Bellwoods Trials and Tribulations

mgmoney · Post by **mgmoney** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:04 am

The Un-Witchshark...had yesterday super hoppy, resiny DIPA. Not as balanced as Boogie Monster or Witchshark, lacked a malt backbone as the hops were in yer face...Love to hear others thoughts about it

TheSevenDuffs · Post by **TheSevenDuffs** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:54 am

I wasn't impressed with it. It has almost ZERO nose and, although it packed a good bitterness, the flavour profile from the hops was fairly muted.

Sadly, it was still good enough to be as good as the best IPA being produced by many other Ontario breweries (save for GLB and a couple of others) but for Bellwoods' standards, it was nowhere near where it should be.

instantkamera · Post by **instantkamera** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:49 am

TheSevenDuffs wrote:I wasn't impressed with it. It has almost ZERO nose and, although it packed a good bitterness, the flavour profile from the hops was fairly muted.

Funny, that's how I feel about witchshark, except it has a nose (that I feel oversells the beer).
WitchShark, I feel, is highly overrated and I like boogie substantially better (talking 3.5 vs 4.5).
Trials... sits in the middle, I had it fresh day of release and there was definitely a nose, which was mostly pleasing. Taste more or less followed that, there was malt presence and actually had a slight cereal note that I did find a bit distracting.

PeenSteen · Post by **PeenSteen** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:13 am

I thought it was OK considering that they had no intention on brewing this, I enjoyed the dank aspects of this. Not nearly as good as some of their other hoppy offerings though.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:05 am

WitchShark, I feel, is highly overrated and I like boogie monster substantially better (talking 3.5 vs 4.5).

Well I really don't enjoy WitchShark or Roman Candle all that much so I'll have to try Boogie Monster and see. As I've said I vastly prefer the simple Monogamy varietal hop series.

atomeyes · Post by **atomeyes** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:48 am

Belgian wrote:
WitchShark, I feel, is highly overrated and I like boogie monster substantially better (talking 3.5 vs 4.5).
Well I really don't enjoy WitchShark or Roman Candle all that much so I'll have to try Boogie Monster and see. As I've said I vastly prefer the simple Monogamy varietal hop series.

can't really compare WS to Boogie Monster.
i really dig WS for the viscous mouthfeel, amarillo hops and the booze.
Boogie Monster's more of a drinkable hop juice. it's fresh and clean and tasty.

FEUO · Post by **FEUO** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:27 am

atomeyes wrote:
Belgian wrote:
WitchShark, I feel, is highly overrated and I like boogie monster substantially better (talking 3.5 vs 4.5).
Well I really don't enjoy WitchShark or Roman Candle all that much so I'll have to try Boogie Monster and see. As I've said I vastly prefer the simple Monogamy varietal hop series.
can't really compare WS to Boogie Monster.
i really dig WS for the viscous mouthfeel, amarillo hops and the booze.
Boogie Monster's more of a drinkable hop juice. it's fresh and clean and tasty.

If you can't compare beers in the same style (in this case imperial/double IPAs) what can you compare?
That makes almost no sense.

Witchshark, for me, is unexciting and relatively boring compared to the rest of Belly's lineup (regardless of style).

instantkamera · Post by **instantkamera** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:30 am

atomeyes wrote: can't really compare WS to Boogie Monster.

...

the guy who goes on to compare the two wrote: i really dig WS for the viscous mouthfeel, amarillo hops and the booze.
Boogie Monster's more of a drinkable hop juice. it's fresh and clean and tasty.

TheSevenDuffs · Post by **TheSevenDuffs** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:55 am

instantkamera wrote:
atomeyes wrote: can't really compare WS to Boogie Monster.
...
the guy who goes on to compare the two wrote: i really dig WS for the viscous mouthfeel, amarillo hops and the booze.
Boogie Monster's more of a drinkable hop juice. it's fresh and clean and tasty.

lol.

atomeyes · Post by **atomeyes** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:10 am

as in:
one is a double IPA and one is an IPA.
but here's the reason why they're different and both good.

but, ok.

velovampire · Post by **velovampire** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:17 am

atomeyes wrote:as in:
one is a double IPA and one is an IPA.
but here's the reason why they're different and both good.

but, ok.

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it, and not RB/BA's classification, nor the brewery's own website, where both beers are listed as Imperial IPA.

atomeyes · Post by **atomeyes** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:13 am

velovampire wrote:
atomeyes wrote:as in:
one is a double IPA and one is an IPA.
but here's the reason why they're different and both good.

but, ok.
I guess we'll just have to take your word for it, and not RB/BA's classification, nor the brewery's own website, where both beers are listed as Imperial IPA.

well, one is 8% abv and one is 9% abv.
that's about...1% difference in abv.

so there's that.
but sure. both are imperial IPAs.
as you requested, i checked the website and they are both listed by the brewery as IIPAs.

from beeradvocate

Take an India Pale Ale and feed it steroids, ergo the term Double IPA. Although open to the same interpretation as its sister styles, you should expect something robust, malty, alcoholic and with a hop profile that might rip your tongue out. The Imperial usage comes from Russian Imperial stout, a style of strong stout originally brewed in England for the Russian Imperial Court of the late 1700s; though Double IPA is often the preferred name.

malty = witchshark.
robust = witchshark.
alcoholic (palate-wise) = witchshark
tongue ripping = witchshark, in comparison.

whoops! comparing the two again!

Boogie Monster's juicier. Witchshark is more resinous and alcohol forward. that was kind of my initial point.
i'd say that Witchshark tastes more like a IIPA than Boogie Monster. one man's opinion.
kind of.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:40 pm

As atom just explained, there are different factors which can make an IPA seem more like a "regular" or a "double" IPA. Alcoholic strength, resinous, citrus impression, overall impression of strength and fullness… There are double IPAs that in fact are fairly mellow to drink, such as Phillips Amnesiac; conversely there are also fairly brash single IPAs that have a lot of hop attack.

To my thinking, the only really objective comparison between double and single IPAs might be the relative gravity and the relative alcoholic strength. It is only incidental that's double IPAs may tend to have a more big and brash hop signature, although that is not a given. Or a necessity. It is simply a convenience the Brewers simply can load on more hops in proportion to other ingredients in an increased grain bill. Properties other than gravity and alcoholic strength are all on a broad continuum the do not overlap evenly with other IPAs to easily classify them on those other merits. And at some point it's silly that we need to differentiate them all in a clear manner, they are all IPAs.