Latest beers from Evan!

Pour/Aesthetic: Opened with a nice pffft and poured with very little head that dissipated quickly. By appearance only, this beer appears to be undercarbonated as there are very few rising bubbles. While it is a bit darker than I would expect for an IIPA it's certainly within style guidelines.

Aroma: There is a mild citrus hop aroma in the nose, much less than what I was expecting after reading your description. I'm getting a slight hint of dark fruit and a bit or caramel as well, but both are only very minimally present. Strong alcohol notes are present as this beer warms.

Palate: The low carbonation level suits this beer very well. The next thing I noticed was the alcohol warmth. Bitterness and hop flavor are low to moderate in the form of spicy hop notes. There is some clean malty sweetness in the background that clings to the tongue resulting in a fairly heavy mouthfeel.

Proximity to Style: Unfortunately this beer isn't very close to the style guidelines for an IIPA apart from the alcohol content. There is only a mild hop presence in the nose, and there are only faint notes of both citrus and spicy hops in the palate. Bitterness is present, but not at the level that most IIPA's are.

Overall Impression: I haven't given a beer of yours a below average review until now. I saw your recipe for this one and I'm not sure why, but this does not drink like an IIPA to me at all (and I'm a big fan of IIPA's). That doesn't mean that it's a bad beer by an means, it's just not an IIPA IMO.

Pour/Aesthetic: Opened with a nice pffft and poured with very little head that dissipated quickly. It is brilliantly clear and a nice golden amber/pale copper color.

Aroma: Nice malty nice with a hint of noble hops - it reminds me a bit of an ESB, but with more balance. No diacetyl, no off aromas at all.

Palate: A bit undercarbonated, but I think that it suits the beer perfectly. Starts with a nice balance of malt and noble hops and goes down with a great malty finish. Medium mouthfeel.

Proximity to Style: I'm unsure as to which style this beer could fall under, but I'd almost liken it to mixe between a balanced ESB and an Altbier.

Overall Impression: I must say that I really enjoyed this beer. It really is quite incredible that what such a simple recipe can produce. I found myself checking your shipping insert sheet after each of the first few drinks to make sure that I was drinking the right beer, as it tastes like there's much more to this brew than just Munich and EKG.

Pour/Aesthetic: Opened with a nice pffft and poured with a two finger white, creamy head that stood for at least 30 seconds before it began to fall and remained until the beer was more than half gone with great lacing along the way. A brilliant golden color (I'd guess about 4 or 5 SRM) and incredibly clear. Carbonation appears to be appropriate for the style.

Aroma: Belgian spicy notes fill the nose, but no single scent stands out so I'm guessing this is the product of a Belgian yeast strain. There is also a hint of alcohol detectable, which is appropriate for the style. The nose of the beer has my palate prepared for something similar to Victory Golden Monkey.

Palate: This beer delivers on what's in the nose. The Belgian spice continues, but it a bit more subdued. There is a mild alcohol warmth in the finish that I actually expected to be a bit stronger based solely on the aroma. Very drinkable for the (likely) high alcohol content, this beer would likely benefit from a lower mashing temperature to contribute to a thicker mouthfeel.

Proximity to Style: It's a bit thin-bodied, but other than that it's very close to the commercial examples that I have had of the style.

Overall Impression: Once again I'm impressed. Ironically enough, I just came up with a Belgian Golden Strong Ale recipe for myself today. With any luck, it will end up as wonderful as this beer did.

I received 4 different beers from Evan! and I will go ahead and post my reviews in this thread.

DARK PARADISE SMOKED LAGER

This is my first ever attempt to do a formal beer critique, so you are going to have to cut me some slack on my limited ability to describe flavors and aromas.

I drank your beer at about 45 degrees, carbonation was moderate and seemed appropriate, where the beer had a thick dense head that was nice. Appearance was very dark but translucent, with a dark reddish color when I held it up to the light.

Aromas I found kind of tricky to nail down and verbalize but I want to call it sweet and slightly bready. In addition I kept wanting to throw the word mossy in there, but I don't know if there is an actual basis for me to use that word, or if I was just primed by looking at Moss Hollow Brewery on your packing sheet.

The flavor/palate, the very first thing that hit my tongue was the sweet maltiness, which was on the heavy side of things, and I found it quite pleasant. Then the taste shifted to the sides of my tongue and I got a little bit of a spicy kind of taste, which was followed by a relatively minor, but distinct hit of bitterness as I finished my swallow. The bitterness may have been more significant than I could pick up, but it was balanced towards maltiness in a way that made it overall a very tasty satisfying beer.

The body/mouthfeel was full but not thick, and I found it very appropriate and nice. After the swallow there was a nice, light, lingering spicy taste, so it obviously wasn't a crisp finish, but that wouldn't have been desired anyway.

The thing that I missed was the smoky taste. Now I will be quick to admit, that I have never had a smoked beer before, So I might not even have known a smoky taste if I had tasted it, but I didn't get anything that I would call or think of as smoky. My dad (who drinks Labatt Blue) tasted it and said it tasted like what molasses smells like. I'm not sure what molasses smells like, but from what fragments of sensory memory I have of molasses, I was inclined to agree that that was a component of the flavor.

Overall though I found it to be a very nice enjoyable beer, with no flaws that I could pick out, but due to the residual sweetness, it wouldn't probably be a beer I would drink more than one of in a night. Since I'm not sophisicated enough to use a BJCP style rating scale, so I will just say that this beer is to me a 4/5, with 5 being the highest, 1 being the lowest, and 3 being average.

Sweet Baby James Pale Ale

For appearance, there was again a good dense thick head, and the color was a deep bronze. Carbonation was again moderate, and I found it very appropriate.

Aroma was a very strong floral, slighly citrusy hop aroma, with maybe a little bit of the malt coming in at the edge of the aroma.

The flavor/palate began with a moderate maltiness on the front of my tongue that shifted into a nice, roughly equal proportionally to the maltiness, amount of bitterness on the back of the tongue. After the swallow, I was left with a grassy, citrusy hop aftertaste that stays around for a while, which is something I always enjoy in hoppy beers (when the aftertaste is the pleasant kind).

The mouthfeel/body was very smooth and appropriate, not thin by any means, but not too thick that it obscured the flavors of the beer. The hop flavor was very smooth, and I was pleased that it was not at all astringent, as I have experienced in my attempt at an IPA/APA.

The only thing I found slightly unpleasant about this beer, was that after a few minutes in the glass, and about halfway into the beer, the aroma seemed to change, and what it changed to was a bit strange and slightly unpleasant. I tried over and over again to put my finger on what this aroma was, but the only thing I was able to write down in my notes was the word fishy, but I don't know if that's very accurate to describe it. Maybe that's just a reflection of my flavor ignorance.

Other than that though, this was a very good beer that was very well balanced that I enjoyed thoroughly, and I will call this a 4/5.

Moss Hollow Smoked Porter

I drank this beer at around 50 degrees, and there was a quickly dissappating moderate sized tan head. Carbonation was low and very appropriate I thought. The appearance was opaque black, and it looked very thick.

The aroma portion of this beer included some of the same aromas as the Smoked lager, with the aromas that I wanted to call mossy, bready and earthy. I also am getting a little bit of the roastyness that I believe is to come, and maybe even a tiny bit of alcohol as well.

The flavor/palate started with a relatively low amount of sweetness at the front, which transfers into the roasty flavor that I was anticipating, as well as a low amount of bitterness. I think I finally understand the smoky flavor, because at the end of my swallow, I am getting a little of what I would call smokiness, and despite my fears that it might be overdone, the smokiness was not too strong or overpowering, but I found it just right, and it added another nice dimension to an already nice beer. I also found a nice molasses component mixed in the middle of the swallow that it took me a couple of sips to isolate. After the swallow I was also left with a pleasant lingering molasses taste.

The body/mouthfeel was somewhat heavy and thick, but not to the degree that the appearance would lead you to believe. I couldn't find a single thing that seemed wrong about this beer, very nice job.

Overall, I really enjoyed this beer, even though this isn't the style of beer I would normally gravitate towards but all the dimensions of flavor, really balanced well together, and made a great beer. I would love to have some more of this. I would call it a 5/5.

Tripel Chimay

This was the last beer of yours that I tried. I am a big belgian beer fan and this was the one that I was anticipating the most, which is why I saved it for last. It spend a couple weeks chilling out in my fridge, and I pulled it out before I opened it, so I could enjoy it at about 50 degrees.

There was a good but moderate head that was very quick to disappate, and the appearance was very deep orange color that was rather translucent. The aroma was citrusy, orangey, with maybe a little vanilla aroma, with very little sweetness in the aroma, and a tiny bit of spiciness. After smelling this beer, I totally understood why you called my witbier attempt a tripel, because the aroma is very similar to my beer. Carbonation was moderately high, and appropriate.

The flavor/palate of this beer starts off by completely bypassing any sweetness tastes on my tongue, and it goes right in to an aggressive astringent bitterness that was really rather unpleasant. This bitterness/astringent taste really dominates the flavor, and I would compare it to the bitter white part on the back of an orange peel. I am thinking that this must be an alcoholic bitterness because after the swallow it leaves a warm alcoholic sensation in my throat. I know a tripel is a high alcohol brew, but just how much alcohol is in this. Maybe I'm ignorant about what tripels are supposed to taste like, since I've only had 1 or 2 in my life, but I think that this alcoholic taste should be completely hidden, and it just dominates the palate of this beer. I keep trying to taste around the alcoholic bitterness to get anything else, but I'm having a real hard time doing so. Beyond the alcohol, I do pick up on a slight spicy note near the end of the swallow, but really not much else in the way of flavors because it is just so overshaddowed by the bitterness.

The body/mouthfeel was thin and light, in the pleasant way, just the way I would want it to be. Overall I was quite dissappointed in this beer, as I was expecting it to be my favorite of the bunch. Perhaps the taste is attributable to shipping conditions, or the fact that it was in my fridge so long, I don't really know, but I would be really curious to know if you have gotten any of what I am experiencing in this beer in your own tastings. I will call this one a 2/5.

html034 said:

Tripel Chimay

This was the last beer of yours that I tried. I am a big belgian beer fan and this was the one that I was anticipating the most, which is why I saved it for last. It spend a couple weeks chilling out in my fridge, and I pulled it out before I opened it, so I could enjoy it at about 50 degrees.

There was a good but moderate head that was very quick to disappate, and the appearance was very deep orange color that was rather translucent. The aroma was citrusy, orangey, with maybe a little vanilla aroma, with very little sweetness in the aroma, and a tiny bit of spiciness. After smelling this beer, I totally understood why you called my witbier attempt a tripel, because the aroma is very similar to my beer. Carbonation was moderately high, and appropriate.

The flavor/palate of this beer starts off by completely bypassing any sweetness tastes on my tongue, and it goes right in to an aggressive astringent bitterness that was really rather unpleasant. This bitterness/astringent taste really dominates the flavor, and I would compare it to the bitter white part on the back of an orange peel. I am thinking that this must be an alcoholic bitterness because after the swallow it leaves a warm alcoholic sensation in my throat. I know a tripel is a high alcohol brew, but just how much alcohol is in this. Maybe I'm ignorant about what tripels are supposed to taste like, since I've only had 1 or 2 in my life, but I think that this alcoholic taste should be completely hidden, and it just dominates the palate of this beer. I keep trying to taste around the alcoholic bitterness to get anything else, but I'm having a real hard time doing so. Beyond the alcohol, I do pick up on a slight spicy note near the end of the swallow, but really not much else in the way of flavors because it is just so overshaddowed by the bitterness.

The body/mouthfeel was thin and light, in the pleasant way, just the way I would want it to be. Overall I was quite dissappointed in this beer, as I was expecting it to be my favorite of the bunch. Perhaps the taste is attributable to shipping conditions, or the fact that it was in my fridge so long, I don't really know, but I would be really curious to know if you have gotten any of what I am experiencing in this beer in your own tastings. I will call this one a 2/5.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reviews. For the tripel, I wanted some confirmation of what I suspected---that there's something wrong with that batch. I made two 5 gallon batches side by side, identical recipes, and used Rochefort yeast (Wy1762) on one batch and chimay (WLP500) on the other. Same recipe, same starter, same fermentation temps, nearly the same FG. The Rochefort, IMHO, is great (and almost gone, or I'd have sent some of that too), but the Chimay is astringent and band-aidy to me on the palate. The nose, I think, is great, but on the palate it comes apart. But my wife seems to love it...so I needed a second unbiased opinion. I was thinking maybe it was just me, but no. Thanks for being my guinea pig, if you will...hope you enjoyed the rest of the beers at least, and apologies that the Chimay met with such unfavorable results. I still to this day have no idea what happened. I blame the yeast, considering that all other factors are equal.

ohiobrewtus said:

Destroyer Of Worlds IIPA​

Pour/Aesthetic: Opened with a nice pffft and poured with very little head that dissipated quickly. By appearance only, this beer appears to be undercarbonated as there are very few rising bubbles. While it is a bit darker than I would expect for an IIPA it's certainly within style guidelines.

Aroma: There is a mild citrus hop aroma in the nose, much less than what I was expecting after reading your description. I'm getting a slight hint of dark fruit and a bit or caramel as well, but both are only very minimally present. Strong alcohol notes are present as this beer warms.

Palate: The low carbonation level suits this beer very well. The next thing I noticed was the alcohol warmth. Bitterness and hop flavor are low to moderate in the form of spicy hop notes. There is some clean malty sweetness in the background that clings to the tongue resulting in a fairly heavy mouthfeel.

Proximity to Style: Unfortunately this beer isn't very close to the style guidelines for an IIPA apart from the alcohol content. There is only a mild hop presence in the nose, and there are only faint notes of both citrus and spicy hops in the palate. Bitterness is present, but not at the level that most IIPA's are.

Overall Impression: I haven't given a beer of yours a below average review until now. I saw your recipe for this one and I'm not sure why, but this does not drink like an IIPA to me at all (and I'm a big fan of IIPA's). That doesn't mean that it's a bad beer by an means, it's just not an IIPA IMO.

Score: 33/50​

​

Click to expand...

So, yeah, like you said, you've seen my recipe. You tell me how 11oz of hops makes that beer.

html034 said:

I received 4 different beers from Evan! and I will go ahead and post my reviews in this thread.

DARK PARADISE SMOKED LAGER

This is my first ever attempt to do a formal beer critique, so you are going to have to cut me some slack on my limited ability to describe flavors and aromas.

I drank your beer at about 45 degrees, carbonation was moderate and seemed appropriate, where the beer had a thick dense head that was nice. Appearance was very dark but translucent, with a dark reddish color when I held it up to the light.

Aromas I found kind of tricky to nail down and verbalize but I want to call it sweet and slightly bready. In addition I kept wanting to throw the word mossy in there, but I don't know if there is an actual basis for me to use that word, or if I was just primed by looking at Moss Hollow Brewery on your packing sheet.

The flavor/palate, the very first thing that hit my tongue was the sweet maltiness, which was on the heavy side of things, and I found it quite pleasant. Then the taste shifted to the sides of my tongue and I got a little bit of a spicy kind of taste, which was followed by a relatively minor, but distinct hit of bitterness as I finished my swallow. The bitterness may have been more significant than I could pick up, but it was balanced towards maltiness in a way that made it overall a very tasty satisfying beer.

The body/mouthfeel was full but not thick, and I found it very appropriate and nice. After the swallow there was a nice, light, lingering spicy taste, so it obviously wasn't a crisp finish, but that wouldn't have been desired anyway.

The thing that I missed was the smoky taste. Now I will be quick to admit, that I have never had a smoked beer before, So I might not even have known a smoky taste if I had tasted it, but I didn't get anything that I would call or think of as smoky. My dad (who drinks Labatt Blue) tasted it and said it tasted like what molasses smells like. I'm not sure what molasses smells like, but from what fragments of sensory memory I have of molasses, I was inclined to agree that that was a component of the flavor.

Overall though I found it to be a very nice enjoyable beer, with no flaws that I could pick out, but due to the residual sweetness, it wouldn't probably be a beer I would drink more than one of in a night. Since I'm not sophisicated enough to use a BJCP style rating scale, so I will just say that this beer is to me a 4/5, with 5 being the highest, 1 being the lowest, and 3 being average.

Click to expand...

The spice you're getting is allspice. The smoke on this one was intentionally subtle---peated malt is a dangerous animal. The acceptable amount window is VERY small...and changes from batch to batch...1/2 oz too little and you get no smoke. 1/2 oz too much and you're licking the bottom of a woodstove. I've had this peated malt for over a year, foodsaved, and since I use so little in each instance, it goes a long way. As such, I haven't bothered to buy the rauchmalt that I really want (since it's more forgiving and produces a better, smoother smoke flavor).

The funny thing is, I was listening to the Jamil Show one day whilst brewing, and I was drinking one of the Smoked Porters that I made with the peated malt...and here's JZ and Jon Plise talking about how awful peated malt is, and how it should only be used in scotch, and blah blah blah. I'm sitting here drinking one of the best beers I've made, as they're saying this, which has peated malt in it. So yeah, whateva.

But I digress. Anyway, the smoke in the Dark Paradise is there, but you really have to be looking for it because it blends in so well with the allspice. I dunno how I thought of that combo, but I am happy with the results. It's basically a bock (which is why you get that malt sweetness) with a few ounces of peated malt and some allspice. The name of the beer is misleading, though, and I should probably change it to just 'Dark Paradise Lager', but again, whateva.

thanks for the reviews! Much appreciated, and I'll get into your saison soon.

ohiobrewtus said:

Tripel Rochefort​

Pour/Aesthetic: Opened with a nice pffft and poured with a two finger white, creamy head that stood for at least 30 seconds before it began to fall and remained until the beer was more than half gone with great lacing along the way. A brilliant golden color (I'd guess about 4 or 5 SRM) and incredibly clear. Carbonation appears to be appropriate for the style.

Aroma: Belgian spicy notes fill the nose, but no single scent stands out so I'm guessing this is the product of a Belgian yeast strain. There is also a hint of alcohol detectable, which is appropriate for the style. The nose of the beer has my palate prepared for something similar to Victory Golden Monkey.

Palate: This beer delivers on what's in the nose. The Belgian spice continues, but it a bit more subdued. There is a mild alcohol warmth in the finish that I actually expected to be a bit stronger based solely on the aroma. Very drinkable for the (likely) high alcohol content, this beer would likely benefit from a lower mashing temperature to contribute to a thicker mouthfeel.

Proximity to Style: It's a bit thin-bodied, but other than that it's very close to the commercial examples that I have had of the style.

Overall Impression: Once again I'm impressed. Ironically enough, I just came up with a Belgian Golden Strong Ale recipe for myself today. With any luck, it will end up as wonderful as this beer did.

Score: 39/50​

Click to expand...

I think it's dried out in the bottle, to tell you the truth. Either way, what do you mean "lower the mash temp to contribute to a thicker mouthfeel"? It's been my experience that higher mash temps give you more unfermentables dextrins, which contribute to thicker mouthfeel. Wouldn't lower mash temps give you a dryer beer?

Evan! said:

So, yeah, like you said, you've seen my recipe. You tell me how 11oz of hops makes that beer.

Click to expand...

I have no friggin' idea, dude. I know what you put in it, but honestly my APA is more hoppy than this was. The Basil IPA that you sent me a few months back was more hoppy than this. Could it possibly have been old hops (i know this is doubtful since you use a foodsaver)?

Like I said, it wasn't a bad beer, but the hops didn't jump out. There was some bitterness, but it was fairly mild. There were some slight hints of hops in the nose, but not much.

I plugged your recipe into my settings in Beersmith and I ended up with an estiamted OG of 1.095 (assumes 75% efficiency), 10.1 SRM and 98.8 IBU with a resultant bitterness ratio of 1.037 IBU/SG points.

FWIW, the bitterness ratios for my APA, IPA, and IIPA are 1.106, 1.647 and 3.29 respectively. This doesn't really help answer the question at hand, but I found it interesting and that may explain why some of the hop bitterness and flavor that you were looking for are not present.

ohiobrewtus said:

I have no friggin' idea, dude. I know what you put in it, but honestly my APA is more hoppy than this was. The Basil IPA that you sent me a few months back was more hoppy than this. Could it possibly have been old hops (i know this is doubtful since you use a foodsaver)?

Like I said, it wasn't a bad beer, but the hops didn't jump out. There was some bitterness, but it was fairly mild. There were some slight hints of hops in the nose, but not much.

I plugged your recipe into my settings in Beersmith and I ended up with an estiamted OG of 1.095 (assumes 75% efficiency), 10.1 SRM and 98.8 IBU with a resultant bitterness ratio of 1.037 IBU/SG points.

FWIW, the bitterness ratios for my APA, IPA, and IIPA are 1.106, 1.647 and 3.29 respectively. This doesn't really help answer the question at hand, but I found it interesting and that may explain why some of the hop bitterness and flavor that you were looking for are not present.

Click to expand...

Not sure those beersmith figures actually have the rigth AA%'s for my hops...and not sure about OG figures either. ProMash says 1.087 and 123 IBU's. Hell, the 3oz of 13% Galena at 60 minutes gives you 93 units by itself.

The other thing to remember is that this beer was brewed at the beginning of December. Hop flavor/aroma was much more pronounced when I first bottled it. Now, after 5 months or so in bottle, you've gotta expect that to fall off. But I'm still perplexed about the bitterness. The 1.019 FG probably didn't help.

Evan! said:

Not sure those beersmith figures actually have the rigth AA%'s for my hops...and not sure about OG figures either. ProMash says 1.087 and 123 IBU's. Hell, the 3oz of 13% Galena at 60 minutes gives you 93 units by itself.

The other thing to remember is that this beer was brewed at the beginning of December. Hop flavor/aroma was much more pronounced when I first bottled it. Now, after 5 months or so in bottle, you've gotta expect that to fall off. But I'm still perplexed about the bitterness. The 1.019 FG probably didn't help.

Click to expand...

I changed the aa% based upon what you had in your recipe, but there obviously are going to be differences between software programs in hop utilization between leaf and pellets, whether they use Tinseth, etc. I wouldn't expect the numbers to be the same between beersmith and promash, but it was interesting to compare your recipe to some of mine - all using the beersmith settings.

Like I said though, still a good beer. No worries.

Did you decide anyting on NHC yet?

Pour/Aesthetic: Opened with a slight pffft and poured with minimal head that dissapated quickly. Copper to light brown in color, this may be a bit dark according to style guidelines. Carbonation appears to be minimal and a slight haze is present but overall it's pretty clear.

Aroma: The nose presents nice floral and citrus hop notes with a bit of a caramel maltiness and what smells like a very faint hint of alcohol warmth that seems to increase as the beer warms (this is most likely not alcohol warmth, but something else that I am unable to identify. I certainly don't think that this beer is at an abv level that would present this in the nose).

Palate: Slight hop bittereness in the front. Good medium-bodied mouthfeel appropriate to the style. Carbonation may be a bit low, but it certainly doesn't detract anything from the beer. There is a good deal of malt, but it's not overwhelming. Floral hops and the malt finish things out.

Proximity to Style: Appropriate mouthfeel, nice floral/citrus nose, carbonation a bit low, color may be a bit on the dark side.

Overall Impression: I liked this the first time that I had it, and I must say that I still do. I didn't go look at my previous review because I wanted to provide you with a new opinion. I would have no problem enjoying a few pints of this. Dry hopping would benefit this beer and provide a bit more in the nose to balance out the malt.

Pour/Aesthetic: Opened with a slight pffft and poured with minimal head that dissapated quickly. Almost black in color, completely opaque when held in front of my monitor. There are some solid tan-ish colored 'chunks' of material of some kind floating on the surface (pic included below).

Aroma: Beautiful roasted malt aroma with hints of smoke and chocolate. No hops are detectable over the malty base.

Palate: I was hoping that the smoke would come through in the palate, as it wasn't very distinguishable in the nose, and I was not disappointed. THe smoke is not overpowering, but it's not subtle either - it's exactly what I'd expect a smoked porter to be and about on par with the smoke level in the only commercial example that I've had - Stone's smoked porter. The body is thin for a porter, and the carbonation is probably a bit low as well but I actually believe that a good porter is one of the few styles that benefits from being undercarbonated. No hops are present in the palate.


Proximity to Style: The nose is there, the caronation may be a bit low, color is in line. There should be a faint hint of hops present. Body is thin for the style.

Overall Impression: Don't let my comments in the above section fool you. This beer has its flaws, but it's very drinkable and I enjoyed it very much- just get the stuff out of it, would ya?

Pic of debris:

Pour/Aesthetic: Opened with a nice pffft and poured with slight head that dissapated quickly. Almost black in color, completely opaque when held in front of my monitor.

Aroma: Cocoa dominates the nose. There are underlying notes of coffee, roasted malt and alcohol. No hops are detectable. THe alcohol aroma becomes dominant as this beer warms.

Palate: Almost like drinking cocoa laced with liquor! Very full bodied mouthfeel that slaps you upside the head with cocoa and a hint of coffee in the front, then kicks you in the ass with alcohol on the way out. There's no real hop presence, and that's ok as I don't think that this beer needs it. There's a nice roasted taste present in the finish as well.

Proximity to Style: I'm not sure what the style would be, specialty beer maybe? Since I'm not sure what style to put it under I'm not going to comment on it.

Overall Impression: Great beer, Evan! The complexity in the palate offset the high abv very nicely. If I were you I'd be brewing this one again very soon.

ohiobrewtus said:

Smoked Porter​

Pour/Aesthetic: Opened with a slight pffft and poured with minimal head that dissapated quickly. Almost black in color, completely opaque when held in front of my monitor. There are some solid tan-ish colored 'chunks' of material of some kind floating on the surface (pic included below).

Aroma: Beautiful roasted malt aroma with hints of smoke and chocolate. No hops are detectable over the malty base.

Palate: I was hoping that the smoke would come through in the palate, as it wasn't very distinguishable in the nose, and I was not disappointed. THe smoke is not overpowering, but it's not subtle either - it's exactly what I'd expect a smoked porter to be and about on par with the smoke level in the only commercial example that I've had - Stone's smoked porter. The body is thin for a porter, and the carbonation is probably a bit low as well but I actually believe that a good porter is one of the few styles that benefits from being undercarbonated. No hops are present in the palate.


Proximity to Style: The nose is there, the caronation may be a bit low, color is in line. There should be a faint hint of hops present. Body is thin for the style.

Overall Impression: Don't let my comments in the above section fool you. This beer has its flaws, but it's very drinkable and I enjoyed it very much- just get the stuff out of it, would ya?

Score: 37/50
​

Pic of debris:

Click to expand...

ah, the "stuff". Yes, the "stuff". Which, as you may have guessed, ties directly into the undercarbonation. Those goddamned carb tabs sometimes don't completely dissolve. That's your debris. That's also why it's undercarbonated. I kegged all but 6 btls of this, and the bottles got carb tabs. The kegged version was nearly perfect...but, yeah, the "stuff". yep. :cross:

ohiobrewtus said:

I changed the aa% based upon what you had in your recipe, but there obviously are going to be differences between software programs in hop utilization between leaf and pellets, whether they use Tinseth, etc. I wouldn't expect the numbers to be the same between beersmith and promash, but it was interesting to compare your recipe to some of mine - all using the beersmith settings.

Like I said though, still a good beer. No worries.

Did you decide anyting on NHC yet?

Click to expand...

No NHC for me this year, much to my dismay. The euro:dollar murdered me, y'heard. The charges are still trickling in on my credit card account. Holy fu*ckmeintheass! $1.56 for a euro.

Man, you just can't seem to break that 40 mark for me, can ya? Why's it gotta be like that, yo?

Thanks a million for the critiques, kyle. It's much appreciated, really!!

Evan! said:

I think it's dried out in the bottle, to tell you the truth. Either way, what do you mean "lower the mash temp to contribute to a thicker mouthfeel"? It's been my experience that higher mash temps give you more unfermentables dextrins, which contribute to thicker mouthfeel. Wouldn't lower mash temps give you a dryer beer?

Click to expand...

Hmmm... I thought it was the other way around. Either way, that beer would have benefited from a thicker mouthfeel.

Evan! said:

Man, you just can't seem to break that 40 mark for me, can ya? Why's it gotta be like that, yo?

Thanks a million for the critiques, kyle. It's much appreciated, really!!

Click to expand...

I try to be as critical as I think that a BJCP judge would be. I score your beers higher than I tend to score my own, actually. A score of 37+ from me is a very good score.

Yuri's disclaimer: I'm VERY honest in reviews. Nothing I say is intended to be offensive or insulting. Like Dude, I think it's a disservice to give a patronizing or overly glowing review unless it's truly warranted.

Hop Whore IPA

Appearance:
Deep golden color with slight haze. Large, pillowy, persistent head.

Aroma:
Very nice, heavy in fresh grapefruit aroma with a sweet malt background. Hints of plum/raisin. Definitely an inviting aroma.

Flavor:
Quite bitter, even up front. Grapefruit is the overarching flavor. Just the slightest touch of sweet malt before the bitter finish. Perhaps some tannins in the finish that don't contribute well to the overall flavor. Otherwise clean with no discernible esters or other yeast flavors.

Mouthfeel:
Perfectly carbonated but way too light in body. Guessing this one over-attenuated, given the stated grain bill. More sweet/malty body would go a long way in improving this beer.

Drinkability:
This is decent beer, but it's unbalanced. It really needs more sweetness and body. The tannins are a very minor defect. Overall, a nice effort worth brewing again with a few small changes in mash temp and grain bill.

Dark Paradise Smoked Lager

Appearance:
Nice pour. Light tan 2-finger head that dissipates to a noticeable collar. Good lacing. Fairly clear, deep-stained walnut color.

Aroma:
Sweet and spicy. Cinnamon and clove with dark brown sugar. Roasted malt in the background

Flavor:
Up front, exactly as I'd expect from the aroma - the same sweet, spicy notes. The sweetness dissipates quickly to a fairly balanced, dark malt flavor with just enough hop bite. The allspice is very evident, but I get very little smoke/peat flavor. A little dry astringency in the finish. Overall, very clean, as I'd expect a lager.

Mouthfeel:
Perfectly carbonated and fairly light on the palate. Very refreshing for a dark beer with complex flavors.

Drinkability:
I like this beer. I'd have another. It's well crafted overall. I'd prefer a more assertive smoke flavor with just a touch less allspice. If I didn't know the allspice was in it, I'd be tempted to mention clove esters.

I'm wondering if you have a slight pH issue since I get a tannin-like astringency in the finish of both beers thus far.

Aroma:: Caramel malt and a tart raspberry-esque aroma are the first to jump out. Hop presence is noticeable, yet alarmingly subdued. No where near as dominant as it should be. A faint straw-like aroma is also noticeable. (7/12)

Appearance: Hazy and a hue likeable to dark copper or weathered rust. Carbonation is noticeable, but no head forms from a tilt-to-straight pour. I'd guess 20-ish SRMs which is dark for the style. (1/3).

Taste: A merry blend of hop bitterness with flavor. I'm quite surprised this isn't more pronounced in the nose. I get a puckering sensation of orange like citrus, and a subtle hint of grassiness, which isn't a detriment. The malt backbone supports the bitterness well, ever so faint touch of sweetness in the backround, but well attenuated for the starting gravity. (15/20).

Mouthfeel: As the taste notes: balanced. However, after a few sips, a mouth-coating sweetness begins to coat, which is a touch undesirable, but again, expected with such a high gravity beer. Would be improved with a creamy head to not only support the nose but also sweep the palate with the flavor better. (3/5)

Overall: Although the aroma and appearance aren't to style, the taste is what's important. Adding some head retention would also help. Delicious orangy flavor with respectable bitterness. (7/10)

(33/50)

Yuri_Rage said:

I'm wondering if you have a slight pH issue since I get a tannin-like astringency in the finish of both beers thus far.

Click to expand...

You're the first one who's ever mentioned it, Yuri. What kind of pH issues might be the problem? I use pH stabilizer in my mash; not sure where else I'd be picking up tannins.

As the pH of the mash approaches (or exceeds) 6.0, tannin extraction can become a factor. pH can get high when the brew water has a high pH or when the mash gets too thin (usually during the sparge). Also, if the mash temp gets too high (above about 170°F), tannin extraction can become an issue. I was guessing that it's a pH issue since I doubt you let the temperature get out of control. It's not a huge problem, but your beers leave a bit of a dry, astringent bitterness on the back of my tongue that I can only associate with tannins. I'll let you know in a few months if I experience anything similar with the 888.

Like I said, I use pH stabilizer in my mash water. Not sure what else to do to regulate it.

Are you using the stabilizer in your sparge water? It's almost more critical there.

If you have a water report, there might be some water adjustments you can make with brewing salts. Otherwise, there's not much else to be done unless you start measuring the mash pH.

Yuri_Rage said:

Are you using the stabilizer in your sparge water? It's almost more critical there.

If you have a water report, there might be some water adjustments you can make with brewing salts. Otherwise, there's not much else to be done unless you start measuring the mash pH.

Click to expand...

Yep, in my mash and sparge water. I'm religious about temp control. No water report, though.

For an example of the type of flavor I'm referencing, try Great Divide's Oak Aged Yeti Imperial Stout. Make sure you get the oak aged Yeti. It's got some serious oak tannin in the finish. The tannins are very welcome in that particular style, so that flavor is not a defect, but it's very pronounced. To a much lesser degree, that's the flavor I'm detecting in the finish of your beers.

Evan! said:

So, yeah, like you said, you've seen my recipe. You tell me how 11oz of hops makes that beer.

Click to expand...

I had a similar mystery with my last IPA. It was hops, hops and more hops. Mash hops to dry hops. It is plenty bitter, perhaps even too much bite, but still pretty young. However, I did not get near as much nose as I was expecting. I think my water could have played a big part in my case.

In your case I think a big factor might be the aroma dropoff over time. I was listening to the Sunday Session on the brewing network last weekend talking about whether the fellas were planning on rebrewing any of their beers for the 2nd round of NHC. They felt pretty strongly that an IPA or other beer where hop aroma is a key factor, should be rebrewed so that they're judged at that peak moment between too young and hop aroma loss.

I'm finally finished with company, so I can try and enjoy some of the beers Evan! sent me. The IIPA is long gone but now I have my second choice- the tt-r, the triple Evan! sent.

Appearance: Beautifully clear golden color. Nice head, great lacing. Nicely carbed, too. 3/3

Aroma: Fruit and spice aroma and some alcohol present. No noticeable hops- I think it's the yeast and high ABV providing this aroma. Very inviting! 10/12

Flavor: Fruit and spice, with an alcohol bite. I get a very light hint of astringency, but I'm not sure if it's the alcohol or the yeast. It is pleasant, though, and not a flaw. It's very smooth and going down way too easily!! 13/20

Mouthfeel: A bit thin, but not out of style for a tripel. The alcohol taste is noted into the finish. 4/5

Overall Impression: I like this beer alot- it's smooth and flavorfull and almost as easy to drink as a session beer. I didn't see the recipe yet- I wanted to give my impressions first, but I have a feeling that the ABV is much higher than a "session" beer! I'm feeling warm just from 1/2 the bottle! It's just a little "hot" in the finish, and very drinkable. The spiciness is nice and not overwhelming. 8/10

I score this as a 38/50. It really is a great beer!

Smoked Porter​

Bottle Inspection: Fill extremely low. I don't recall any leaks in the packaging, but I'd estimate the bottle at only about 2/3 full.

Poured into a snifter.

Aroma: Malt with hints of caramel. Everything seems rather subdued, even when the beer is allowed to warm. No smoke present. Slight acetic character. (5/12)

Appearance: Pours black with a 1/2" beige head that falls to a gentle covering. Thick around the edges. Opaque even when held to the light. (3/3)

Taste: Mild roast that works well with the malt of the beer. Like the aroma, there's no smoke present in the taste, and there's a slight acidic tone. Full bodied, but well attenuated. (10/20)

Mouthfeel: Excellent. Creamy and full as noted in the taste, but still easy drinking. The head adds to the creaminess nicely. Nothing coating or sticky sweet. (5/5)

Overall: As a regular session style porter (robust perhaps?) this would be great if it had a little more aroma intensity from the roasted and carmelized malts. However, based on the smoked classification, this beer definitely doesn't have it. I think you used the peated malt that you've said is pretty old, so I'm wondering if that's the culprit. A time when just those couple ounces of peated malt didn't make a difference. (5/10)

28/50

PseudoChef said:

Smoked Porter​

Bottle Inspection: Fill extremely low. I don't recall any leaks in the packaging, but I'd estimate the bottle at only about 2/3 full.

Poured into a snifter.

Aroma: Malt with hints of caramel. Everything seems rather subdued, even when the beer is allowed to warm. No smoke present. Slight acetic character. (5/12)

Appearance: Pours black with a 1/2" beige head that falls to a gentle covering. Thick around the edges. Opaque even when held to the light. (3/3)

Taste: Mild roast that works well with the malt of the beer. Like the aroma, there's no smoke present in the taste, and there's a slight acidic tone. Full bodied, but well attenuated. (10/20)

Mouthfeel: Excellent. Creamy and full as noted in the taste, but still easy drinking. The head adds to the creaminess nicely. Nothing coating or sticky sweet. (5/5)

Overall: As a regular session style porter (robust perhaps?) this would be great if it had a little more aroma intensity from the roasted and carmelized malts. However, based on the smoked classification, this beer definitely doesn't have it. I think you used the peated malt that you've said is pretty old, so I'm wondering if that's the culprit. A time when just those couple ounces of peated malt didn't make a difference. (5/10)

28/50

Click to expand...

That's a shame that the bottles didn't turn out better...but that's the risk you run, I suppose. I kegged this and bottle what didn't fit into the keg with carb tabs---always a tricky proposition. On tap, it was one of the best I've made, and I'm harder on my own beers than I am on others'. You are correct, though, the smoke doesn't come through too much, but I think it's actually died down over time.

I did a side-by-side tasting, so I'm going to do an intentional double-post in both Chriso's and Evan!'s threads.

First impressions:
All – dark, nearly jet black color with deep tan head. Ruby highlights when held to the light. Poured at 52°F and warmed about 10° before the end of the tasting.

Chriso:
Medium head, somewhat large bubbles, diminished quickly. Little to no lacing.

Nice aroma – sweet chocolate background with roasted malt most prevalent.

Pleasant chocolate and roastiness up front. Not as complex as the others – the flavor remains fairly constant across the tongue until the finish. Acrid tannin flavor at the end.

Nice, creamy mouthfeel. Well carbonated.

Evan!:
Lots of head, very persistent. Great lacing.

Very rich aroma. Lots of sweet chocolate, vanilla, and coffee. Most inviting of the three.

Sweet vanilla, chocolate, and toffee up front, then toasted nuts. Not as roasty as the others. Balanced bitterness. Hints of raisin after a few sips.

Very creamy, carbonated perfectly. Velvet.

Yuri:
Slightly darker than the others, making it VERY black. Medium head, very fine and dense bubbles, diminished quickly. Slight lacing.

Aroma much like Chriso's, but with dark raisin/plum notes added.

Nice chocolate and roasted coffee up front. Raisin and molasses as it washes back. Assertive bitterness at the finish.

Smooth and creamy. A bit undercarbonated.

Final impressions:
Evan!'s was the sweetest and easiest to drink (either the highest FG or the best water profile management). SWMBO really liked the dark fruit notes in mine. The acrid bitterness in the finish of Chriso's made it a bit rough overall, though it was still a pretty good beer. Chriso and Evan!, the 888's were easily the best of the beers you sent.

All – quite similar beers, but subtle variations made for rather different experiences with each. All of the beers hid the high ABV quite well – no alcohol aroma or burn. The recipe is a sure winner, though I'll probably cut the bittering hops slightly if (when) I brew it again. I really enjoyed this tasting session. Easily an award winning RIS, IMHO!



Left to right: Chriso, Evan!, Yuri

Side note for Evan!: none of that astringent flavor at all in the 888.