Random Reviews

[matt7215]

Hair of the Dog was originally brewed in tribute to beer writer Fred Eckhardt. That was the Adam emulation. It sounds like a brewery of this name has since been established which makes the Adam and other styles (or did it exist under that name when the first beer was made?). I think HOTD Adam was stronger than the mild ale in question, but then too beers in different places can often resemble each other in taste!

Gary

The brewery Hair of the Dog also make a Barley Wine named Fred.

Here is its commercial desription:

"Fred was created to honor beer writer and historian Fred Eckhardt. Fred the beer is a deep golden color. It is made with aromatic and rye malts and includes 10 different hop varieties in an effort to incorporate the whole world into this beer."

[G.M. Gillman]

Fred came later, but the Adam was the first tribute to Fred Eckhardt, as explained here:

http://www.hairofthedog.com/

It's interesting how the brewers came out of Oregon homebrewing circles, just as so many Californian brewers did (famously Ken Grossman and Paul Camusi).

Gary

[Weebay]

Interesting, I just had Fred, Bourbon Fred, and Bourbon Fred with Peaches at HOTD a week ago and I wouldn't classify any of them as a barley wine, more of a strong ale.

I had their doggie claws, which they bill as their barley wine, and it was mind blowing, and very aggressively dry hopped, which unfortunately didn't translate into their bottled version.

While on the subject of HOTD; Adam from the wood was paws down one of the best beers I have ever had.

[cmadd]

Not really sure what's going on, but this is the beer I mean:

[G.M. Gillman]

Right I see now what you mean, it is this beer (Ruth) you meant to compare my notes to, not the first beer made by the company which was the Adam style or of course the later Freds that came out.

And while I have not had Ruth, I can see that it could have a similar combination of rich malt and hoppy tastes since some pale ales, especially U.S. ones, have that. I would think though that Ruth uses West Coast hops, whereas the X Ale had a flowery English taste, but still in general the point is taken! I should add too that while a mild is in principle sweeter than a pale, in practice their attenuation ranges vary, both then and now. For this reason, it is perfectly proper IMO to compare an 1800's mild style to a modern pale ale. Not so much a modern mild to a modern pale ale though since modern mild is dark, which it wasn't for most of the 1800's, and pale ale uses more hops today than mild ale. But the hops used in an 1800's mild is quite comparable to a well-hopped pale ale of today. In other words, pale ale in the 1800's used much more hops than today.

Gary

[cmadd]

Right I see now what you mean, it is this beer (Ruth) you meant to compare my notes to, not the first beer made by the company which was the Adam style or of course the later Freds that came out.

And while I have not had Ruth, I can see that it could have a similar combination of rich malt and hoppy tastes since some pale ales, especially U.S. ones, have that. I would think though that Ruth uses West Coast hops, whereas the X Ale had a flowery English taste, but still in general the point is taken! I should add too that while a mild is sweeter than a pale, in practice their attenuation ranges vary, both then and now. For this reason, it is perfectly proper IMO to compare an 1800's mild style to a modern pale ale. Not so much a modern mild to a modern pale ale though since modern mild is dark, which it wasn't for most of the 1800's.

Gary

and I think this is why Ruth gets a poor rating – it's not really an American Pale Ale. The hops are not abrasive nor are they citrusy or tropical fruity. It's a slightly sweet, low attenuation, flowery pale ale. Who knows it if it's English or American, but I do know it's good!

[G.M. Gillman]

Interesting, well that palate is indeed very similar to the Albion X Ale.

Gary

[Belgian]

Peroni Nastro Azzurro at GUSTO on Portland St.
- very good mains there, pasta is sublime, but skip on the coffee course because the bland desserts are served quite meanly portion-wise ($13 for three sample-sized 'full portions', we actually felt pathetic sharing these.)

Propeller Imperial Russian Stout - super sweet and fruity for RIS with a deep spiciness and rich malts that show no roast or chocolate.

[G.M. Gillman]

Durham ESB: At Volo tonight on cask, in exemplary fined condition with a big English hop nose and flavour and the silky sweet English malts to underpin them. Very similar to what I'd guess is its inspiration, the iconic Fuller ESB. English-style real beer at its best.

Sawdust City Long Dark Trip To Uranus Imperial Stout. Another first-rate English-style beer, big smooth malty/coffee taste with a good neutral bitter spine. I can't tell if there is coffee in it, if so the joe is not overdone. It was on cask too and threw a huge cauliflower head just as you read of porter in the old books, fresh as can be.

.....

While I can appreciate, more so in recent years, a good APA, English-style ale and porter are - at their best - still in a different class. In my experience, only occasionally do English-style beers in Canada show the topmost quality (for innumerable reasons and as for any foreign beer style) but the stars were aligned tonight.

It is noteworthy too that there was at Volo tonight a choice of 5 - did I say 5? - draft Imperial Stouts!

Gary

[G.M. Gillman]

I checked Sawdust City's website and the grain bill for the Imperial Stout does not mention coffee. The mashbill is quite complex, there must be 7 or 8 components including at least two raw grains, roasted barley and rye. It's an interesting approach which reflects that of many modern craft brewers.

Grist selection in England in the 1800's involved fewer malts for each beer, two or three usually for porter or stout - say pale, brown and black malt - and just pale malt for pale ale and mild ale.

Gary

[JasonTremblay]

I checked Sawdust City's website and the grain bill for the Imperial Stout does not mention coffee. The mashbill is quite complex, there must be 7 or 8 components including at least two raw grains, roasted barley and rye. It's an interesting approach which reflects that of many modern craft brewers.

Grist selection in England in the 1800's involved fewer malts for each beer, two or three usually for porter or stout - say pale, brown and black malt - and just pale malt for pale ale and mild ale.

Gary

Howdy,

In many cases, new malts were developed to maintain traditional flavours as malting and brewing procedures improved. IIRC, 18th C porter was brewed with 1 malt with freakin' awful mash efficiency ... but good, rich flavours. When malt started to be kilned with coke (refined coal) towards the tail end of the century, we lost some of those rich flavours and colours but gained efficiency.

Enter specialty malts and grains, stage right.

It became cheaper and more efficient to use what we now think of as a base malt + roasted barley etc. to make porters.

And the rest is the relentless march of progress.

You can use malts to simulate long kettle boils and decoction mashes. You can make a beer brown, or even black, without making it taste like a porter. I mean, if you think about, it`s really quite astounding -- you can get caramel, chocoloate, and coffee flavours and aromas from sprouted grain + controlled heating.

Jason

[G.M. Gillman]

Thanks Jason, good thoughts. Indeed 1700's porter was said to be brewed with all brown malt: the conversion rate must have been poor, but some great flavours resulted, in part from the straw or wood kilning. The 1800's recipes seemed to settle down to pale malt and black (e.g. Guinness, except now it uses roasted barley instead of black malt, as well as flaked barley I believe). But most London brewers used a mix of pale, amber and brown. No sugar, which came later.

I am not a brewer so I can't say, but sometimes I'd like to taste a porter made just from pale and brown malt, say, just to see what it is like.

Roasted grains (unmalted) did not exist in brewing before the later 1800's of course.

Gary

[G.M. Gillman]

Actually (Jason and others), I do recall now that some porters are being made to historical methods and the taste results (for good and "bad") are interesting to contrast with the range of flavours associated to the different porter and stout styles today.

Here is homebrewer Will in Syracuse, NY doing great work kilning his own brown malt and tasting the resultant porters after some months in the bottle:

http://perfectpint.blogspot.ca/

It is good to read his related posts, mentioned on the right margin of the page, when he sampled some of the beers shortly after brewing. He made an 1830's porter with pale and hornbeam wood-kilned brown malt (maybe black malt too, I didn't check back) and a 1700's porter brewed from all-brown malt - diastatic - kilned with straw. He kilned both malts himself.

Anyway, it's just another dimension and I am quite sure our best beers today would have been accepted with great enthusiasm by beer fans of the 1700's and 1800's. But it is always interesting to "look back" and understand where they were then and where we are today, and why.

Gary

[Belgian]

Dupont Avec Les Bons Voeux - extremely swampy pour from the fresh keg, this surely changed the flavor.

Ballast Point Big Eye IPA - a little fat and malty sets off the brilliant citrusy and bitter hops.

Founders Porter - great depths of toffee malts, chocolate and fruit in the taste and aroma, dreamy.

[G.M. Gillman]

Nogne Porter: I didn't like this one, it had a slightly dank quality I thought and was too thin.

Les Trois Mousquetaires Dopplebock (bought in Montreal): Outstanding! Super rich and elegant, like a beer Madeira. As good although with its own profile to any German example I've had and better than many e.g. Salvator. I sipped a little but added sparkling water finally to bring down the strength. Even so it retained most of the richness and style.

Gary