Does wyeast 1272 (American Ale II) totally suck?

[rexbanner]

A few months ago I went to the brew store to pick up some Chico. For some reason, I thought I might try something different and got some 1272 instead.

After a series of single hop IPAs, I was ready to bring all the knowledge together and make a really good IPA. Unfortunately, I missed my OG by 10 points due to a bad crush. I ended up adding some extra strong wort to the fermenter a few days later to hit the right gravity. I hit it with a massive dry hop of Simcoe, Sorachi Ace, and Citra and then bottled it up. I neglected to cold crash.

Despite a wonderful hop aroma, the beer was terrible. It had a tannic, dry bite that was either due to suspended yeast or being too-recently dry hopped. It was cloudy, too. I figured some time would help. Over a month later, it was still cloudy and had the same mouth-puckering taste. Also, the hop aroma was gone. It was even worse.

I also used 1272 to make an ESB-APA hybrid for a party. Come time for the party, it had the same tannic bite and was cloudy. Time doesn't seem to be fixing this one either.

On the IPA, I chalked up the cloudiness and bite to the wonky fermentation process. However, no amount of time or cold-crashing would save this beer. It wasn't a green hop bite that many dry-hopped beers have for a little while, because time would have fixed that.

On the pale ale, the process was smooth. This time I cold-crashed before kegging. I was very careful to keep yeast out of this beer. It still tastes awful.

What the hell is wrong with this yeast? I have four beers, two of them keg beers for two different friends' parties, made with this stupid yeast. My hopes are pretty low.

As a point of reference, two of my Chico IPAs have gotten medals at comps. I am totally blaming the yeast on this one.

 

[ksut1547]

I would respectfully disagree. I really like 1272. Perhaps you don't, but that doesn't mean the yeast "sucks".

 

[beergolf]

1272 is one of my go to yeasts. Nice flavor profile, it drops out nicely and produces nice clear beers.

 

[Denny]

Agreed. I think 1272 is a great yeast.

 

[rexbanner]

I would respectfully disagree. I really like 1272. Perhaps you don't, but that doesn't mean the yeast "sucks".

Of course it's just my opinion, duh

 

[moti_mo]

1272 is a kickass yeast. That yeast and Denny's Favorite 50 (WY 1450) are my go-to yeasts for American pales and IPAs (thanks Denny!). Denny's attenuates more, so I use a higher mash temperature to retain some body, and their flavor profiles are a little bit different, but both are great for accentuating hops in pales/IPAs.

Not sure what has happened with your 1272 batches, hard to tell if its just the yeast. You mention that your Chico IPAs have medaled at comps, so the bad results with 1272 have to be the yeast. Were these the EXACT same recipes, process, fermentation temperature, duration, etc? The best way to tell if you really don't like 1272 is to do a split batch with 1272 and Chico, using your proven IPA recipe, so that the exact same beer goes into two different fermenters with the different yeasts, the beers are fermented at exactly the same temperature, etc. etc.

 

[rexbanner]

1272 is a kickass yeast. That yeast and Denny's Favorite 50 (WY 1450) are my go-to yeasts for American pales and IPAs (thanks Denny!). Denny's attenuates more, so I use a higher mash temperature to retain some body, and their flavor profiles are a little bit different, but both are great for accentuating hops in pales/IPAs.

Not sure what has happened with your 1272 batches, hard to tell if its just the yeast. You mention that your Chico IPAs have medaled at comps, so the bad results with 1272 have to be the yeast. Were these the EXACT same recipes, process, fermentation temperature, duration, etc? The best way to tell if you really don't like 1272 is to do a split batch with 1272 and Chico, using your proven IPA recipe, so that the exact same beer goes into two different fermenters with the different yeasts, the beers are fermented at exactly the same temperature, etc. etc.

Yeah, it was the same recipe. Same process, too. Other than the yeast, it might be particulate hop matter in the beer. When I dry hop, I always just dump hop pellets into the primary after fermentation has stopped. I then cold-crash and bottle or keg. I never put the dry hops in a bag or anything. This has always served me fine before, so I don't know why it wouldn't work now, but I think I'll start using some sort of bag for the hops.

 

[phenry]

Were all the beers brewed with different packs of 1272? I'd have a hard time believing it would be possible to be unlucky enough to get two (or four? didn't quite follow that last part) bad packs of 1272, especially since Wyeast's QC seems to be pretty solid. I've only used it once for an APA, and I thought it was a pretty decent strain.

 

[rexbanner]

Were all the beers brewed with different packs of 1272? I'd have a hard time believing it would be possible to be unlucky enough to get two (or four? didn't quite follow that last part) bad packs of 1272, especially since Wyeast's QC seems to be pretty solid. I've only used it once for an APA, and I thought it was a pretty decent strain.

Same pack, washed.

 

[muthafuggle]

Yeah, it was the same recipe. Same process, too. Other than the yeast, it might be particulate hop matter in the beer. When I dry hop, I always just dump hop pellets into the primary after fermentation has stopped. I then cold-crash and bottle or keg. I never put the dry hops in a bag or anything. This has always served me fine before, so I don't know why it wouldn't work now, but I think I'll start using some sort of bag for the hops.

I'm calling shenanigans! You said you missed your OG and added some high-gravity wort to the fermenter. I'm betting you had an infection in the first batch (possibly because of the second wort addition) and you washed the infected beasties and re-used them. I've had infected batches with those exact issues - no hops aroma, bad, metallic taste -I bet the head retention was REALLY good for those beers. And I bet they got worse the older the beer gets.

Your kegged batch got drunk before the infection could take hold.

I ended up throwing away my fermenters and hoses and starting from scratch with new plastic after 3 infected batches in a row.

 

[ksut1547]

Shenanigans?! That's my dogs name. You leave her out of this.

 

[kingwood-kid]

Shenanigans?! That's my dogs name. You leave her out of this.

Also a fine restaurant! Since the OP said he only shenaniganized one batch out of four, I think we're back to blaming the yeast. Either it was a bad pack, or it is simply a yeast that does not agree with the OP, but deserves an apology for having its honor publicly questioned.

 

[dbrewski]

I'm calling shenanigans! You said you missed your OG and added some high-gravity wort to the fermenter. I'm betting you had an infection in the first batch (possibly because of the second wort addition) and you washed the infected beasties and re-used them. I've had infected batches with those exact issues - no hops aroma, bad, metallic taste -I bet the head retention was REALLY good for those beers. And I bet they got worse the older the beer gets.

Your kegged batch got drunk before the infection could take hold.

I ended up throwing away my fermenters and hoses and starting from scratch with new plastic after 3 infected batches in a row.

I agree this has all the hallmarks of infection, haziness that doesn't clear or gets worse, strange harsh bitterness that gets worse over time, I have been there. Scrub the crap out of everything, toss your tubing and start over. It's not the yeast's fault, that is not bad yeast at all. I like it.

 

[poislb]

Same here, I love me some 1272 on my ambers and pales. My only complaint is that it never seems to drop more than 1.018...I mash my ambers at 154-55 so that could be the reason. I love the yeast so much i washed it and works better each time...My guess is you infected yours along the way. 1272 is a very clean yeast...

 

[rexbanner]

Yeah, except there's no infection that does those things. At least, it isn't brett, lacto, pedio, acetobacter, or enterobacter.

 

[pelipen]

I love 1272. Never got a tannic bite from it. Typically finishes at 1.012 - 014 for me. Made me a fantastic ipa. Great in browns.

 

[muthafuggle]

Also a fine restaurant! Since the OP said he only shenaniganized one batch out of four, I think we're back to blaming the yeast. Either it was a bad pack, or it is simply a yeast that does not agree with the OP, but deserves an apology for having its honor publicly questioned.

I don't think I questioned his honour, just his memory and possibly his methods. -And he said all four batches were bad and all four were propagated from the original batch that I am now going to refer to "Patient zero".

 

[bottlebomber]

Another +1 for 1272. It finishes and clears much faster than Chico in my experience, and leaves an overall brighter beer. Only thing I've noticed is that it really blows off big time.

 

[cwhouston]

Yeah, except there's no infection that does those things. At least, it isn't brett, lacto, pedio, acetobacter, or enterobacter.

Dude - I'm with the guys suggesting infection. What you describe is exactly what happened to me three batches in a row propagating infected yeast. I've never used 1272 but like beers made with it, and they tasted nothing like the horrible metallic crap I got with the 'infected bucket transferred by yeast re-use issue'.