Fullers Vintage 2006

Jon Walker · Post by **Jon Walker** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:18 am

Had my first one this evening. Bottle #55762. Some brief notes;

Very boozy smell when bottle first opened. Poured a very clear dark copper with a very effervescent head that dissipated quite quickly.

Biscuity, roasted malt at first which gave way to hops that linger nicely. Alcohol not very well hidden in this year's batch but it tastes VERY young...would no doubt benefit from at least six months of cellaring.

For a bottle conditioned ale there was almost no trace of yeast still in the bottle with a 9/10ths pour...after my first taste I swirled the remaining beer in the bottle to pick up any yeast and then poured it in to my glass but it neither affected the clarity nor the flavour. No residue of any kind in the bottle...curious.

Overall...not too bad. Slightly better than the 2005 (tasted at similar age) but inferior to the 2004.

If you can afford it buy a few...one to get a first impression, some to age.

Ale's What Cures Ya · Post by **Ale's What Cures Ya** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:44 pm

Where did you pick it up?

Jon Walker · Post by **Jon Walker** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:52 am

BC Liquor store on Alberni & Thurlow in Vancouver. $6.99 per bottle.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:34 pm

Bottle # 40404 (!)

Really nice, more body spice and balance than the 2005, which seemed a bit lean, bitter-dry and one-dimensional by comparison.

I think it's worth getting 5-6 of these.

Stomp Brockmore · Post by **Stomp Brockmore** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:42 pm

Though I never had the previous editions to compare with, this one is great. Bottle #53966. The aroma is beautifully balanced, just slightly favouring a hoppy character. Really warm and sweet and just a bit woody. Good amount of bitterness in the finish too. The mouthfeel is smooth, creamy, and full. The alcohol is a bit noticible, though I'm sure this will improve with age. I'm glad I bought a few of these to cellar for a while.

El Pinguino · Post by **El Pinguino** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:50 pm

Picked up two of these last night, so will be testing out my first thsi evening. Haven't had the Fuller's Vintage previously either, so looking forward to it. They had a TON at my local LCBO yesterday marked as "grat holiday gifts", so if this works well for me, I could be making a nice trip back for more!

old faithful · Post by **old faithful** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:16 pm

A good beer, with a typical English pale ale malt barley wine flavour but it seemed a bit thin I thought.

Maybe it has been roughly filtered for export. Or maybe it just needs more age.

I blended it with John Bull (on its own very dry), about 4:1 the John Bull to the Fuller's. The result was rather like sampling Fuller's London Pride at the local or 6X or something.

Gary

pootz · Post by **pootz** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:10 am

Hard to tell if it has changed much from the 2005 as it was so boozy with alcohol flooding the flavour profile.....definatly will let this one sit a while before retasting.

The same can be said for this years McAuslan vintage....very young and undeveloped.

Jon Walker · Post by **Jon Walker** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:15 am

old faithful wrote: I blended it with John Bull (on its own very dry), about 4:1 the John Bull to the Fuller's. The result was rather like sampling Fuller's London Pride at the local or 6X or something.

Gary

Why would you want to transform a vintage ale into its inferior London Pride brethren? Gary and his Frankenbeers...

old faithful · Post by **old faithful** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:35 am

It was an attempt to enjoy the John Bull more, and fairly successful I'd say. I only used two ounces from the Vintage Ale for this purpose. I've got the rest of the Vintage Ale re-capped and will try it again soon. Many breweries blend beers from their own stocks. What I did is just a variation on the practice, i.e., using beers from different breweries, of different final gravities and sweetness, but which share otherwise a certain kind of English character; the blending actually works very well. By the way when I said London Pride I meant the draught Pride from Chiswick, the blend reminded me of a cask English pale ale. I think what gives it that character is the unpasteurised nature of the vintage Fullers.

Gary

Jon Walker · Post by **Jon Walker** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:39 am

I'm all for variety but I'm still a believer that mixology is best left to brewmasters.

old faithful · Post by **old faithful** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:55 am

That's fine because personal preference rules in these matters. At one time it was a preference of some pub-goers to blend beers in the pub, which is where I got the idea (both reading about it and touring pubs in the early 80's in England). There was "B-B" (Burton and bitter), light (ale) and bitter, bitter and mild, old-and-mild, Cooper's (half porter and stout in London) and so on.

Gary

pootz · Post by **pootz** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:43 am

Jon Walker wrote:I'm all for variety but I'm still a believer that mixology is best left to brewmasters.

Disagree. Some of the best drinks I've tasted were mixes of dopplebock and dunkels or golden lagers and shwartzbiers...young barley wine and older porters....give it a try. Mix the two flavors you most like bnut never seem to find in one brew.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:28 pm

pootz wrote:
Jon Walker wrote:I'm all for variety but I'm still a believer that mixology is best left to brewmasters.
Disagree.

Me too, the best of both worlds:

You can still enjoy them separately (much like 'Varietal" wines = one grape type)

Also, you can 'tweak' blends for additional complexity (much as some of the great wines of France - eg Neuf Du Pape and Bordeaux - can be a very loosely-governed ratio of different grape varieties.)

To say 'I don't blend' is like saying 'I drink only varietal wines because I demand that singleness to stand on its own.' There's no definite advantage in every case IMO.

* funny not about wine - people like to put down all 'Merlot" and "Pinot Noir" and "blended wines" not even realizing this preludes many Bordeaux and Burgundy reds they seem to enjoy! Of course they really mean just mediocre, trendy reds, so you smile and nod.

Jon Walker · Post by **Jon Walker** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:48 pm

pootz wrote:...young barley wine and older porters....give it a try. Mix the two flavors you most like bnut never seem to find in one brew.

I think you're assuming I haven't tried it. I grew up in England matey, I've had my share of shandies, Guinness and blackcurrant, Lager top (also known as lager and lime), black and tans etc, etc. I've tried mixing various beer styles and brands together but ultimately it's just not my preference. I enjoy sampling the brewmasters craft (dare I say ART), good or bad, as they intended it.

Also the comparison to wine isn't a really great one. Blended wines are a much more common occurance in that industry than in the brewing trade. And again, that mixing is done by the vintner, not the end user. If you went into a restaurant and asked the sommelier to mix a bottle of good quality Shiraz with a decent bottle of Merlot they'd look at you like you'd lost your mind. In most cases if you order a new bottle of wine that's different from your first waiters will often bring fresh glasses so as not to pour new wine into the remnants of old. The individuality of the wines are valued and respected and therefore not generally mixed.

To each their own.