(Sinha) Lion Stout

[dhurtubise]

Again, I respect all opinions. Mine, having tasted Terrible numerous times and various Imperial stouts for some 25 years, is that Terrible resembles strongly a stout in style and in particular, an Imperial or double stout. I would note that Terrible lacks the "Belgian" taste of most of the other Unibroue beers. It is made with black or highly roasted malts; it is spiced with licorice (as many 19th century strong porters were); it is top-fermented. To me that spells something very much like a traditional strong stout. But hey, no one has to agree with me and I don't (honestly) take contrary views the wrong way.

Gary

I think I understand.

And while Terrible isn't the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of a stout, I definitely see how you can make those comparisons.

Take Terrible and subtract some of the yeasty esters, spicyness, and give it a little less carbonation.......you could have a stout on your hands.

Just my $.02

This part of the thread is really funny. Terrible is pretty much a picture perfect example of the Strong Dark Belgian Ale. Get together, and have a tasting of Terrible along with Chimay Bleu, Rochefort 10 and 8, St Bernardus 12 (these are the recent examples that have been available to us) and you will see that it fits in perfectly with this group (and in some of the cases outshines them). If you are willing to call Chimay Bleu and the Rochefort beers imperial stouts then perhaps in you estimation Terrible might be as well but I can assure you that you will find alot of resistance to your stance.

Compare with examples of imperial stouts (Wellington and Sam Smith are the only recent examples I can remember seeing here).

[old faithful]

Terrible is black as night (almost), as many stouts are. It is flavoured with licorice as many porters were (and some still are). It is top-fermented.

Is Chimay Bleu black in colour or flavoured with licorice?

Beyond that, I was making the point that many abbey doubles are probably exactly what porter, strong porter, was like 100 years ago and more, not just because of the yeast identity. Just because someone calls something "Trappist double beer" doesn't mean it is not in the style of a porter especially one of 100 years ago (and I tend to think of porter in historical terms but not exclusively). Don't let names (which can be inconsistent or ephemeral) beg the question..

I am giving specific reasons for my views and they are based on numerous actual taste tests but also historical information I am aware of. I began drinking Imperial Stouts and strong porters in the early 1980's and have some knowledge of the style.

Gary

[old faithful]

Just some further thoughts. Fuller's London Porter is flavoured I believe with licorice (slightly). It is half the strength of La Terrible but if you increased its strength, say by adding a shot of vodka, it would I suggest taste quite similar to La Terrible.

I am open to doing taste tests on some of these beers, any ideas to meet at Ralph's/beerbistro for same? We could order a few of the beers mentioned and share the cost.

Remember, strong porter, which at the topmost gravity was Imperial Stout, was simply strong dark ale made from dark brown or charred malts. Some was blended and aged but this was and is characteristic of many ales including many Belgian beers (e.g. Liefman's). Some of the regional or craft beers that hung on in Belgium, that survived the lager blitz, may precisely, including Rochefort 10, taste like some porter did in 1890 and today. I'll tell you why I say that. I once read, I think in Biere Magazine (a Belgian periodical I used to subscribe to until it ceased publication) that before the Loi Vandervelde was adopted at the end of WW I, beers in the Royal Kingdom were not strong. They were either low-gravity wheat beers (as e.g., Hoegaarden's inspirations were - lower than Hoegaarden that is); medium gravity ales including the lambics, gueuzes, faros and variations; and the emerging medium gravity lagers. Maybe the Saisons and Grisettes (if they existed before 1919) hit the top of the abv range, what, 6.0% or so? When hard liquors, surtout la bonne genievre, was banned by the aforesaid law, the Belgians invented stronger beers to compensate. Where did they get the models from? From strong London porter, amongst other sources. (And from barley wines - that is where Bush/Scaldis got its model from). The Belgians knew of strong English and Scotch beers due to the import trade from Britain. But the war helped too, of course, to spread the repute of Brittanic specialties in Flanders and Wallonia.

We take for granted today a name such as "Abbey Double", it has an immemorial, burnished sound. It is salutary to recall that everything comes from somewhere and often what we think of as old and enshrined is fairly new. Duvel only became a light-coloured beer around 1970, for example. There is enough (more than vestigial) resemblance between many of those Belgian post-Vandervelde beers and strong porter such that I casually noticed it after a few sips of Terrible - none of this history and analysis was present to my mind.

I am not saying all Abbey and Trappist Doubles taste like strong porter but many do. I believe Liefman's unflavoured beers too are an example of a medium strong porter especially of the early 1800's or 1700's when old and young porter was blended to impart a lactic taste. I'll grant you, Chimay Bleue is not porter-like beer and that is because it is a sui generis ale, invented or at least perfected after WW II and whose inspiration in my view was more of a strong English ale type such as the Burton beer originally was: strong, sweet, but not presenting a typical highly roasted brown malt palate or one influenced by an anise flavour as much 1800's porter was and some still is (e.g. Fuller Porter).

Gary

[joey_capps]

I can't believe I'm going to step into this . . . please take what I say with a grain of salt--I'm certainly no expert. And, I know we could split hairs on stylistic definitions all night. However . . .

It seems to me most stouts are characterized by their roasty, coffee-ish flavour, while porters are more roasty, chocolaty. Also, the hops used in porter & stouts is often earthier & leafier.

With Belgian style ales we get a much yeastier flavour w/ bready, doughy, candy-ish malts, while the hops is fruity & floral. Belgian ales are also spicy, which I don't get in stouts & porters.

This is really simplistic, I know, but, I guess I just don't see what your getting at Gary. I just can't get my head around something like Terrible as stout-like. But, hey, if you can, that's great.

Cheers,

Joe.

[old faithful]

Joey, fair comments (as from anyone who does not agree with me). But please note: essentially you are talking about a yeast difference: most Belgian ales of quality are lightly filtered or bottle-conditioned, as all porters and strong porters used to be (and some still are, notably certain American specialties).

Did you ever have bottled Guinness in Britain or Ireland when it was still unfiltered (bottle conditioned)? It had the same spicy yeasty taste you are talking about, it was quite Belgian-like.

All these beers we are talking about are closely related.

I reiterate my suggestion to taste some of these and do the comparison. If I'm wrong "in situ" I'll say so but I don't think I am.

How about Volo at 3:00 p.m. this Sunday? But all participants must chip in please.

Gary

[Belgian]

I really didn't enjoy my first bomber of La Terrible months ago, but opening the second one last night I found it magical. One difference is I didn't cool it.

It had nice underpinnings of wine-like flavor, sort of a young Moulin-A-Vent like sugariness and an almost Pino Noir-ish grapey/dark berry thing going on.

Fascinating in a beer. I couldn't believe it really. Quite harmonized and powerful.

[dhurtubise]

Old Faithfull:

You will have to excuse me for my bluntness here.... but I can't help myself.

First of all, on the subject of adding vodka to Fullers in order to making it more Terrible-like, is... well just plain idiotic. If making the bigger beer styles were that simple, you would see any idiot could brew their own higher alcohol beer simply by upping the alcohol to any relatively full bodied beer (anyone for Mill Street I2PA - just add vodka to a bottle of Tankhouse).

Then... the links you make while talking about brewing are assinine at best. You generally never get the big picture. A beer brewed with dark malts are reason enough for you to call it a stout, regardless of the vastly different yeast profile, alcohol strength, light hopping, extremely high amounts of esters and phenolics, much higher carbonation and a little more body. I feel pretty much the same way as to your recent argument related to Sleeman steam.

Also on the subject of brewing with licorice. This may have been done with a few porters brewed in England in the old days but I am sure it was not common practice. Porters were historically brewed in England to approximate the the Stouts brewed in Ireland. They must certainly be heavier in body than they are today (just as Guiness was) but the main difference has always been the high use of Chocolate malts and absence of roasted barley in the porters as oposed to high roasted malts and very rare at best use of chocolate malt in stouts. Either way, I would be extremly surprised if Terrible were brewed with licorice as this is not an ingredient used in brewing the big brown Belgians. Besides that, I can't for the life of me pick any such flavours from the beer. State your sources rather than stating it as fact.

As far as the colour of Chimay Bleu is concerned it is pretty much identical to Terrible which probably makes it an imperial stout in your books

[old faithful]

You are right, Chimay is dark brown. I had one the other day and I see that now. Still, it does not much resemble a porter; this does not mean many other Belgians do not.

A Unibroue rep poured me some Terrible at a tasting (last year's Fort York Beer Festival, if memory serves) and told me it had liquorice in it.

19th century books (please accept this, they are in my library) state that liquorice was frequently used in porter. Here is a summary from this reading: in the early 1700's porter, an outgrowth of the family of (different strength) dark brown beers, became popular. At the time, no liquorice was added. Very dark roasted malts were used to make porter and entire. The partial charring gave a specific bitterness that later (1800's) porter lacked because brewers started to use light-coloured malts together with the roasted malt. So the brewers added liquorice to impart the lacking savory element, and other things sometimes (quassia, concentrated wort, caramel). Stout - originally called stout porter denoting a stronger version of porter - and again from my reading, came to Ireland from England. The Irish innovated by adding, ultimately, some unmalted barley. But porter at varying strengths originated in England and strong porters were made there until the mid-1900's when they went into decline. Imperial Russian Stout was a classic very strong porter. Barclay Perkins', later Courage's, version, which I had many times, was great and around 10% abv if not more for some bottlings. I said porter originally was strong beer made with dark brown malts, which it was according to my historical readings.

I think I do look at the bigger picture, in the sense of what some people call a lumper not a splitter. Of course I am not saying Terrible "is" a porter or strong porter; I am aware Unibroue call it an Abbey dark beer. It is just that when I drank it recently it reminded me of a strong stout.

We all have our own palates and knowledge and these are mine. I welcome other views and opinions (as I've always said) and only seek to explain my own.

A last thing: I am not saying brewers should add alcohol to beer. I was saying that to compare two drinks which bear some resemblances, one of which is rather stronger than the other, why not boost the strength of the weaker one to get an idea what it might taste like if brewed from a high original gravity, as an experiment? I have sampled a number of Baltic and Imperial-style porters in the States to which were added all kinds of things by their brewers including Absente (an absinthe substitute), bourbon via whisky cask aging and other such things. I did not do anything really different and as I said, it was an experiment.

Gary

[Belgian]

.... I would be extremly surprised if Terrible were brewed with licorice as this is not an ingredient used in brewing the big brown Belgians. Besides that, I can't for the life of me pick any such flavours from the beer.

I like that you or I can't pick out every ingredient of such a beer. Those Belgians can be the most complex and wonderfully bastardized elixirs on the planet. The brewers CREATE secondary flavors out of pure alchemical magic it seems.

Sometimes you gotta go where a beer takes you I guess.

[midlife crisis]

Porters were historically brewed in England to approximate the the Stouts brewed in Ireland.

As Gary points out, this is incorrect. The brewing of porter in England pre-dates the origins of stout in Ireland by several decades at least. Guinness was founded in 1759 to brew porter, and extra stout porter, for the Irish market and eventually for export.