Canny Man

[matt7215]

750ml bottle from the LCBO. amber with a lasting tan head. scotch dominates the nose. whiskey and wood totally cover the flavour of the base beer. very easy drinking, assuming you like scotch, the abv is well hidden. better then i thought it would be but its still a barrel bomb. this is an aggresive first effort from this brewer. id love to try the base beer before it went into the barrel, since, despite having a 750ml bottle i have no idea what it tastes like.

[TheSevenDuffs]

750ml bottle from the LCBO. amber with a lasting tan head. scotch dominates the nose. whiskey and wood totally cover the flavour of the base beer. very easy drinking, assuming you like scotch, the abv is well hidden. better then i thought it would be but its still a barrel bomb. this is an aggresive first effort from this brewer. id love to try the base beer before it went into the barrel, since, despite having a 750ml bottle i have no idea what it tastes like.

Agree with your assessment. A complete barrel bomb but still a decent beer.

[Belgian]

Wonder if I should have a Tempest RIS on hand. For blending.

Paging Dr. Gilman?

[chris_schryer]

I'm curious about this. I just reviewed this yesterday, and posted my review here:
http://www.torontobeerblog.com/beer-rev ... rewing-co/
I found it barrel-y but not at all out of balance. I thought it was lovely, albeit quite over-carbonated.
Then I got pointed to http://www.goodfoodrevolution.com/not-so-canny-man/ where he compares it to stale cigarettes and piss.

I have no idea how there can be such a variance in profiles by bottle. I don't think it's been out long enough for age to be a factor.

Thoughts?

[TheSevenDuffs]

I'm curious about this. I just reviewed this yesterday, and posted my review here:
http://www.torontobeerblog.com/beer-rev ... rewing-co/
I found it barrel-y but not at all out of balance. I thought it was lovely, albeit quite over-carbonated.
Then I got pointed to http://www.goodfoodrevolution.com/not-so-canny-man/ where he compares it to stale cigarettes and piss.

I have no idea how there can be such a variance in profiles by bottle. I don't think it's been out long enough for age to be a factor.

Thoughts?

I haven't seen too many people who share your views on the balance. I found it to be completely one dimensional, like many others have. That said, there is no right or wrong answer here. It is subjective.

[Craig]

It's hard to tell with a beer like this if the problem lies in inconsistencies from bottle to bottle, or if it's just different tastes loving and hating the abundance of smoke and peat. The only way to know for sure would be to find someone who has drank a bunch of it, which I haven't to date.

[chris_schryer]

I actually plan on picking up a few more bottles and checking them out. I might also drink at least one with a few people, to see if it is a personal thing.

[saints_gambit]

I actually plan on picking up a few more bottles and checking them out. I might also drink at least one with a few people, to see if it is a personal thing.

I'm relatively interested in trying the basic beer sans barrel. I wonder if they've got any kicking around.

[chris_schryer]

Pretty sure not. They apparently needed every drop for the LCBO order.

[Cale]

I really wish Ontario brewers would just learn how to make a style well and release it as is before going and barrel ageing everything. Especially considering most of the beers spend way too much time in those barrels or are blended poorly. I guess it sells though...

I haven't tried this one but I was not a fan at all of the BA Nutcracker and BA Long Dark Voyage, which I believe used the same barrels. No balance at all, although that's the fault of the brewers and not the barrels. I love scotch (although not peat)... but I love beer first and foremost, so I would like to actually taste beer when I sit down to drink some.

[matt7215]

I would like to actually taste beer when I sit down to drink some.

in that case this is not the beer for you

[Craig]

I've found that as a general rule Scotch barrels are a less forgiving medium to work with than others. It seems like a lot of stuff that goes in them gets overwhelmed by the flavours of the Scotch, whereas Bourbon barrels, for example, seem to have a lot more wiggle room.

[chris_schryer]

Okay, I almost never read reviews on BA/RB, but I feel better having done so. It seems I'm not totally mad. Pretty decent reviews, with only a few bad ones. Possibly there are by-bottle issues, and also some amount of preference involved.

As an aside, and not trying to pick a fight, but Cale: if you like Scotch, but not peat, what Scotches are you drinking? I know of precious few that aren't at least somewhat peated.

[Craig]

Lowland malts are typically made from unpeated malt. Sweeter malts from Speyside will tend to have very little peat as well.

[Cale]

Okay, I almost never read reviews on BA/RB, but I feel better having done so. It seems I'm not totally mad. Pretty decent reviews, with only a few bad ones. Possibly there are by-bottle issues, and also some amount of preference involved.

As an aside, and not trying to pick a fight, but Cale: if you like Scotch, but not peat, what Scotches are you drinking? I know of precious few that aren't at least somewhat peated.

Old Pultney, Aberlour, Macallan, Auchentoshan, Glenmorangie, Balvenie and many many more are all fine for me. There are a ton of Scotch whiskeys that don't rely on peat. Highland Park is around the height of my tolerance. Most of Islay is a write-off.