’t think that would qualify it for a distinct entry.
Message rudge75 11:38 Thu 3/10/2016 Same beer, only Heaven Hills barrels this time (no Buffalo Trace to be had at the time), longer aging in barrels to smooth out the sharpness of the barrels. I’m going to have to do this one again with just 100% Buffalo Trace or Woodford Reserve barrels to see how much more brown sugar/vanilla notes we can pick up. The HH barrels tend to be very sharp, like a raw, low end Jim Beam rotgut flavour that takes a long time to age out. FYI - Batch 2 of Old Red Barn is on its way. Not too sure of timing but we’ve decided on the blend and its ready to be blended and bottled. The extra year in the barrel (3 total) have worked wonders on the body.
Message fiulijn P beers 28373 º places 745 º 12:14 Thu 3/10/2016 rudge75, thanks for chiming in! will it be clearly labeled "batch 2"? Clear labeling and brewer’s intention are some of the criteria for separating entries. northropfrye, the second batch hasn’t been added by the brewer or by an admin; it’s still "unverified". We may need to merge the entries, or maybe not. We haven’t seen Half Pints in BC for a long time, and it’s really a pity. I tried Le Temps Noir last year and it’s a great beer! I’d love to try the new one too. If one of you guys from the prairies decide to cross the mountains, you know what to bring for an IP trade ;-)

Message DuffMan beers 10981 º places 349 º 12:54 Thu 3/10/2016 FWIW, the simple fact that a different barrel was used to age the same beer is definitely worthy of a new entry, if we go by precedent. The Fifty-fifty BA Eclipse series is entirely based on this precept.
Message northropfrye beers 4425 º places 327 º 16:53 Thu 3/10/2016 The bottles do clearly say "Batch 2" on them.
Message fiulijn P beers 28373 º places 745 º 18:39 Thu 3/10/2016 Originally posted by DuffMan FWIW, the simple fact that a different barrel was used to age the same beer is definitely worthy of a new entry, if we go by precedent. The Fifty-fifty BA Eclipse series is entirely based on this precept. Yes, it’s worthy. But not enough for RB, as I mentioned above. Some brewers use different barrels, but are not interested in differentiating, and thus the common drinker wouldn’t know which version he’s drinking. Hopefully this one has the batch number.
Message DuffMan beers 10981 º places 349 º 19:12 Thu 3/10/2016 Originally posted by fiulijn Originally posted by DuffMan FWIW, the simple fact that a different barrel was used to age the same beer is definitely worthy of a new entry, if we go by precedent. The Fifty-fifty BA Eclipse series is entirely based on this precept. Yes, it’s worthy. But not enough for RB, as I mentioned above. Some brewers use different barrels, but are not interested in differentiating, and thus the common drinker wouldn’t know which version he’s drinking. Hopefully this one has the batch number. So just to clarify: if the brewer declares via batch number or direct statement that a beer is aged in different barrels than previous, then it gets a separate entry? But if it isn’t explicitly stated on the label (despite clarification by the brewer him/herself), then it gets lumped into a previous entry? Not looking to argue/fight, just trying to understand the inconsistencies WRT accurately describing and rating these special brews. There may be a very notable difference between these two releases, and if the reasons are known but not cataloged then I feel we are doing a disservice.

Message rudge75 13:27 Tue 6/28/2016 What’s the retirement policy for Batch #1?
Message fiulijn P beers 28373 º places 745 º 13:51 Tue 6/28/2016 Originally posted by DuffMan (...) So just to clarify: if the brewer declares via batch number or direct statement that a beer is aged in different barrels than previous, then it gets a separate entry? But if it isn’t explicitly stated on the label (despite clarification by the brewer him/herself), then it gets lumped into a previous entry? Not looking to argue/fight, just trying to understand the inconsistencies WRT accurately describing and rating these special brews. There may be a very notable difference between these two releases, and if the reasons are known but not cataloged then I feel we are doing a disservice. This is mostly right. For the second part, let’s take this example. In January a brewery sells bottles of BA Imperial Stout, and in March they sell bottles of BA Imperial Stout again; the labels are identical; the brewer on his FB page in January announces that they are now selling their Imperial Stout aged in Barrel A; later, in March, he announces that they are now selling Barrel B Imperial Stout. Since the bottles are identical, it challenges the perception that the brewer intends to differentiate them. And how is a rater supposed to behave when he receives a bottle in a trade, buys a bottle from a store in April, founds a bottle in the cellar a year later? ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - We can be a bit flexible if it makes sense. For example in our case the releases are not 1 month apart, but years apart, which means that the chances of getting hold of the first release are extremely thin. And on a personal note I agree that it’s more interesting to rate/report the differences between the two batches. So I retired the first batch, and we’ll keep the batch 2, unless new elements will be mentioned in this thread, and only if somebody sends two bottles to BC ;-) Has anybody noticed if there is any difference in the label?
Message fiulijn P beers 28373 º places 745 º 13:55 Tue 6/28/2016 Originally posted by rudge75 What’s the retirement policy for Batch #1? General policy is to retire a beer one year after it has been made available by the brewery. We don’t chase this, because it’s unpractical, so most of the times we retire them when there’s a possible conflict. Since we are lucky to have the brewer in the thread, why don’t you just add a batch # to the label??? Next batch...