Tempest

[matt7215]

but Tempest really isnt that big of a stout, sure its 9ish% but it lacks the viscosity and high final gravity to make it cellar worthy like something like Bells Expedition would be

its a fine beer and it drinks better fresh then aged because the malt body is more like a black IPA, or robust porter then a BIG imperial stout

Apparently batch 2 finished just over 1.030 and at 10%, I would say its fairly big. I assumed it was something that would age well.

I agree with the LCBO batch being much thinner than you would expect from an imperial stout.

my comments were based only having had batch one from you and the LCBO batch, neither of those finished near 1.030

[J343MY]

my comments were based only having had batch one from you and the LCBO batch, neither of those finished near 1.030

Ok. I still have a bottle of batch 2 if you want to split it sometime.

Anyway... they still had a couple of bottles kicking around at and LCBO in Cambridge so I grabbed one today to check the final gravity.



not exactly what we were expecting.

[Belgian]

Batch #1 - This was already passed it's prime in my opinion. Was pretty much a sweet mess. Lots of molasses, brown sugar and some chocolate. The roast was completely subdued and there was no hop profile whatsoever. The body was still more substantial than batch #3 and was similar to batch #2.

So is this to be interpreted that it doesn't age well?

In my opinion it doesn't. I certainly won't be aging any more.

Had a 2011 Batch #1 last night - drank really well with enough roasty-hoppy dryness to set off the malt. A bit the other way from Duffs' comments.

I'll open a 10% 2012 Batch #2 soon but I'm guessing it's at least as good.

I agree with Amsterdam this beer is not for super long aging, and why would you need to.

[TheSevenDuffs]

Had a 2011 Batch #1 last night - drank really well with enough roasty-hoppy dryness to set off the malt. A bit the other way from Duffs' comments.

Thanks for posting. It is always good to see different opinions on beers.

The biggest downside of doing a vertical or a side-by-side of different beers is that you end up comparing each beer to the others, rather than being able to enjoy the beer for what it is. Perhaps I would have had a different take had I just drank the Batch #1 on its own.

[andrewrg]

Had an LCBO batch Tempest yesterday and thought it was excellent. Nicely roasty with a pleasant coffee bitterness. I didn't find it overly thin.

[Belgian]

biggest downside of doing a vertical or a side-by-side of different beers is that you end up comparing each beer to the others, rather than being able to enjoy the beer for what it is. Perhaps I would have had a different take had I just drank the Batch #1 on its own.

I also think the exact temperature of imperial stouts can really weigh in on the perceived degree of dryness, cocoa/coffee, wine fruit and roast - in short the balance can seem off at the not-ideal temperature.

Different vintages of the same Impy might each favor being slightly cooler or warmer as the beer evolves and changes.

[Bytowner]

Had an LCBO batch Tempest yesterday and thought it was excellent. Nicely roasty with a pleasant coffee bitterness. I didn't find it overly thin.

I agree. I thought the body was great, it was the carbonation that got me. A bit lively, held back some of the flavours up front. Nonetheless a great beer, quite enjoyed it.

[JeffPorter]

Drinking a Batch 2 right now. Less hoppy than I remember, but the rye is really poking its head up which is nice - I think this might be the batch that does this the most. Spicy and Boozy, and that anise aroma is really at the forefront. Aging a few from this batch might be interesting - hops will die away, but the rye might be the star of this one.

Kind of agree with the comments that this could be labelled a Double (or Tripel?) Rye Stout, and calm before the storm could've been called a Rye-Mild, but whatever you call it, it's still nice!