Drinking Homebrew Young or Early

[SC_Ryan]

It depends... Like I said before:

There are very good beers but also there are excellent outstanding beers and not everyone's palate is able to clear distinguish them.

For the sake of our argument, I will side with the developed and trained palates of BJCP certified judges.

 

[remilard]

Just curious... have you actually ever tried to compare quickly-made vs. longer fermented/bottled conditioned versions of the same recipe of yours?

Yes. I've given a great deal of thought to my process and always test process changes.

 

[Indyking]

tjp68 and a couple other posters also went on to suggest that those who do not age their beer out further were lazy and impatient.

For the record, I never suggested that! Heck, some lagers are even able to score really well in national competitions without even being lagered, did you know that?

What I can tell from experience is that, I tested 3-4 of my recipes for quick production vs. aging and the results varied from slight to way better always in benefit of the aged one...

So, based on my experiments, I would say: aging is not a myth... Anyone else that has not tried the same experiment cannot respond resolve the issue accurately!

 

[curlyfat]

Wow. This thread went downhill fast.

I will state, you can make outstanding beer in 2 weeks. But you have to be on your game: Pitch tons of yeast, oxygenate a lot, temp control precisely, monitor it daily to know when it's cleaned up. It also will only work certain styles. My pale ale slowly goes downhill after about 3 1/2 weeks. The bright fresh hops just slowly fade and it starts to taste like a commercial pale ale that's been on the shelf awhile (perhaps that's what some folks are shooting for). You couldn't do this with a lager. You couldn't do this with a lot of ales.

But, once again, I only "pushed it" twice, only as a challenge to see if I could do it. I like to challenge myself sometimes. Most of my beer sits in the primary for at least 3 weeks, then another week on gas. Personally, I've rarely noticed beer getting better as it sat in the keg week after week. Only the big ones seem to improve. What some call "mellowing" comes through as losing some of the flavors I was trying for. Perhaps over the eight years and hundreds of batches, I've slowly come to design things for quicker consumption?

The bottom line is that after you brew for awhile, you'll figure out what works for you. Try aging, try "pushing" it, you'll find out what works. Just try to avoid fooling yourself into thinking your beer tastes better old because that's what you want to believe, or thinking it's better young because that's what you want to believe. If it needs time, give it time. If it doesn't, then drink the darn thing!

/rant

 

[remilard]

It depends... Like I said before:

There are very good beers but also there are excellent outstanding beers and not everyone's palate is able to clear distinguish them.

My score on the BJCP exam tasting portion was 87 on the first (and last as my overall score was 91) try. You must have an outstanding score to feel confident enough to tell the whole word that you are a better beer judge than me in bold type twice.

 

[Indyking]

For the sake of our argument, I will side with the developed and trained palates of BJCP certified judges.

But unless you have the very same recipe of the very same aged beer judged by the very same judges, the results are utterly pointless for the argument!

 

[Indyking]

My score on the BJCP exam tasting portion was 87 on the first (and last as my overall score was 91) try. You must have an outstanding score to feel confident enough to tell the whole word that you are a better beer judge than me in bold type twice.

Very same response applies, sorry...

Above...

 

[Indyking]

My score on the BJCP exam tasting portion was 87 on the first (and last as my overall score was 91) try. You must have an outstanding score to feel confident enough to tell the whole word that you are a better beer judge than me in bold type twice.

Was it a gold medal or just second round? Men, it does look like a excellent beer, congratulations, but have you ever thought if you allowed it to age, you could have won the first place with it? Bummer!

 

[tjp68]

Yes you have. You have quite clearly stated that anyone who thinks a beer younger than 6 weeks is very good lacks your own discerning palate.

As for me acknowledging that it is ever appropriate to age a beer, I was never asked to make that acknowledgment and I never said otherwise.

Not true...you are looking for a fight if that's what you believe I said. I never suggested that I have a more discerning palate. I said that not everyone tastes beer (or food, or oxygen) the same. To each her own.

I never once said or suggested that all beer is unpalatable prior to aging. Just about everything is drinkable young, but it tends to get better. In my experience.

I am asking you now...is there any standard beer that almost always gets better with age? How about a RIS? How about dopplebock? Barleywine?

Are these all two weeks from grain to glass?

 

[SC_Ryan]

For the record, I never suggested that! Heck, some lagers are even able to score really well in national competitions without even being lagered, did you know that?

Thanks for the lesson

What I can tell from experience is that, I tested 3-4 of my recipes for quick production vs. aging and the results varied from slight to way better always in benefit of the aged one...

So, based on my experiments, I would say: aging is not a myth... Anyone else that has not tried the same experiment cannot respond resolve the issue accurately!

I brew in 10 gallon batches. Every batch of beer that I brew, one half of the batch gets drank before the second half in varying frequencies. I guess that makes me qualified to disagree with you... More often than not it is the older keg that doesn't taste as good as the first.

 

[Indyking]

Not true...you are looking for a fight if that's what you believe I said. I never suggested that I have a more discerning palate. I said that not everyone tastes beer (or food, or oxygen) the same. To each her own.

I never once said or suggested that all beer is unpalatable prior to aging. Just about everything is drinkable young, but it tends to get better. In my experience.

I am asking you now...is there any standard beer that almost always gets better with age? How about a RIS? How about dopplebock? Barleywine?

Are these all two weeks from grain to glass?

I agree about aging... it does make a difference for me, and I don't think my palate is even close to the sharp ones from BCJP judges, but still the difference is noticeable enough...

And by aging I mean longer fermentation periods and loger bottle carbonation/conditioning.

 

[remilard]

I agree about aging... it does make a difference for me, and I don't think my palate is even close to the sharp ones from BCJP judges, but still the difference is noticeable enough...

And by aging I mean longer fermentation periods and loger bottle carbonation/conditioning.

But I am a BJCP judge, and a reasonably high ranking one, and you have reiterated three times that your palate is superior to mine so now I am confused.

 

[SC_Ryan]

But unless you have the very same recipe of the very same aged beer judged by the very same judges, the results are utterly pointless for the argument!

Once again, you are framing your argument around whether it is possible for beer to get better as it ages. The thread topic is whether it is necessary to age all homebrew.

 

[tjp68]

tjp68 and a couple other posters also went on to suggest that those who do not age their beer out further were lazy and impatient.

You invented that out of whole cloth. Pot stir much?

 

[tjp68]

But I am a BJCP judge, and a reasonably high ranking one, and you have reiterated three times that your palate is superior to mine so now I am confused.

Untrue. You simply enjoy arguing. RDWHAHB.

When you are a high ranking BJCP judge, do you get a badge?

 

[Indyking]

Thanks for the lesson .

You are very welcome!

I brew in 10 gallon batches. Every batch of beer that I brew, one half of the batch gets drank before the second half in varying frequencies. I guess that makes me qualified to disagree with you... More often than not it is the older keg that doesn't taste as good as the first.

No it does not. You are missing the point. Your 10 gallons all had the same period of fermentation time, right?

Aging in the bottle is not nearly as 20% of how you can fine tune your beer... there is fermentation time and temp, lagering time and temp, duration of diacetyl rest and again temp, carbonation time and guess what: temp, cold conditioning in bottles or keg... geez, I'm just getting warmed up here ... you don't know much about aging a beer, do you?

 

[remilard]

Untrue. You simply enjoy arguing. RDWHAHB.

When you are a high ranking BJCP judge, do you get a badge?

No it is true. He posted in bold twice that if you think a beer under 6 weeks old was good, you lack the palate to tell otherwise. Then a third time he said "the advice above still applies".

When you are a high ranking judge you get to shake your head when you are told that you are incapable of correctly describing your own experiences with beer.

 

[Indyking]

But I am a BJCP judge, and a reasonably high ranking one, and you have reiterated three times that your palate is superior to mine so now I am confused.

I have told you my palate is superior to yours? Men, I can't help you, I give up.

 

[remilard]

I have told you my palate is superior to yours? Men, I can't help you, I give up.

I am only one man.

I think a reasonable person would interpret your post #58 as a claim that ryan_sc and I have palates so poor that we mistakenly think we have had a good beer less than 6 weeks old.

Perhaps it is poor communication on your part. Are you saying that you believe me when I say that many of my beers are excellent and in fact peak prior to the 6 week point? I thought you were saying that if I thought that it meant I had failed to try other approaches or that I was incapable of drawing the correct conclusion from my experiments.

 

[SC_Ryan]

No it does not. You are missing the point. Your 10 gallons all had the same period of fermentation time, right?

NOPE!!! Two seperate fermenters. Same batch of beer. The perfect control for such an experiment.

Aging in the bottle is not nearly as 20% of how you can fine tune your beer... there is fermentation time and temp, lagering time and temp, duration of diacetyl rest and again temp, carbonation time and guess what: temp, cold conditioning in bottles or keg... geez, I'm just getting warmed up here ... you don't know much about aging a beer, do you?

Once again... Thanks for the lesson

 

[New Brew]

What I can tell from experience is that, I tested 3-4 of my recipes for quick production vs. aging and the results varied from slight to way better always in benefit of the aged one...

So, based on my experiments, I would say: aging is not a myth... Anyone else that has not tried the same experiment cannot respond resolve the issue accurately!

All that says is that your recipes, as brewed by you, are better with age, according to you.

As a counterpoint, I can go down to my local brewpub and get an absolutely delicious, medal-winning recipe, pale ale brewed ~3 weeks ago. Which says that aging is absolutely not necessary.

So what's the difference?

They brew on a dedicated professional brewery system with active control at every stage of the process, and that's closed to the outside environment.

How do you brew? If it's like most of us, it's in a series of coolers, pots, buckets and carboys, with *maybe* ambient temperature control part of the time, and multiple manual transfers of liquid between containers.

If it's not obvious how much more control the brewpub system offers, I don't know what else to say.

 

[SC_Ryan]

You invented that out of whole cloth. Pot stir much?

Meh, go back and read the first page of quotes if you want to see the examples. I'm not going to waste my time multi-quoting the countless examples

 

[Indyking]

I am only one man.

I think a reasonable person would interpret your post #58 as a claim that ryan_sc and I have palates so poor that we mistakenly think we have had a good beer less than 6 weeks old.

Perhaps it is poor communication on your part. Are you saying that you believe me when I say that many of my beers are excellent and in fact peak prior to the 6 week point? I thought you were saying that if I thought that it meant I had failed to try other approaches or that I was incapable of drawing the correct conclusion from my experiments.

Really, last post here because this already went too far. I'm absolutely sure you are not only a better judge but also a better brewer than I am, based on the info you gave us.

Yet, I don't think you have ever judged 2 versions side by side, one aged (not just bottled for longer periods of time, but truly aged) and one quickly-made version of the same recipe.

To the OP, based on my experience I told: I did actually try that comparison for 3-4 of my recipes and learned that aging makes sense to me. So, not a myth based on my personal experience! That’s it and all of it!

Ciao... have a good evening gentleman!

 

[remilard]

Yet, I don't think you have ever judged 2 versions side by side, one aged (not just bottled for longer periods of time, but truly aged) and one quickly-made version of the same recipe.

Interesting. When presented with my experience which contradicts your world view, you choose to assume I lied? I guess this conversation had no chance of being productive.

 

[chapa]

For the record, I never suggested that! Heck, some lagers are even able to score really well in national competitions without even being lagered, did you know that?

What I can tell from experience is that, I tested 3-4 of my recipes for quick production vs. aging and the results varied from slight to way better always in benefit of the aged one...

So, based on my experiments, I would say: aging is not a myth... Anyone else that has not tried the same experiment cannot respond resolve the issue accurately!

This is by far the most relevant, and unbiased answer yet...while its an opinion(which is what ALL of this is)...its based on experiment. Granted, we've all had experience or experimented one way or the other with young vs aged homebrew, so everyones opinion is valid, and I think thats all the OP wanted, our opinions and experience. Of course a BJCP judge will carry a certain amount of credibility, that should be taken into account. Nonetheless, we are all providing our opinion, and to discount someone elses for any reason, is just silly.

It seems that the OP's question was answered right from the get-go. All he was asking was if there were advantages/disadvantages of aging homebrew, and if anyone drank their beers at 2-3 weeks.

Yes a beer can taste great after just a few weeks, but yes a beer can potentially taste better after a little more aging...but even still, those "green" beers could potentially win medals. Could it be better after a few more weeks? Possibly...and that would be an "advantage" to aging-but the answer is a matter of opinion and will be a case by case scenario.

Its going to depend on the style, it depends on the conditions, it depends if you're bottling...it depends on a lot of things. Just because some beers CAN go from grain to glass in 2 weeks, doesn't mean that aging IS A MYTH. And just because some beers tend to taste even better after aging, doesn't mean aging is NECESSARY. Its all personal preference, and everyone's pallets are different.

I really think everyone has a valid point, in their own respect. No need to bash each others experience and opinions. Let's just be happy and drink beer!!

 

[curlyfat]

Chapa, I think you hit it. There is no "catch-all" technique for every single beer. That goes for every aspect of beer brewing, not just the aging length/technique. To assign the same time-line to every single beer is like using the same yeast with every beer, or fermenting at the same temp for every beer, or using the same malt bill and hop schedule with every beer. Every beer recipe/style is different, and the technique to get to "perfection" of that recipe is going to be different, including how long to age.

There is no aging "myth", but it does tend to get boxed into a "one-size-fits-all" sort of situation. Longer isn't always better, and neither is younger. The "myth" is that all beer needs to aged. The other side is the "myth" that most beer can be made quickly.

It's amazing to me how worked up people get discussing how to perform one small aspect of the brewing process. There's different ways to get where we want to be. Can't we all just get along?

 

[Philibrew123]

I was impatient enough to try my week old ginger brew made with dark malt extract (dry) and honey and a ton of ginger. I just bought a Fizzini bottle carbonator and had to see if it was worth the money. I did the primary ferment in small containers, which I probably won't do again, and siphoned off enough to fill the quart (liter) bottle to see if it would carbonate the beer.
Sure enough, it worked, but it was so cloudy, and tasted very yeasty. It was probably pretty high in alcohol, I only used about 3 gallons to 3 pound of DME and almost an entire container of honey. It wasn't terrible, but time is definitely needed on this one.