John By Imperial Stout

dutchcanuck · Post by **dutchcanuck** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:04 pm

My hat is off to Perry and the brewers who concocted this excellent brew. I've had the benefit of drinking Wellington's RIS, Stone's RIS, Great Divide's Yeti, and many others, so I would like to think I know what a good Imperial Stout tastes like...and I like this. I love the aroma and the roasted malt flavours, it has an excellent mouth feel as well. I wouldn't change a thing, I really hope to see this as a permanent fixture in the LCBO.

With nothing available locally, the closest LCBOs were Ancaster and Hamilton, I decided to drive up to Ancaster in order to get my fix for this FINE Ontario Stout.

But let me tell you my tale.

On Friday I visited TWO seperate LCBO outlets and asked if they had the John By Stout (I had the LCBO# in hand), or if they could tell me if they were getting it, and they told me the answer was no on both accounts. I even spoke with the manager of the LCBO on Glenridge. She stated that she was in charge of the Premium Ale program in St. Catharines and informed me the John By was not coming to St. Catharines and predicted that it wouldn't come to the Niagara Region.

So on Saturday I double checked the online inventory and nothing was showing up anywhere close to home. With that information in hand I decided I needed to try this stout and I drove up to Ancaster in the midst of Christmas traffic and shopping to buy eight bottles.

But I checked the online inventory today and guess what the LCBOs in both Niagara Falls and St. Catharines (on Scott street) have this fine brew in stock. This is fantastic, don't get me wrong, but they REALLY need to get their act together. Due to their ignorance and disregard I was led to believe I had to drive up to Ancaster in order to get my eight bottles...and for what? Nothing...and THAT makes me angry.

End Rant. Thank you for reading.

Hamilton Brian · Post by **Hamilton Brian** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:27 am

But certainly you enjoyed the urban planning sensation that is the Meadowlands region of Ancaster?

For the size and location of that outlet, it's pretty lousy. Old Dundurn remains the champ in this area!

PRMason · Post by **PRMason** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:05 pm

Its doing really well on RateBeer as well. While I appreciate every rating ( good or bad), I am really honoured that Northyorksammy (just Sammy on RateBeer) gave it a 4.3. He usually is one tough rater and to get this is from him is great. Thanks Sam!

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:39 pm

And it's an A- (4.28) on the 'other' site:
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/866/40119

It should get 10 reviews and show up on the "best of Canada", but at this rate, it may even crack the top 100 !

Jon Walker · Post by **Jon Walker** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:29 pm

It'll be interesting to see if these numbers hold up once the beer gets in to the hands of a wider group of reviewers. I think that locally we're all so damn happy to have a decent I.S. that the numbers are skewed a little higher than the beer may merit. Don't get me wrong, I like it...but is it really as good as some of the best stouts in the world?

JesseM · Post by **JesseM** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:48 pm

No particular offense to Americans, but I'm sure the general consensus amongst many of them will be that it can't be a true Imperial Stout if it's only 6.7% abv. I'm sure they'll be plenty of "Maybe Foreign Stout would be a better classification..." comments (which is fast becoming a bit of a pet-peeve of mine). I find it kind of annoying that the "standard" for a "true" Imperial Stout is the ridiculously hopped up, and even more highly alcoholic high-octane brew. Isn't the most realistic example of what Imperial Stout's were, during their actual historic period of popularity in the Tsarist Court, would be Samuel Smith's IS? As it's made in Britain where the style originated, and would theoretically emulate the classic style as it was a hundred years ago? It's rated lower generally than the big bad American IS's, and has a lower ABV of course.

Maybe I can't complain due to my lack of experience in the field of Imperial Stout's (though that should change soon hopefully), but these are some thing that I have observed.

PRMason · Post by **PRMason** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:03 pm

John makes a good point. Oft times reviews are "gentler" because the reviewers have a soft spot for a certain brewery or pudgy brewer. Sometimes, nationalism plays a role too. On RateBeer, most U.S. beers are given the higher numbers, while some world classics are given short shrift. This is very understandable in a forum as diverse as RateBeer and I accept all ratings for what they are. My admiration or disdain for certain beers does not rise or fall because of ratings. The only rating that counts is our own.

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:00 pm

JesseM wrote:I'm sure they'll be plenty of "Maybe Foreign Stout would be a better classification..." comments (which is fast becoming a bit of a pet-peeve of mine). I find it kind of annoying that the "standard" for a "true" Imperial Stout is the ridiculously hopped up, and even more highly alcoholic high-octane brew. Isn't the most realistic example of what Imperial Stout's were, during their actual historic period of popularity in the Tsarist Court, would be Samuel Smith's IS? As it's made in Britain where the style originated, and would theoretically emulate the classic style as it was a hundred years ago? It's rated lower generally than the big bad American IS's, and has a lower ABV of course.

I might have been the first to bring up the foreign/export style, mainly due to the dominant roasted flavours. There's certainly a little more bitterness here though.

I haven't had many British Imperials, but I tend to think of them as fruitier (from the British yeast as well as the moderately roasted malts).

I agree that the Hopped-up American versions (using new-world, high alpha hops) probably aren't very close to the original. I'm not sure they should even use the "imperial" label... its really become their own style.

But forget about the style guidelines, it's a wonderful brew!

Raptor2023 · Post by **Raptor2023** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:48 pm

On Beer Advocate, those Imperial Stouts that tend to be really hoppy and extreme, are classified as "American Imperial Stout". The milder Imperial Stouts are classified as "Russian Imperial Stout". So I guess the Americans have created a new style of beer. It's the same thing with their IPAs. They just took the English version, and injected steroids into it.

JerCraigs · Post by **JerCraigs** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:18 pm

Well the Katrina was in the Top 50 until it made it to Quebec...

JesseM · Post by **JesseM** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:36 pm

I think to me it just seems to belittle the beer when someone says that it's not really an IS, more of a Foreign or w/e other style of stout. It's just seems to come across as sort of a downgrade.

I guess it makes sense to have multiple categories for IS's, because the original version was sort of the stout equivalent to an India Pale Ale, and since the American's pioneered the Double IPA style, essentially now they've done the same thing with Imperial Stout. I'm surprised I never realized this until now, then again I've just started my ventures into the world of Imperial Stouts.

Something else that bothers me is adding the "Imperial" tag onto the front of anything that's a stronger version of the original. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but its not like they added the term to the original Imperial Stout's just because they were stronger than regular stouts. I tend to always be interested in the history behind a style of beer (I'm a history student

), so I guess it makes me a little defensive. When they add "Imperial" to the front of another style, it seems to cheapen the term to me, or like they're not really respecting the original use/history of it.

Anyways, maybe I shouldn't be so bothered by things, especially on Christmas day

.

pootz · Post by **pootz** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:19 pm

Raptor2023 wrote:On Beer Advocate, those Imperial Stouts that tend to be really hoppy and extreme, are classified as "American Imperial Stout". The milder Imperial Stouts are classified as "Russian Imperial Stout". So I guess the Americans have created a new style of beer. It's the same thing with their IPAs. They just took the English version, and injected steroids into it.

http://www.ratebeer.com/RateBeerBest/ta ... r_2007.csv

http://www.ratebeer.com/RateBeerBest/ByStyle_012007.asp

http://www.ratebeer.com/RateBeerBest/ta ... r_2007.csv

Imp stouts and rich stouts dominate and particularly US micro stouts...I note there is little diversity of style in the top 100 ...this confirms a suspicion I have had about ratings sites creating a herd mentality based in the ratings number of the beer.

JesseM · Post by **JesseM** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:56 pm

Pootz brings up an interesting point. As much as I love RateBeer, something that REALLY bothers me, is the fact that people get warning messages for giving low ratings to popular beers. Like, geez, talk about freedom of expression eh?

KwaiLo · Post by **KwaiLo** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:10 pm

I like the warnings for rating a beer low, that has previously had nothing but high reviews. I think it would make me automatically question if I got a bad bottle, in which case I shouldn't be reviewing it. It could also be a beer style to which I am not accustomed, or don't like, in which case I would also question my ability to accurately judge it.

I rate a beer, than read the other reviews. It has helped me with further reviews, but I haven't gone back to change an existing.

JesseM · Post by **JesseM** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:41 pm

Yeah, I can see the positives of it, but they ask you for justification of not liking a popular beer, which almost seems like it can be used as an intimidation tactic in order to keep a higher rated beer rated higher. What if I genuinely did not like the beer? I could say that, but then they'd probably just think I'm inexperienced and don't know what I'm talking about. I'm using myself as an example because it's easier to just type 'I' or 'I'm' instead of 'some theoretical person'

.

Don't get me wrong here, I generally think ratebeer has a pretty decent system going.