Latest beers from Evan!

[Yuri_Rage]

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.

 

[BakerStreetBeers]

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

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.

 

[Yooper]

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!

 

[PseudoChef]

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

 

[Evan!]

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

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.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

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

 

[Yuri_Rage]

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