The Bar Towel

tuqueboy

I apologise to you as i should not make this a personal thing, and was happy to see that you did remove certain points from your comment on ratebeer, Believe me i agree we all should be able to have an opinion. That said i do not agree that we should use a slight of hand or spelling mistake to be sarcastic to one another. This is an open forum as i have been so well informed by ones on here which i do understand. But by picking at such little things as a spelling mistake i think it makes ones not want to discuss or talk about how they feel about such beers. Anyways i do apologise for my comment and again hope my apology does not fall on deaf ears. Also i did notice that you said that it was good that Churchkey is trying different things, I should have mentioned that you did.

Grub I am not going to make this personal and to you as well i hope you have not taken it as such although from the swearing i think it might have gotten you a tad upset, as i have discussed with others before that i have not agreed with, there are too few real beer people in this town and we should be together and trying to encourage good brewing, not belittling each other.

But just on a side note as to the comment about a 1 year old single malt scotch, it really doesn't apply. When i get a beer such as say a Stone russian imperial stout, i enjoy a bottle fresh when i get it but also try to save a bottle for future consuption to see how it matures and how it changes with some proper cellaring. When I first tasted the Lactese Falcon i enjoyed it, but also one of the first things that came to my mind was how will this change with some age??? Maybe this was one of the reasons John released this beer on us, maybe he thought we had enough foresight to see that it might be a completly different beer in 6 Months, a year, maybe even a few years. I could see a brewer of his calliber giving some of the beer people here some credit to think ahead as to how this beer might be in the future. Anyways i wouldn't say buying a 1 year old single malt applys really because once a whiskey is bottled it does not mature or change, whereas a beer such as this most likely will. By making a comment about the oak i was just trying to make us think of how it is alittle harder for the small brewers such as John to maybe have the space to age such a product, if you have ever been to his brewery it is a marvel that he has fit as much in that little space as he has.

I do agree that ones such as Greg (as an example) have tried a great many beers and i do respect their opinion, even when it is not the same as my own. The thing that i dont think is fair is to post opinions when you have not tried the beer yourself thats all i am saying. I doubt Greg or many other ones who frequent this site as well as sites like ratebeer make their judgements on other peoples opinions, especially just because they may have tried many beers.

I agree that we should be honest and say if we did not enjoy the product put before us, But as Colin has said before in Wines sometimes we find things we do not enjoy such as say a urine smell or sulpher but this does not mean it is a poorly made product or a failed experiment it is just not to our own personal liking. Myself i like scotch and understand that many people like a good strong scotch that maybe have flavors of iodine or peat, I myself like some of the more smooth less assertive brands but would never say that some of the ones that are not to my liking are poorly made or should not be on the market, I would also not want to put others who like this type down as having "no taste buds". I just dont find them to my liking and would not spend my money on them. I dont down them for such flavors i just do not enjoy them myself and would say it in a way not putting the product down or the person who made it down, but expressing an opinion that it is not to my taste.

I hope this explains a little of where i am coming from and again is not ment to be a put down or be a slight of anyone.

I had this beer. I have had many lambic/sour styles, and enjoy them. This Church Key was an abomination. Why serve this beer? It was disgusting and I hope Church Key is embarrassed for this. Don't attempt the style if you can't give it the proper care.

tomthompson89 wrote:Grub I am not going to make this personal

good, that's all i want to see. discussion of the beer on its merits, not personal attacks because someone disagrees with you.

tomthompson89 wrote:...from the swearing i think it might have gotten you a tad upset...

hahahha. i think the only thing i said was "bullshit", hardly a big deal.

tomthompson89 wrote:But just on a side note as to the comment about a 1 year old single malt scotch, it really doesn't apply. When i get a beer such as say a Stone russian imperial stout, i enjoy a bottle fresh when i get it but also try to save a bottle for future consuption to see how it matures and how it changes with some proper cellaring.

i disagree. my scotch analogy is perfect, since it's a beverage that _must_ be aged at the distillery before it is ready for consumption. the same applies to sour beers - they _must_ be aged for no less than a year, and even at that point are pretty much always blended with other older lambic samples (by expert blenders and brewers with generations of experience). on the few occasions that you find unblended lambic for sale it's always at 2-3 years old, maybe more, never less. that's the point i'm making here - if this beer is supposed to be an example of the style, claiming it's "young" and needs to be cellared isn't an excuse, since it should have been bulk aged at the brewery for an extended period of time. if the brewery doesn't have that ability, you can't expect people to ignore this and pretend that it'll be fine with cellaring. the other problem with this is that aging in a bottle is nothing like aging in bulk in the brewer. for one, there's no oxygen to let the wild yeasts and bacteria do their work. you'll never get the same result this way.

your argument about a stone IRS doesn't apply either, since it is a beer (and a style) that is meant for consumption immediately - or at least immediately after bottling. sure it will change with time, but that isn't a requirement. a pilsner will change with age too, but that doesn't mean we should all stock up on OV. many of the big RIS producers age them for a year or more in the brewery before release if they don't think they are "ready". church key should have done the same.

tomthompson89 wrote:When I first tasted the Lactese Falcon i enjoyed it, but also one of the first things that came to my mind was how will this change with some age??? Maybe this was one of the reasons John released this beer on us, maybe he thought we had enough foresight to see that it might be a completly different beer in 6 Months, a year, maybe even a few years. I could see a brewer of his calliber giving some of the beer people here some credit to think ahead as to how this beer might be in the future.

but as i mentioned above, aging in a bottle is not the same as aging in bulk. it's great if he's giving us credit for wanting to try things with age, but unfortunately this one is so far from the mark even staunch sour beer lovers have been turned off from it.

tomthompson89 wrote: Anyways i wouldn't say buying a 1 year old single malt applys really because once a whiskey is bottled it does not mature or change, whereas a beer such as this most likely will. By making a comment about the oak i was just trying to make us think of how it is alittle harder for the small brewers such as John to maybe have the space to age such a product, if you have ever been to his brewery it is a marvel that he has fit as much in that little space as he has.

i'm not talking about aging a bottle of scotch for a year, i'm talking about it being aged at the distillery for a year - far less than anything i've ever seen.

i can understand that space can be an issue. heck, i have space issues in my "brewery". the point is that if you don't have the space/time/resources to attempt a particular style, then don't. again, i give them credit for trying, but this is one they should have skipped if they couldn't do it right.

another analogy: a brewery really wants to make a bourbon barrel stout, but doesn't have room to age the beer for a year in a barrel, but they can borrow a barrel from a friend for a day. should they take the stout, throw it in the barrel for 5 minutes, then bottle it and call it a bourbon barrel stout? maybe telling the buyer that "it might get more bourbony with more cellaring"? no! that just isn't the way it works.

there are tons of styles out there that don't require the kind of time and dedication that lambic beers do. they should aim for one of them next time. or maybe they should just barrel this one up and talk to us in 2010.

tomthompson89 wrote:I do agree that ones such as Greg (as an example) have tried a great many beers and i do respect their opinion, even when it is not the same as my own.

that's not the way you started. you immediately started into personal attacks on people for stating their opinions here and on ratebeer. if you had just said you liked it (as colin did) it would have been fine.

tomthompson89 wrote:The thing that i dont think is fair is to post opinions when you have not tried the beer yourself thats all i am saying. I doubt Greg or many other ones who frequent this site as well as sites like ratebeer make their judgements on other peoples opinions, especially just because they may have tried many beers.

to be fair, i only responded to this thread when you started making personal attacks on people because of their reviews of the beer (here and on ratebeer). i also made sure to indicate that i was summarizing what i'd heard from many top notch beer reviewers and that i had not tried the beer. it was also not just based on the comments in this thread and came from discussion with said experienced tasters. withholding judgment is exactly what i did when i saw the first comments about this beer in the thread about the festival at cest what when it was reviewed.

anyway, back to the beer.

I've now had the opportunity to sample this twice. The first time was with everyone else at C'est What and I share the common opinion. It stank of soft French cheese wrapped in feet and dunked in a pail of vomit. The taste was better but still unpleasant. (Sour beers and food aren't my cup of tea.) The girlfriend agreed about the smell but liked the taste. Big surprise since she adores Cantillon.

The second try was at Smokeless last night. That was a completely different beer. That nasty smell and taste is gone. Now it smells and tastes like a smoked sour cheddar to me. I still don't care for it but at least it doesn't make you recoil in horror anymore. The girlfriend loves it even more now.

So if you see it on tap somewhere, give it another try.

Hi Everybody. It’s John at Church-Key. This beer seams to have everyone talking. I would like to clear a couple of things up.

This is not a failed experiment. It tastes way I want it to taste. It hits the BJCP style guidelines perfectly for the style. This is not a beer that require age, it is very palatable right now (I know I have drank lots of it. And it is selling well in my store). It would not have been released from the brewery if I didn't think that it was great. It is not for everyone, as the forum will show. But please try to be fair. The 5 guys that split the dixie cup at Cest what or the guy who is chiming in and has not tried yet. Really cannot give opinion with any credibility.

The beer is a sour mash, not a sour fermentation. All of the lacto was killed off before it left the kettle. I did not risk life and limp (limb) to produce this beer by introducing lacto into the brewery. It's already there on the husk of malt. It never traveled in any pump or hose of mine.

The fella that said it was not fit for human consumption. Is not being accurate. In fact no pathogens can be created when fermenting. So if a brewer does poison you it is on purpose.

I really do like that fact that I have got you guys talking. I appreciate the Bar towelers that felt they needed to defend me. But I am a small craft brewer who does not always do things in a conventional way. I enjoy most days that I wake up and put on my boots. And, I am proud of every beer that leaves my brewery. Bottles are still available.

I will be down at Volo on Sat. if anyone wants to discuss it further.

Holy Smoke wrote: The 5 guys that split the dixie cup at Cest what .... Really cannot give opinion with any credibility.

Speaking of diminishing credibility...

Holy Smoke wrote:It tastes way I want it to taste. It hits the BJCP style guidelines perfectly for the style.

What's the difference then between the C'est What one and the one at Smokeless last night? Just mellowing out time? Tweaking? There is a huge difference between the two.

I didn't appreciate this beer at all, but to each his own.

lister wrote:

Holy Smoke wrote:It tastes way I want it to taste. It hits the BJCP style guidelines perfectly for the style.

What's the difference then between the C'est What one and the one at Smokeless last night? Just mellowing out time? Tweaking? There is a huge difference between the two.

Based on the fact that everyone I know who has tried this beer at Smokeless describes it as being radically different from the beer that I tried at C'est What, I strongly suspect that the CW keg was infected, and not in a good way.

I've tried a fair number of (intentionally) sour beers in my time. Flemish sours, lambics, etc. are amongst my favourite beer styles. But with all due respect to John, who I consider one of Ontario's best brewers, the beer that I tried at C'est What was not on style. There were obvious elements of a good Flemish sour in there, but the over-powering vomit aroma was well beyond what I consider acceptable from the style. And I doubt I would've felt any differently if I'd tried more than a "dixie cup".

What people are describing based on what they've tried at Smokeless sounds a lot closer to the style, both in aroma and flavour, and I look forward to getting a chance to try it.

Holy Smoke wrote:Hi Everybody. It’s John at Church-Key. This beer seams to have everyone talking.

Well you certainly have me anxious to try it now.

Is this available most of the time in bottles from the brewery store?

WADR any beer that needs several paragraphs to defend is a little scary to expect people to try, but in fairness I probably should. I'm an adventurer.

I have to say I am curious to re-sample this now. Is it on tap in Toronto somewhere still? Does Smokeless Joes still have some?

JerCraigs wrote:I have to say I am curious to re-sample this now. Is it on tap in Toronto somewhere still? Does Smokeless Joes still have some?

As of last night Smokeless did. Probably still is on tap today.

C'est What also has this on tap. Same smell and taste as at Smokeless.

I might try to get up to the brewery to get some in bottles for my personal consumption at home for the coming fall months. Glad to read your post John and thanks for the great new beer. It sure has people talking. Hope you continue the "Lacteese Falcon" in the future as I think it was a big hit for us at Joe's. Thanks again.

Your Truly,

Mr. Limpy