Tempest

mintjellie · Post by **mintjellie** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:51 am

3.6/5 rDev -11.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Almost black, it's actually a very dark shade of brown. Small head quickly recedes without lacing. The slightly underpowered aroma features burnt sugar, black coffee, and delicate anise notes, as well as a blast of alcohol. Presents the palate with dark roast coffee, dark brown sugar, and raisin, followed by a strong char note and a long bitter finish. Medium bodied with low carbonation. Feels smooth but a little bit light for the style. I'm surprised how subdued the booze is, given how prominent it is in the aroma. Decent and drinkable.

icemachine · Post by **icemachine** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:21 am

JeffPorter wrote:Finally getting around to having the "new" batch of Tempest, and yes, I have to admit, it's a bit restrained compared to the last batch. The "June" bottles are quite a bit more hoppy, and the mouth feel seems more full.

The newer bottles are quite nice, but I find them more "quaffable", so to speak than the other batches. Haven't done a tasting of all three bottles yet, though.

Maybe we need to do a get together. I even supply a 2011 bottle.

Shoot me a PM and we'll set something up for over Christmas

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:01 pm

still haven't tried the newest incarnation, but the bottles from June are phenomenal, IMHO!

It's the difference in the wax. Without the huge drippy 'Dark Lord' wax seal, you might not attract the same mojo to the bottled product.

SteelbackGuy · Post by **SteelbackGuy** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:47 pm

Lots available at Eastgate Mall store for those in Hamilton that need some.

ErkLR · Post by **ErkLR** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:41 pm

schomberger wrote:it wasn't as bitter as the info on the label suggested, nor did the 9%alcohol show in a harsh or assertive way

I just opened one from the most recent release and I found it wasn't that hoppy either; that's what I love about it. Compared to other imp stouts I think it has much less bite, which is awesome IMO. I like bite from an IPA, but tend to favor the sweeter or less hoppy stouts.

mintjellie · Post by **mintjellie** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:04 am

Come on guys. Is it really that good of a beer, or are we engaging in some serious homerism over it? Because to be honest, I didn't think it was particularly great. It was good, but nowhere even close to great.

I mean, I can honestly say that something like Middle Ages Blackheart Stout blows it out of the water in terms of flavour, aroma, and mouthfeel. And that's not even an imperial/double.

It's good, but it's no world beater. Not even by a long shot.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:40 pm

mintjellie wrote:It's good, but it's no world beater. Not even by a long shot.

Still. Might be an Ontario-beater. I've had new bottles that were too 'green' and great bottles that were aged a few months, and I've had aged draft pours (cacao nib) that were not really what I'd want at all in a RIS (though interesting). It's still progress though for Ontario so I'm interested in the beer.

I think we Ontarians still have Tempest somewhat in perspective, thank you o lord of darkness.

Until there's a ton of Impy Stouts clamoring for our roasty-malty appreciation, we'll have our eyes glued on the progress of the few we have.

-- EDIT -- I realize I haven't tried a Tempest from the LC stores (which Gary reviews below.)

G.M. Gillman · Post by **G.M. Gillman** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:11 pm

I finally tried this, given all the chatter. The body seemed quite lean with decent bitterness and a winy/soy/acid note that points in the right direction, but I think an Impy should have more body and extract.

Another way to parse it though is that it is an aged Imperial, where the extract has been used up through a slow imperceptible attenuation. It is possible it is beer brewed a long time ago because it tastes aged with the slightest hint of brett.

Not bad, but there are better even in Ontario IMO.

Gary

midlife crisis · Post by **midlife crisis** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:03 pm

I largely agree with the "good but not great" sentiment for this current version of Tempest, but want to add that the barrel-aged version was another matter entirely, and was outstanding, IMO. Also, I think mintjellie goes too far when he includes (in another thread) a sticky-sweet mess like ST Choklat among beers that are better than Tempest.

G.M. Gillman · Post by **G.M. Gillman** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:29 am

I had that barrel-aged one and it was very good: could be different batches though, or maybe the barrel aging produces a different effect than tank-aging (if indeed this current one was held in tank for some months).

To me it tastes tank-aged, and so does the current draft Welly Impy by the way. All that is to the good but I think the body should be bigger, heavier. Imperial stout was the very biggest in character of the strong stouts, huge extract, huge bitterness. It was meant to age, and would get leaner with time, but still.

If this was called brown stout or double stout porter, I'd give it the highest mark. It is an exemplary strong stout in other words, but Imperial, not so much, IMO.

Gary

mixedup · Post by **mixedup** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:39 pm

I agree....good, but not great. A bit thin....but I wouldn't turn one down, and I still look forward to the 5 or so bottles I have in the basement.

Haven't tried the barrel aged version, but I did grab one from the first sale and 2 from the more recent sale, so will see how it compares!

mintjellie · Post by **mintjellie** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:44 pm

midlife crisis wrote:I largely agree with the "good but not great" sentiment for this current version of Tempest, but want to add that the barrel-aged version was another matter entirely, and was outstanding, IMO. Also, I think mintjellie goes too far when he includes (in another thread) a sticky-sweet mess like ST Choklat among beers that are better than Tempest.

What's wrong with a sweet dessert beer with shitloads of real chocolate flavour that manages to not be overwhelmingly cloying?

Saying Creme Brulee is better would go to far. Choklat is fantastic for what it is. Anyways, I also did mention that comparing a coffee, chocolate, and other flavoured stouts isn't really a fair comparison anyways.

So tell me - is Tempest better than the Past Masters Double Stout we got from Fullers? Is it better than Dragonslayer? Is it better than Stout Imperial Russe? Is it even in the same league as Stout Imperiale Russe, because I don't think it is. Is it better than Brooklyn Black Chocolate? Do you think any of those comparisons are unfair?

How often would you choose Tempest if it had to sit on a shelf beside Stone Imperial Russian every day?

midlife crisis · Post by **midlife crisis** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:15 pm

I don't disagree. At the same time, I think Tempest is not bad at all. Most of those other stouts you mentioned are probably better from my recollection (I mean, I haven't sat down and done a direct comparison or anything) but I also think it is a bit unfair to say Tempest is "blown away" by them.

boney · Post by **boney** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:24 pm

I just realized I have 2012 Tempests with slightly different labels. One has info on the lower left (2012, 9%, picked up at LCBO) and one has info on the lower right (2012, 10%, picked up at the brewery same day the BA version was released) of the label.

Are the labels I have from the same batch and the alc % differs simply due to brewery vs LCBO estimation or are they different batches?

Maybe someone can provide date/month and abv info on the 3 releases. I'm just curious with all the talk of different character in various batches.

TheSevenDuffs · Post by **TheSevenDuffs** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:36 pm

boney wrote:I just realized I have 2012 Tempests with slightly different labels. One has info on the lower left (2012, 9%, picked up at LCBO) and one has info on the lower right (2012, 10%, picked up at the brewery same day the BA version was released) of the label.

Are the labels I have from the same batch and the alc % differs simply due to brewery vs LCBO estimation or are they different batches?

Maybe someone can provide date/month and abv info on the 3 releases. I'm just curious with all the talk of different character in various batches.

I hadn't noticed that but I just checked mine and it is the same. One says 9%, the other 10%.

I am almost positive that they are different batches, but I could be wrong.