Thanks for the offer Peter. I’ll stick with just this one - the price precludes me from jumping on another. There are a lot of opinions on the different vintages it seems. There was one review on BA that convinced me to give the 2011 a go - hopefully he knows what he was talking about. There must either be a lot of bottle variation, or just different strokes:
russwbeck
4.13/5 rDev +4.8%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5
2011: $15
A: Pours out a very pretty clear red color with about a finger of white head. The bubbles racing from the bottom of the bottle hold a thin ring of head at the top that doesn’t lace all that well. Luckily I was able to avoid pouring the crazy amount of yeast that had collected at the bottom of the bottle. 4.5
S: Big hit of sweet raspberries and really tart, sour oakiness. I was actually pretty shocked to see how high the ABV was, and it is extremely apparent here. It smells delicious, but I am docking it a little because it hints towards disjointed instead of balanced. 4
T: I believe that having an American Wild Ale that is this tart, yet paired with so much booze is a first for me. It starts off very tartly acidic, and evolves into sweet raspberry puree, before being taken over by hints of oak and a boozy finish. The tastes develop very well on my tongue and leave me wanting more after every sip. It’s a good thing the raspberry is so sweet, otherwise the beer would be too tart and boozy. 4
MF: Medium to heavy body for an American Wild Ale with a nice amount of carbonation. I’m going back and forth on how drinkable this is. The tartness, sweetness, and booziness does get to you after a while, but it’s just really tasty. 4
O: This is a great beer. I really like what they’re doing here, and am excited to see how it ages. 4.5
2010: $24
A: The pour is different from the 2011. The carbonation is much lower than normal. Absolutely no head, but still a nice ruby red pour that seems to be a bit more hazy than 2011. 4
S: This aroma is much better balanced than the 2011 was. The alcohol has taken a big step back, with the sour and tart characteristics taking over. The sweet raspberry puree hides in the background, but is stronger than the booze notes. Oak and sour dominated, I much prefer this vintage’s aroma. 4.5
T: The variation in tastes between the 2010 and 2011 is absurd, it’s like they’re different beers! The oak has stepped up its game, with the alcohol mellowing extremely nicely, making the beer more balance… The raspberry puree lends a very nice amount of sweetness to the tartness (which I don’t think is too aggressive. I was expecting an enamel ripper from what the sticker said). Instead of developing on the tongue, this taste is more consistant, which is good and bad. The palate is just bombarded by oak, sour, and raspberries…and I just happen to love it. By the time I reached the bottom of the second glass, however, the sour had taken over-defining enamel ripper. The aftertaste, however can border on unpleasant at times. It’s a bit musty and almost seems to come from “extra” fruit. 4.5
MF: The body on this vintage is more thin and much less carbonated than the fresh vintage. I can’t say, however, that it hurts the drinkability. I really found the thin, undercarbonated body matched the other characteristics of the beer really well. 4
O: It is actually really difficult to compare these two. My recommendation would be to buy a bottle of this year’s and see what happens. 4.5
2009: $26
A: Very clear ruby red pour with an initial head of about two fingers and white in color. The head is nothing more than a few bubbles, and recedes into the beer quickly. I will say that a ton of bubbles are racing up through this beer, which I was not expecting. As before, just a ton of sediment in the bottom of the bottle. You have to make sure you dump the last inch or so of liquid. 4.5
S: This is more a return to the 2011 vintage than the 2010 vintage in terms of aroma. A really nice amount of raspberries really take the forefront, with oak, some booze, and some tartness playing along. I certainly wouldn’t refer to it as boozy, but it certainly has mellowed over the last 3 years or so. It’s wonderful blend of sweet fruit and sour tartness. 4.5
T: Yet again, a new take on the taste for this beer. I can’t really say I expected three years of vintages to have such different flavor profiles. Again, the 2009 vintage harkens back to the 2011. The beer certainly doesn’t seem as disjointed as the fresh vintage was, but I can’t say the flavors are better overall, they’re just not as strong. The taste starts right off the bat with sweet raspberry and is taken over quickly by a nice tart character. There’s an underlying oakiness, but nothing assertive. I’m shocked that there’s hardly any booze in the taste at all. It’s more balanced and mellowed, but less impressive. 4
MF: Lighter body than the others with a medium level of carbonation (much more than 2010). It’s really drinkable. The lack of booze really makes this quite an easy drinking beer. Really dry finish, the sour character completely coats the mouth. 4.5
O: I believe the 2009 might have scored the highest, but they all had their high points. They were such different beers, this had to be one of the most eye opening cellar tastings I’ve done. I absolutely recommend you buy this, drink it fresh, and age it. 4.5
Serving type: bottle
05-28-2012 16:00:39 | More by russwbeck