Hoppin' Frog Brewery has only been around for six years, but they've already established quite a name for themselves. Some breweries make themselves known primarily for putting out consistently good easy-to-make beers that can appeal to the everyday beer drinker. Sierra Nevada, Boston Brewing Company (Sam Adams), Anchor, and for most of its existence Goose Island are all such companies. In a beer world of increasingly strong, big, experimental, complex ales, some breweries have decided to go all-in with complex (and expensive) beers right away rather than starting small. Hoppin' Frog is one of those companies; of the nine beers I have seen by them in local stores, only one of them is weaker than 8% alcohol. They make imperial stouts, imperial oatmeal stouts, English barleywines, Scottish barleywines ("Scotch Ales"), imperial IPA's....all big beers. And they make whiskey barrel-aged versions of almost all of those as well.
Last year, for their fifth anniversary, they released Naked Evil, an Anglo-Belgian barleywine aged in whiskey barrels. It quickly made its way onto Beer Advocate's Top Ten list for the style. Not bad, considering the competition (I've had three others on the list). This year, they released it again alongside the non-aged version, Sweet Evil. Both are available only as single 22oz bottles.
Both Sweet and Naked Evil look similar, which is to say they both look like this:
 |
| It just seemed silly to serve such a fancy beer in a cheap mug.... |
The general lack of bubbles and foam is noteworthy, especially because I poured it pretty hard. It was the same story with Sweet Evil. Barleywines are not normally known for being very carbonated; fans can usually expect low carbonation and a thick body. Many people like to age these like wine for years (hence the name "barleywine"), which tends to exaggerate the minimal carbonation. I was, however, expecting a bit more here; these were both fresh and they were fermented with a Belgian yeast strain. Even the thickest Belgian strong ale tends to have a very lively carbonation. Appearance is only a minor point though.
Unlike most barleywines, the focus for both of these beers is on the yeast rather than the barley. Belgian yeast and English barleywine are an odd combination to begin with because of the contrasting carbonation levels, but Hoppin' Frog seems intent on confounding the drinker even more with the specific strain they chose. I was expecting a strain that conveyed dark fruits like figs and dates, common flavors found in Belgium's darker abbey ales. It seems they went for a pale abbey triple strain, like what you would find in a Malheur 10 or a Westmalle Triple. At the end of the day, this means both Naked and Sweet Evils smell mostly of pears, apples, and other light fruits (papaya maybe). Naked Evil was obviously aged in bourbon barrels, as that shows up as a light cream of coconut aroma. Both beers have a very tame, understated aroma for the style.
They also both taste a fair bit stronger than they smell. "Sweet" is the name of the game here; every flavor I am about to describe should be read as "____ dipped in caramel and simple syrup." The Belgian fruitiness of both beers is inescapable. The label for both beers informs me that "rich dark fruit flavors will develop with age." Maybe, but for now it is all light fruits. Pears and apples have their way here, giving the barley the boot out the door. I am a little disappointed that some of the usual barleywine flavors---raisins, toffee, brown sugar, caramel---get almost totally swept under the bus, but I enjoy the other flavors enough to cancel that out.
The primary difference between Sweet Evil and Naked Evil is in how the ethanol comes across. Sweet Evil is fairly weak by barleywine standards; most beers in this style are well over 10% alcohol, but this one is just shy of 9%. I was surprised that I could taste the alcohol at all, but it is there in the form of an off-putting (thankfully mild and brief) flavor akin to a very cheap cereal grain alcohol or vodka. Being aged in bourbon barrels, Naked Evil is decidedly stronger (11.3%) but the bourbon erases the plastic-bottle vodka flavor, replacing it with (mostly) tastier and stronger whiskey flavors. Some bourbon has a toffee-like sweetness to it that I find here, along with a teeny hint of coconut. The oak bourbon ages in has tannins just like wine, and there is a hint of that red wine astringency here that I don't care for. The toffee flavor strengthens as the beer warms, rounding it out.
There is also a mild difference in texture. Both beers are undercarbonated, but Naked Evil more so. It is also thicker.
The last difference between the two is the most important one to me, and the reason why I won't be buying Naked Evil again. Sweet Evil is already expensive; Naked Evil costs about 33% more. While I do like Naked Evil a bit more, I don't like it 33% more---especially since they are both very similar anyway.
As a final thought, while I enjoyed both beers (as did the two other people I shared them with), neither is a particularly good example of a typical barleywine. So if you have never had one and are looking to get an idea of what the style has to offer, I would avoid both of these beers for a while.
No comments:
Post a Comment