The flavour differences are interesting, and what people are hoping for - but are not the criteria by which we would consider a split, as flavour difference is subjective and subject to too many variables. If two beers which had been matured in different whiskey barrels ended up tasting the same that would be a noteworthy comment as well. What people are interested in is how much (as well as how little) difference there is in character and flavour between two beers which have been treated slightly differently.
It is what we are doing all the time when we sample beers - we are looking for both points of similarity as well as points of difference.
When we line up some pale lagers like Red Stripe and Fosters or Carlsberg and Heineken we are often struck by how much they taste the same, yet we wouldn’t consider merging the brands because we accept that there are differences in the beers over and above the flavour.
That is the thinking behind the barrel aging. Even though people may consider that the barrel aging wouldn’t/would have an influence on the final flavour of the beer, enough RateBeerians considered that the process was significant enough for barrel aged beers to be listed as separate beers. |
Originally posted by SilkTork2
The flavour differences are interesting, and what people are hoping for - but are not the criteria by which we would consider a split, as flavour difference is subjective and subject to too many variables. If two beers which had been matured in different whiskey barrels ended up tasting the same that would be a noteworthy comment as well. What people are interested in is how much (as well as how little) difference there is in character and flavour between two beers which have been treated slightly differently.
It is what we are doing all the time when we sample beers - we are looking for both points of similarity as well as points of difference.
When we line up some pale lagers like Red Stripe and Fosters or Carlsberg and Heineken we are often struck by how much they taste the same, yet we wouldn’t consider merging the brands because we accept that there are differences in the beers over and above the flavour.
That is the thinking behind the barrel aging. Even though people may consider that the barrel aging wouldn’t/would have an influence on the final flavour of the beer, enough RateBeerians considered that the process was significant enough for barrel aged beers to be listed as separate beers.
Thats an intersting comment.
but id have though while flavour simelarity of two different brewers is definitly no reason to combine.Considerable flavour difference of one brewers beer would be reason for spliting. After all if there are 2 (or more) flavours id want to be able to clearly see this and choose appropriatly, just as Wine lover know which vinyards have good and bad years, and you want to be able to identify which years you want from each.
However i could also see good reason to combine Different beers from the same brewer (via alias) if the ABV was the same and there was sufficient evidence that there was no flavor difference between them
For me, the reason i drink beer is all about the flavour, so unless im unusual, id have though flavout MUST be a major consideration.
A rating that polarises without clear indication that one year/barrel was substantally better than the other is next to useless. with out clear indication of year/barrel my assumtion would be that people polarised on it rather than the beer. |
Yea like im not questioning the process, however what im getting at is that the beers are identified as different beers on the label and the brewers themself would never refer to paradox, they would say which edition.
I think therefore it makes sence to have different entrys so people can write in thier opinons to see how the beer has ended up from aging in the different casks. Like as its been said, there are incredible differences from batch to batch depending on which whisky barrel its been aged in and the whole point of the different editions is so that people can taste the different flavours of different whiskys in the beer.
chin chin
Tom |
|
|
I’m not really sure about this one, IMO it all depends on the producer and whether they are taking the piss (as Duff rightly points out with Archers, plus I could name quite a few more...!) or whether they genuinely are trying to create new tastes and trying out new ideas.
As has been pointed out, some brewer could theoretically brew a 100 barrel (why stop there?) length and mature it in 100 different casks which, theoretically at least, would all be different - but would they? Could they really control the quality of beers matured in 100 different casks as well as, say, Brewdog doing half a dozen? My guess would be no, and it would be done simply to take the piss out of beer enthusiasts and make us feel compelled to buy 100 bottles of what may well be the same tasting beer with very miniscule differences - I can totally see where jjpm74 is coming from here - in the wrong hands, creating a new beer for every brewer who decided to jump on the bandwagon could use up a lot of space.
Saying all that, who’s to decide which brewers are manipulating beer lovers and who are simply dedicated to experimentation? Ask 10 beer enthusiasts their opinion on Archers and you’ll likely get 10 different answers so it’s not clear-cut at all.
I think, for what it’s worth, that there are so few "cask finished" beers being produced in the UK at present we should add them all as they come along - but I think that the US has far more of the things that we do so I’m in no real position to comment on their experiences with them. So, I’d say add them for now, but monitor them and, should the brewery be taking the mickey, then let’s feel free to merge ratings and beers into one with a note explaining why this has been done - although obviously we need some consensus before this is done.
As a final thought, let me say that I had a couple of Sherrywood-finished beers in 1994 done by Cannon Royall in the UK and they stood out from everything I’d drunk up to that point - IMO, cask finishing done properly can produce stunning beers, but done simply for the money can produce a lot of very similar beer and a lot of annoyed beer lovers. |
Originally posted by Gazza
I’m not really sure about this one, IMO it all depends on the producer and whether they are taking the piss (as Duff rightly points out with Archers, plus I could name quite a few more...!) or whether they genuinely are trying to create new tastes and trying out new ideas.
As has been pointed out, some brewer could theoretically brew a 100 barrel (why stop there?) length and mature it in 100 different casks which, theoretically at least, would all be different - but would they? Could they really control the quality of beers matured in 100 different casks as well as, say, Brewdog doing half a dozen? My guess would be no, and it would be done simply to take the piss out of beer enthusiasts and make us feel compelled to buy 100 bottles of what may well be the same tasting beer with very miniscule differences - I can totally see where jjpm74 is coming from here - in the wrong hands, creating a new beer for every brewer who decided to jump on the bandwagon could use up a lot of space.
Saying all that, who’s to decide which brewers are manipulating beer lovers and who are simply dedicated to experimentation? Ask 10 beer enthusiasts their opinion on Archers and you’ll likely get 10 different answers so it’s not clear-cut at all.
I think, for what it’s worth, that there are so few "cask finished" beers being produced in the UK at present we should add them all as they come along - but I think that the US has far more of the things that we do so I’m in no real position to comment on their experiences with them. So, I’d say add them for now, but monitor them and, should the brewery be taking the mickey, then let’s feel free to merge ratings and beers into one with a note explaining why this has been done - although obviously we need some consensus before this is done.
As a final thought, let me say that I had a couple of Sherrywood-finished beers in 1994 done by Cannon Royall in the UK and they stood out from everything I’d drunk up to that point - IMO, cask finishing done properly can produce stunning beers, but done simply for the money can produce a lot of very similar beer and a lot of annoyed beer lovers.
I agre with gazza, if they must be merged then so be it. Bout otherwise every edition is different! |
I don’t have time to read all this, but having received 4 beers from BrewDog at my shop and trying to put them on my homepage, we need to do something with the listings. Could someone please add the number of the batch for EVERY listing, I’m very confused rigt now as some has numbers and some don’t. And also, the names here on Ratebeer are not the same names as on the bottles which makes it even more confusing?!?! We need to use the names printed on the bottles, otherwise people will have a very hard time knowing what they had!
Thanks, Jeppe |
Originally posted by BierKönig
I don’t have time to read all this, but having received 4 beers from BrewDog at my shop and trying to put them on my homepage, we need to do something with the listings. Could someone please add the number of the batch for EVERY listing, I’m very confused rigt now as some has numbers and some don’t. And also, the names here on Ratebeer are not the same names as on the bottles which makes it even more confusing?!?! We need to use the names printed on the bottles, otherwise people will have a very hard time knowing what they had!
Thanks, Jeppe
OK, to help you out here is what I have:
1:
Hardcore IPA - no problem here!
2:
Name on bottle: BrewDog Paradox Speyside
Name on Ratebeer: BrewDog Paradox Speyside Edition
Batch number: 005
3:
Name on bottle: BrewDog Paradox Grain
Name on Ratebeer: BrewDog Paradox Grain Edition 007
Batch number: 007
4:
Name on bottle: BrewDog Paradox Islay
Name on Ratebeer: I have no bloody idea!!
Batch number: 006
ABV: 10%
IMO numer 2 and 3 should be corrected as we should use the names on the bottles. Number 4 is that one that needs to be looked into. There are currently 4 beers listed here on Ratebeer with Islay in there name and I have no idea which one this one is. Actually it can’t be either of the 4 because:
BrewDog Paradox Edition 001 Islay Cask (Bottled) - batch 1 not 6!
BrewDog Paradox Islay - 9,5% not 10%!
BrewDog Paradox Islay -Batch 009- ARDBEG - batch 9 not 6!
BrewDog Paradox Islay Edition 008 - batch 8 not 6!
Jeppe
|
|
|
Jeppe the beers you have are:
Hardcore ipa
Paradox speyside
BrewDog Paradox Grain Edition 007
BrewDog Paradox Islay Edition 008
They are defo these as the first grain said it was aged in an invergordon cask and the first islay said coal Ila on the bottle, where as these editions dont.
does that make sence? |
Originally posted by BierKönig
Originally posted by BierKönig
I don’t have time to read all this, but having received 4 beers from BrewDog at my shop and trying to put them on my homepage, we need to do something with the listings. Could someone please add the number of the batch for EVERY listing, I’m very confused rigt now as some has numbers and some don’t. And also, the names here on Ratebeer are not the same names as on the bottles which makes it even more confusing?!?! We need to use the names printed on the bottles, otherwise people will have a very hard time knowing what they had!
Thanks, Jeppe
OK, to help you out here is what I have:
1:
Hardcore IPA - no problem here!
2:
Name on bottle: BrewDog Paradox Speyside
Name on Ratebeer: BrewDog Paradox Speyside Edition
Batch number: 005
3:
Name on bottle: BrewDog Paradox Grain
Name on Ratebeer: BrewDog Paradox Grain Edition 007
Batch number: 007
4:
Name on bottle: BrewDog Paradox Islay
Name on Ratebeer: I have no bloody idea!!
Batch number: 006
ABV: 10%
IMO numer 2 and 3 should be corrected as we should use the names on the bottles. Number 4 is that one that needs to be looked into. There are currently 4 beers listed here on Ratebeer with Islay in there name and I have no idea which one this one is. Actually it can’t be either of the 4 because:
BrewDog Paradox Edition 001 Islay Cask (Bottled) - batch 1 not 6!
BrewDog Paradox Islay - 9,5% not 10%!
BrewDog Paradox Islay -Batch 009- ARDBEG - batch 9 not 6!
BrewDog Paradox Islay Edition 008 - batch 8 not 6!
Jeppe
ahhh interesting, some one from brew dog posted
First Release- Caol Ila- It states on the bottle.
Second Release- Invergordon 65- It states on the bottle.
Fifth Release- Speyside- Glen Moray, ’Batch 005’ (beside best before date) on new style labels.
Sixth Release- Islay- Caol Ila- Batch 006 on new style labels
Seventh Release- Grain- Carse Bridge ’63- Batch 007 on new labels
Eighth Release- Islay- Bowmore 87- Batch 008 on new labels
Ninth Release- Islay- Ardbeg- Batch 009 on new labels.
SO batch 6 Islay is prob same as first release as same whiskey barrel(or at least type)
so this one http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/brewdog-paradox-edition-001-islay-cask-(bottled)/73221/
if were not spliting cask and bottle this this http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/brewdog-paradox-islay/72425/
needs merged with the one above.
The other two are Different Islay whiskey casks, and thats what the debates been over, should they be split or not as there different whisky casks
I get feeling from how brewdog have done it is there going to be 3 main types of paradox
Grain, islay and speyside, and then the batch number will identify the Type of cask used.
So we either have 1 entry for all paradox (dont like this at all)
1 entry per type , ie grain, islay, speyside. might work but havent had 2 grain or 2 islay side by side yet.
or 1 entry for each Specific barrel type, Islay (Caol Ila, ARDBEG , Bowmore )
I think were all looking forward to seeing what Chriso does in the end 
|
OK, tis done. We have one rogue entry left that only Tom & Craig have rated.
http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/brewdog-paradox-islay/72425/
If I understand correctly, Craig seemed to think that was the cask version of the 001 Islay but the description says "Bottled". So, could Craig and Tom move their ratings wherever they need to be as I will be nuking that one. The cask and bottle versions will not be separated.
I can’t rule out some more merging/aliasing at some point. |
