Goose Island Fleur 2011

When I was back in Illinois in late June (and again in late July/early August) I took full advantage of the many beers which are not sold out east.  I also cracked out a few bottles I have been saving in the basement.  One of these was a two-year old bottle of Goose Island Fleur, from April 2011.  They stopped making it later that year.

Fleur was sort of an oddity, a “budget sour.”  It wasn’t truly sour, just lightly tart (which is usually all I want in a sour anyway).  It started its life as a Belgian pale ale brewed with hibiscus flowers; after it was done fermenting, Goose blended it with kombucha tea, then bottled it with wild yeast.  Kombucha is a style of tea which naturally has small amounts of the types of bacteria which make sour beer acidic (along with a few other microorganisms), so this added a mild tartness to Fleur.  Despite the small amount of tea blended in, Goose Island made so much Fleur in 2011 that they were Illinois’ largest tea producer for that year (see about three minutes into this video).

When Fleur was fresh, it abounded with tea flavors, primarily flowers.  Within two months, there was a good balance between flowers, fruit flavors, and wild yeast.  By the time it was six months old it was quite dry and delightfully if only mildly funky, and a bit tart as well.  It didn’t change much for the next year.  This was one of my last three bottles, and I’m sad to see it dwindle down—largely because it still tastes excellent.

Fleur looks much the same now as it did when fresh, with one difference: the wild yeast has gone to work so well that it is now more carbonated than it was two years ago.  There was a loud hiss when I popped the cap, and the foam retained extraordinarily well.  It also smells much the same as it did a year ago.  Hints of strawberry and other assorted fruits from the tea mix well with the funk of wild yeast, which smells maybe a smidge stronger than it did a year ago.

There is a greater discrepancy in the flavor, but it is still recognizable as Fleur.  That berry-fruity tea sensation is still present, but it has been joined with stronger herbal/flower notes; almost like a perfume.  The yeast is tangier than in the past, an effect even more exaggerated by the high carbonation.  Tartness is about where it was when I last opened a bottle eight months ago.  I detect the slightest smell of what may be the beginning effects of oxidation.  As a whole, the beer is brighter in flavor than it used to be.

Apart from the potential onset of oxidation, the only downside here is the mouthfeel.  The increasingly aggressive carbonation, beyond what it used to be, has the effect of making the beer feel crisper and lighter than it should, borderline effervescent.  More disappointing, all the delicious flavors don’t linger very long; they slip off the tongue too quickly.  The airiness gives it an unnaturally clean aftertaste.

If anyone reading this has any bottles left over, or if you happen to stumble across a shop that kept them well-stored for the last two years, I would not hesitate to drink them.  What I would not do is buy them and hold onto them for a long time, as the beer seems to be changing.  It may still be tasty and interesting a year from now, but I don’t think it will taste like Fleur.

Sierra Nevada Ovila Abbey Quad with plums

Beers made by monks are held in very high regard in the beer community.  They are frequently cited as some of the best beers in the world, and most are pretty readily available.  The ones that aren’t are highly sought after.  Most are enjoyed fresh but they have a reputation of improving with age, particularly Westvleteren 12, Orval, and Chimay Blue.

The popularity of monk-brewed abbey ales has resulted in a slow but steady growth in the number of secular breweries trying to brew imitation beers.  This beer is the result of something a bit different.  In 2011 Sierra Nevada partnered with the monks of the Abbey of New Clairvaux in Vina, California to raise money for the rebuilding of an old rundown monastery.  The beers are supervised by the monks, utilize abbey brewer’s yeast, and are made with ingredients grown by the monks, but the actual brewing part is done by Sierra Nevada.  Basically, it’s a quasi-monastic twist on contract brewing.

This is an abbey quad brewed with sugar plums.  I had previously had the Ovila Dubbel.  It pours a chocolate-brown hue with minimal head formation or retention, though this is a ridiculously wide glass.  There's plenty of room for the foam to spread out.  Some lacing is present.  The beer is very opaque.

I thought the double had a good but odd aroma, very atypical for the style.  Whereas most doubles have some fruity combination of dates, figs, candi sugar, and spicy phenols, double was mostly chocolate, banana, and bubblegum.  Quads are basically the bigger badder brother of doubles and so I’m not surprised Ovila Quad with plums smells similar to Ovila Dubbel.  They both share dominant aromas of milk chocolate, banana, and bubblegum.  The quad also has notes of plums (obviously) and some date sugar, but both are more subdued.  Overall, a very similar aroma to the double.

The plums stand out more when I actually taste the beer.  The smell of banana and date doesn’t really translate into the actual taste of the beer, but that weird bubblegum flavor is still there.  A new flavor of spicy yeast shows up as well.  However, sweet chocolate is still the most prominent flavor, with plums and gum following it up.  Imagine chocolate-covered-plums-flavored chewing gum, with a dash of an unidentifiable spice on top.  Tasty, but weird and out of place in a quad.  The texture of Ovila Abbey Quad is pretty close to the real deal though.  Quads are generally very carbonated and comparatively dry given their alcohol content; most other beers in the 10% or higher realm are on the sweeter side of things.  Ovila is well-carbonated and finishes on the drier side of your typical quad.

This is a better beer than Ovila Dubbel.  However, I still wouldn’t rush out to buy this next year, assuming they make it again (they’ve been switching up the Ovila releases every year).  I also didn’t really feel like finishing the last two bottles in my four pack; I guess I’ll see if this will taste better in a year.

Two Brothers Bare Tree 2012

Name:                   TwoBrothers Bare Tree 2012

Style:                    Wheatwine

Twist:                   None

Strength:               11%

Notes: 12.7oz corked bottle, served into a John’s goblet/snifter, the kind they don't make anymore  Bought in either January 2013 or March 2013.  The recipe for this changes every year, as does the artwork.

Let’s hope this is better than last year’s, which was very undercarbonated.  Pours a golden-copper with minimal white foam despite the carbonation, which was ample.  Bare Tree typically tastes like a hefeweizen; this is darker than your standard hefe but not by much.  

The aroma is appetizing.  Wheat cracker and wheat bread with some notable spicy esters and clove.  Mild on clove, but a bit stronger on spice.  The typical weizen flavor of banana is lighter this year than the two past years.  There is something that smells a bit like the aroma you get when cracking a peanut.  There is possibly a hint of corn husk, and a very very faint fusel alcohol note.

The wheat cracker continues.  Taste is very grainy…this is the most malt-forward, least yeast-driven of the three most recent batches.  I taste Ritz crackers (complete with salt, at least in my mind), some more spice, pears or light apples, a bit of hop bitterness on the finish.  Pale malt, slight honey, and peppery yeast.  The texture is thicker than the carbonation would imply, but at no time does it feel like an impediment to drinkability. 

This is quite tasty, and a noticeable improvement over the previous batch.  The 2011 was completely flat and just tasted like a run of the mill hefeweizen, which is not something I would pay $8 for.  It has been too long since I tasted the 2010 batch, so I can’t really say for sure if I like it more or less.  I would imagine this would place second in a side-by-side of two fresh batches, were such a thing possible.  It lacks the apricot flavors the 2010 year had.

I enjoyed this.

This was written on June 28, 2013.  It was typed on July 22, 2013.

Southern Tier Oat

Another stout from Southern Tier.  I believe they retired this one this year, meaning this is about a year old.  Not that it should matter much, it's nearly 11% and not particularly hoppy.  There wasn't a bottle date on it.

Name:                  SouthernTier Oat

Style:                    Oatmeal Stout

Twist:                   None, just really strong

Strength:              10.8%

Notes:  Poured into my Old Guardian goblet/snifter.

Vital stats, per bottle: 10.8% alcohol, 27 degrees Plato, hopped with Columbus and Willamette, malted with 2-row pale malt, oats, caramel malt, barley flakes, chocolate malt and black malt.  “Best at 48F” from a snifter.

Look: Pretty much pitch black.  Decent lacing and head retention.

Smell: a generous amount of black barley and oats.  Reminds me of a grain mill around harvest time.  Hops are not really detectable at all.

Taste:  similar to the aroma, though there are also some mildly spicy-bitter hops now in the background.  Oats steal the show though, this is easily the most oat-flavored oatmeal beer I have ever had.  As tasty as oats in beer can be, this is almost overkill here.  Needs more chocolate barley flavor too, as it seems the dominant barley flavors are derived from the black malt.  Bitter dark chocolate and subtle notes of coffee round out the flavor profile.  No alcohol flavor is noted.

Mouthfeel:  as is to be expected from an oatmeal stout, the texture is delectable.  It isn’t the smoothest or creamiest oatmeal stout I have had (that honor still goes to Samuel Smith’s), but it is luscious nonetheless.  Southern Tier’s signature thickness might be holding it back.

A pretty good beer overall.  Definitely tasty, even if the oats are overdone….but then, this wouldn’t be a Southern Tier “Blackwater” release if it wasn’t overdone.  Right?

Southern Tier Plum Noir

Some notes from a beer I tried a little over a month ago.  Was pretty good and surprisingly subtle, considering who made it.   Just not really a summer beer.

Name:                    Southern Tier Plum Noir

Style:                     Imperial Stout/Porter

Twist:                    Brewed with Italian plums

Strength:               8%

Notes: 22oz bottle, poured into an Old Guardian goblet/snifter.

Pours pitch black with a bit of foam on top. Head retention is pretty good.  When smelling this straight from the bottle, I get plums, blueberry, coco, and some peppery cayenne (which could be roasted barley maybe?).  When sniffing from the glass, it is a bit less fruity but more so than not.  This is beginning to weirdly but nicely remind me of Sierra Nevada Narwhal and Great Divide Chocolate Oak-aged Yeti, with less hops and roast and cayenne.  Plus subtle fruit.

Southern Tier used a surprisingly deft touch with plums here…pretty subtle.  I get a hint of fruit skin and tannins.  The malt flavors are more upfront, with plums serving as a light accessory to deliciousness.  Coco beans, mild hint of coffee from the roast, and even a hint of leather here and there.  Hops start to shine through on the finish for some balance. 

Woah…let it warm up a bit.  The plums start to stand out more.  The body is a solid medium, with good carbonation for the style. Southern Tier no doubt thinks this is light-bodied by their standards.

Overall, pretty tasty.  I never expected to say this, but Southern Tier cold have even used more plums.  I really figured it would be the plum equivalent of Pumking or Crème Brulee or Choklat, each of which tastes like a liquid version of their name.  I don’t mind at all though, who really wants a beer that thick when it is 90 degrees and humid out?