Fa La La La La Vertical

Executive Summary:  Don't.

This past summer, I noticed a lonely bottle of Double Mountain's winter seasonal sitting unrefrigerated at a place where sometimes the stock doesn't rotate as quickly as you'd like.  I bought it on a lark, partly to say I did, partly to complain about how seasonals are creeping earlier and earlier in the year (Deschutes actually released this year's Jubleale less than two months after I bought the Fa La La La La), and partly to set up this brilliant blog post about a vertical.

So Friday night at a neighborhood gathering, we did an informal vertical tasting of the 2013 Fa La La La La versus the 2014 Fa La La La La (I think the 2013 one is the fuzzier bottle in the picture).

First impressions of the 2013 Fa La La La La were good:  oh yeah, that's the piney bruiser we were looking for.  But then we tasted the fresh article from 2014, and there was simply no comparison -- the fresh bottle was approximately 100 times better than the old one.  It had the same piney bitterness, but far more floral hop aroma and a much more pleasing flavor.  Highly recommended this year.

Now, perhaps the old bottle would have held up better if it had been stored properly for the past year (it did spend 5 months in my refrigerator).  But why risk it?  Drink it fresh.

Hey, did Double Mountain stop re-filling their bottles?  It was a noble idea, but I notice the deposit on them is only 5 cents these days, and the newer labels don't mention re-filling.

Jubelale Ten-year Vertical (Plus Jubel 2000)

The second post ever on It's Pub Night was a report on a five-year vertical of Deschutes Jubelale.  I fell in love with that beer during our first winter in Portland in 2003, and started a project to build a ladder of Jubelale vintages by stashing a case in the basement each year.  It's a fun idea, but it's not a beer that changes all that much from year to year.  I kind of wore out my friends with a few years of ritualized vertical tastings, so the collection got less and less interesting to me over time.  A couple years ago I cut back to just saving a 12-pack each year, and this year I don't anticipate keeping any.  I still love the beer, I just plan to enjoy it fresh from here on.

This year seemed an appropriate moment to let it go, because I still had two bottles left of that original 2003 case, so I could hold a ten-year vertical as a last hurrah. The good gentlemen at The Beermongers allowed me to cart in my dusty bottles for an afternoon tasting with a posse of Portland beer geeks and random passers-by.  We had a nice time, and it was interesting to get everyone's take on the various years.  Jeff Alworth has already written a very insightful blog post about the tasting, with lots of details it didn't even occur to me to take note of, like the clarity of various vintages, and a quick chemistry lesson on cellaring beer.  Go read his article.

I asked people to vote on their three favorite years.  The results were not exactly what I expected.  For a few years I've been trumpeting the idea that if you're going to age beer, two years is the best amount of time -- long enough to let the flavors mingle and mutate, but not long enough for the beer to spoil.  In the vote at our tasting, the 2- and 3-year-old vintages (2010 and 2009) were well respected, but it was the 4- and 5-year-old 2008 and 2007 bottles that were the big hits.  This was not a blind tasting, so there is probably some bias here based on people's expectations of the various years.  Here are the results of the poll -- for the final score I awarded 3 points for a 1st place vote, 2 points for 2nd place, and 1 point for 3rd.

Year	1st place	2nd place	3rd place	Score
2003	0	1	2	4
2004	0	0	0	0
2005	1	0	1	4
2006	0	1	2	4
2007	5	0	0	15
2008	3	1	3	14
2009	1	3	0	9
2010	1	3	1	10
2011	0	1	0	2
2012	1	0	1	4

The 2008 had more fans -- 7 of us found it a favorite -- but the 2007 had only first-place votes.  Isn't that kind of weird?  People who liked that year really liked it.  Interestingly, that was the new vintage when I wrote up my 5-year vertical, and at the time I wrote that it seemed like the best batch since the 2003.  I cracked a bottle tonight as I'm writing this, and it is perfectly clear, but a little too oxidized for my tastes. The bottles I have from 2004 have never been good, I don't know if that was a bad year or if I just got a damaged case.

One unexpected windfall of the tasting was that three people -- Jeff, Jim, and Wallace -- contributed 12-ounce bottles of Jubel 2000.  Yes, we had three bottles of Jubel 2000 at this tasting.  That's not the 2000 vintage of Jubelale, it's the Double Jubel that Deschutes makes a batch of every year, but only bottles every 10 years.  I did not have very high hopes for 12-year-old bottles of beer, but it was actually in very good shape.  There was of course a little oxidation, and a little rich soy-sauce taste, but it was a very tasty, malty, big beer.  Several people noted differences between the three bottles -- not too surprising given their age -- but I thought they were more alike than different.  (For a better review of the bottles we opened, read Brian's Jubel 2000 review on Beer Advocate.)  A big thank you to those guys for bringing a beer that I never expected to get a taste of, let alone three tastes of.

So we had a 10-year vertical of Jubelale, a 3-bottle horizontal of Jubel 2000, and I also opened a bomber of Jubel 2010 to compare with the Jubel 2000.  To be honest, I liked the Jubel 2010 when it was fresh, but bottles I've opened over the last couple years have disappointed me.  At the tasting, however, it was delicious.  Perhaps it was the good company, or maybe it is now coming into its own.  Given the longevity of J2K, I think I'll hold my last Jubel 2010 bottle for a while.  A few people cast their votes for the big Jubels:  Jubel 2000 got 7 points (1 1st, 2 2nds, 2 3rds), and Jubel 2010 got one 2nd-place vote for 2 points.

I can't think of a better way to end a tradition than to share it with a group of friends. It was a great way to end an era, my thanks to everyone who was there.

Cascade Sang Noir Vertical

Last Thursday evening I was encouraged to get out of the house when my wife was hosting her book group, so I walked down to the Cascade Barrel House to try the 2007-2010 four-year vertical tasting of Sang Noir they were offering that night.  I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool fan of sour beers, but I do appreciate cherry beers like Cascade's Kriek, and I have a history with Sang Noir, having tried a couple of vintages of it at previous Holiday Ale Festivals (in 2009 and 2010).

It was a small-world evening at Cascade that night.  When I arrived, honorary Portlandians Jim and Joan were holding down the west end of the bar, and I sat at an open barstool not far from them.  You might recognize them as the couple from Alabama that sports their funky beer-patch jackets every year at the Holiday Ale Festival -- I snapped a picture of them for my recap of the HAF 2008.  After a while of talking to Jim and Joan across the fellow on the barstool to my left, I finally introduced myself to him only to find out that he was Dan Engler, the owner and brewmaster of one of Portland's newest breweries, the German-oriented Occidental Brewing.  Then Portland beer expert and Sierra Nevada Beer Camp alumnus Harry Sanger (in the picture) showed up to try the vertical, saying that all the "Sang Noir"s on the chalkboard kept catching his eye and making him think they'd written "Sanger" up there.

Anyway, about the beer.  Sang Noir means "black blood" in French, though it's not noticeably darker than Cascade's Kriek, or even the Sang Rouge. Cascade says it is "a blend of red and double red beers that were aged in Bourbon and Pinot Noir barrels for 12 to 24 months then blended with barrel aged Bing and sour pie cherries".

All of the vintages were extremely tart, with Cascade's characteristic lactic bite.  My favorite was definitely the 2009 -- it was the smoothest and clearest version, and had the strongest cherry flavor.  Dan and Harry both preferred the 2008, which was by far the funkiest vintage of the four:  quite musty and earthy.  The 2010 was probably the simplest of the bunch -- very sour of course, but with a decent cherry flavor.  I thought the 2007 was starting to show some oxidation, though maybe that was just part of the intentional woody funk:  my notes describe its flavors as pomegranate and oak.

When I tried Sang Noir 2010 at the 2010 Holiday Ale Fest, I wrote that it had more cherry and less funk than the 2009 version.  That wasn't the situation Thursday, where the 2009 was definitely the least funky and most cherry of the the four vintages.  It makes me wonder if the dates on these are shifting:  is the 2008 served at the pub the same batch that was called 2009 at last year's HAF?  Similarly, the fruitier, less-funky 2009 at the pub was more reminiscent of HAF's 2010 vintage.

As of last night, Cascade's website still listed the 2010 and 2009 Sang Noir on tap (only 3 oz. tasters of the 2009).  If you're like me, and the cherry interests you more than the sour, I recommend trying the 2009 before it runs dry.

Sierra Nevada Celebration Vertical Tasting 2011

Saturday my friend Lindsey and I took advantage of a break in the rain and biked over to Woodstock Wine and Deli for WWD's annual vertical tasting of Sierra Nevada Celebration.  I had always been intrigued by the event but never attended, so I was happy to get in on that. Every table in the place was full, but it was never more crowded than that during the time we were there, so the atmosphere was busy and exciting without being uncomfortable.

Celebration is a wonderful beer, the progenitor of the Hoppy Holiday Ale category, though it ticks me off that Sierra Nevada put the misleading tag "Fresh Hop Ale" on Celebration's label again this year when the beer only contains dried hops.  Remember, dried hops are NOT fresh hops, despite SN's wacky definition of "fresh" as dried and shipped within 7 days.  Nevertheless, it is a delicious beer if you like lots of hops and lots of malt, and this year's batch really hit the spot with me.

It seems slightly odd to age a beer known mainly for its hop character, but you'd be surprised how well the hop flavor held up in some of the older batches, and it does give you a glimpse of the year-to-year variation in the hops, since the beer's recipe is the same every year.  WWD tapped kegs from seven consecutive years:  2005-2011.  For the most part, I preferred the newer batches in the tasting, though for some reason the odd-numbered years stood out over the even-numbered ones (Lindsey called this "reverse Star Trek movie ranking"):

• 2011: hoppy and clean
• 2009: hoppy with some oxidation
• 2005: hoppy and surprisingly flowery still
• 2010: hoppy and piney
• 2007: hoppy and a hint of maple
• 2008: hoppy and malty with more oxidation than '09
• 2006: hoppy but it's gone around the bend

I was surprised at how much I liked the oldest beer in the bunch, the 2005, which still had more floral hop notes than I got from the other years.  The 2006 was a dog:  interestingly, way back at the 2007 tasting Dave Selden also panned the '06; reporting on last year's tasting, Lisa Morrison found that the 2005 was off but she enjoyed the 2006.  Go figure.  Among people I talked to at the tasting Saturday, there was a lot of love for the 2008 and 2007 vintages, though they were pretty low on my list.  That's one reason I've been cutting back on my cellaring activities -- you can't go wrong with fresh beer, and there is definitely a tipping point after which even the biggest beer is too old, though the tasty 2005 Celebration shows that it's still a worthwhile experiment to age a few old favorites.

By the way, Woodstock Wine and Deli is an interesting place to shop for bottled beer.  They hide a few beers away and shelve the vintages later at random times.  Saturday there were bottles of Celebration as far back as 1996 for sale; on previous visits I've seen bottles of Bridgeport's Old Knucklehead from the 90's as well.  Even if you don't find that special bottle, they always have three or four decent beers on tap.

Old Jubelale

It might be silly to save Deschutes Jubelale in the basement year after year, but it's what I do. I started off putting a case aside every year, but last year I only saved 12 bottles, and I'll do the same this year (oops -- just stole one of this year's to have something to write about; better remember to replace it).

Over the past few days I've been rotating up some 2008 and 2009 bottles into the fridge. After a year or two, the flavors are rounded a bit; hops and spices have faded and the malt really comes out. It seems like the mouthfeel is a little denser, but having just cracked a brand new bottle, I think that's an illusion brought about by the lower bitterness.

The year-old (2009) bottle is a pleasant counterpart to a fresh bottle -- cloudier, flatter, mellower, more subtle; malt and molasses flavors, plus a lingering memory of the hops. The two-year old is more of the same, but the oxidation is starting to creep in, though not in a totally bad way. I once heard someone say that there was a pleasant oxidation in a beer we were tasting -- I think it was something old brought out for a Fred Fest one year -- and I was a little flabbergasted at the thought that someone would appreciate that damp paper taste. Now I understand. The oxidation really dominates the nose on the 2008, but it actually adds something a little interesting to the taste. Now, that case of 2004 Jubelale in my basement that was badly, horribly oxidized after only a year is a different story -- anyone need some bad beer?

The 2010 is a gem. Everyone likes to say of Jubel "It's good this year" or "It was better last year". I'm not sure if this year's is better than the 2009, but it might be: it's a beautiful chorus of roasted malt and piney hops. Lingering in the background is a faint rosewater flavor that ties a lot of Deschutes beers together for me -- I get a similar sensation from Black Butte and especially Cinder Cone. Tasty stuff. I'll have more to say about it about a year from now.

For another twist on Jubel, check out the Jubel Wassail schemed up by Ezra and Jacob for Saturday's "Brewing up Cocktails" event at the Hop and Vine.

Mirror Mirror Mirror Mirror

Take Deschutes' very drinkable Mirror Pond Pale Ale, and double everything in the recipe except the water. Now take two different vintages of that, and see if you can find your way out of the hall of mirrors. Dave and I went down to the Deschutes Portland pub for lunch today, so I could check out the two vintages of Mirror Mirror barleywine they have on tap: this year's and 2005's. Dave was there last week, and reported that the 2005 they were serving was excellent. I don't know if you tried the 2005 at last year's Holiday Ale Fest, but the sample I tried had gone around the bend, and I heard the same about the 2005 MM at this year's Barleywine Festival.

So it was a delight to have a well-preserved sample of the 2005, and even more delightful to try it next to this year's model. The 2009 has the classic barleywine flavors of dense malt and strong alcohol -- without being out of balance. It's on the hoppy end of the spectrum, and in fact the fragrant hops are the main thing you get in the nose. The finish is very bitter. It's a delicious aperitif right now; give it a couple years in the basement and it will be even better.

By comparison, the hops in the 2005 had mellowed quite a bit. They were definitely still present in the flavor, but the aroma was all whiskey -- most likely from the bourbon barrels that part of the batch was aged in. It was a delicious drink, the flavor beginning to get a little dusty, but not spoiled at all. In the picture above, the 2005 is the paler, cloudier snifter on the left; the 2009 is the darker clearer one on the right.

I like this technique of doubled recipes from Deschutes. Mirror Mirror, Double Black Butte, Double Cinder Cone.... Is Abyss a Double Obsidian?

The wife-proofed wax-dipped bottles of this year's Mirror Mirror are stamped confidently with a "Best After" date: April 2010. I agree, but I would also advise against keeping them too long. My current hypothesis is that two years is the right amount to age big beers. That's enough to let the ingredients mellow and interact, but not enough for the beer to decline. Whether it's this year or next, make sure you take a look in the mirror.

Doggie Claws and Jubel Vertical 2008

A few of us got together Saturday at Brett and Debbie's house, where Brett put together a vertical tasting of 6 years of Hair of the Dog's Doggie Claws -- 2002 to 2008, missing only 2007. The 2002 seemed to use a different recipe than the other years: from 2003 on the color was a beautiful mahogany, while the 2002 had a lighter --but still beautiful -- orange-gold color. A little grassier hop flavor in the 2002 than the later years, even though the labels for all had the same text about Simcoe and Amarillo hops.

All of the years were mighty fine barleywines, with plenty of power and maple/brown-sugar flavor. The 2008 was quite drinkable but will clearly benefit from more time in the bottle. My favorite was the 2006, it had smoothed out just enough, but not too much. I know a lot of people age big beers for many years, but I'm starting to form the opinion that two years is about the right amount. Like the Doggie Claws, the 2-year-old Roots Epic we had last month was just right; by contrast, the 3-year-old Deschutes Mirror Mirror at the Portland Holiday Ale Fest was past its prime. There are always exceptions: Matias opened a dark Belgian that he said was undrinkable right after he brewed it 6 years ago, but which was lovely Saturday.

Since we were already vertical, I dragged five years of Deschutes Jubel Ale up from the basement to take to Brett's. To be honest, we didn't detect much difference between the various years, except for the always terrible 2004 -- I got a bad case -- and the obviously fresh 2008. Even so, I'll take the 2006 as my favorite, since I've decided two years is the proper amount of time to age beer.

I could only find one six-pack holder to transport my Jubels in, but I discovered some beer geometry that I didn't know about before. You can put a six-pack holder into a grocery bag so that each corner touches a side of the bag, and it blocks off the corners of the bag so that you can put four more bottles in without the bottles clinking together. That's how you can carry 10 delicate beers with a single six-pack holder. To carry 12 delicate beers, arrange 10 of the bottles as above. Then open the other two bottles and drink the contents.

Here's an account of our Jubel vertical from last year. Coincidentally, that was the first real entry on this blog, and this post, about a year later, is the 100th entry. Cheers! to all of you: the friends who shared these beery adventures; the brewers and servers that kept us awash in good beer; and the readers and commenters who flattered me with your attention to this slightly silly project.

Deschutes Abyss 2008

Gentlemen, start your engines! Ladies, you too. The race is on to see if you can get your bottle of Deschutes' legendary oak-aged Imperial Stout before all of it gets hoarded or auctioned on ebay. I ran into a fellow last year who had made the rounds until he had -- this is what he told me -- 5 cases in his basement. That's only because he drank the sixth case. At least he wasn't auctioning it.

I wasn't up for the 10 PM release party Friday, but Dave and I headed over to the Portland pub for lunch Saturday. They had sold out of bottles Friday night, but they still had both the 2007 and 2008 Abyss on tap -- they'll do you a "flight" of 5 oz. of each. It was great to taste them side-by-side. This year's is spot-on, big body, big booze, and big hops occasionally peeking out. Last year's is even better. I don't chalk it entirely up to age, because tasting it immediately brought me back to remembrance of that same flavor from last year. Among other things, I think the 2007 has more licorice flavor, which seems like it would turn me off but which somehow works just right.

They still had the little two-stop flights when Carla was there yesterday, so you might want to scoot down there and check it out. They come out of the taps way too cold, let them warm up a bit. Drink, hoard, and share as much as you can, but don't be a lowlife and buy it up just to auction it on ebay. You do have my permission to auction your empty bottles.

First Fresh Hops 2008

Since John Harris' Lupulin Ale was my favorite fresh-hop beer last year -- and I wasn't alone in that assessment -- I had to be at the Full Sail Pilsner Room last Wednesday when this year's Lupulin was presented to the public. Actually, this was the first of three single-hop variations of the ale, all with the same malt bill. This first batch was made with Mt. Rainier hops.

It wasn't a madhouse at the Pilsner Room, like it was a few months ago when John presented some barrel-aged stouts and porters. So I was able to walk right up and say hello, and snag a seat at the bar so I could eavesdrop as John Foyston interrogated him about the beer. Brett showed up later and had a couple Lupulins with me.

On Friday evening, however, it was a madhouse at Bridgeport when Dave and I went over for the Hop Harvest opening night. I was glad we went, because in addition to this year's offering, they also served up the 2006 and 2007 incarnations of Hop Harvest. That vertical tasting confirmed my opinion that the 2007 Hop Harvest -- while an excellent strong IPA -- overplayed the hops and drowned out the fresh-hop goodness. The 2006 was more to my liking.

On to this year's beers. My first impression is that this batch of Full Sail's Lupulin doesn't have that green, green flavor that last year's had, that was so fantastic. John said that last year's was made with a last-minute windfall of fresh Amarillo hops from Hop Union. He was unable to get any Amarillos this year, but he says that apart from the hops the recipe is the same. That surprised me because the color is quite a bit darker than last year's. Dark but also clear -- wasn't the 2007 Lupulin kind of cloudy?

The 2008 Lupulin reminds me of Deschutes' Green Lakes Organic Ale, which I like a lot. It's got that roasty-sweet richness, plus a lot of hops, naturally. The very bitter finish calls to mind Sierra Nevada's Southern Hemisphere Harvest Ale, though the SNSHHA didn't have that rich Green Lakes flavor backing it up. So, I'm a little disappointed in this first taste, but I will be very interested to try the other variants. [Update (2008/10/21): The Nugget- and Cascade-hopped versions are awesome.] And there should be plenty of it to go around: John said he'll brew seven times as much Lupulin this year as last -- 140 barrels vs. 20.

Bridgeport's 2008 brew -- also darker in color than previous years -- seems a little more on target than Full Sail's. You get a little more of the grassy fresh flavor, though the bitterness still is more predominant than I'm looking for. I give a "B" grade to each of the three harvest beers I've had this year -- the third one being Rock Bottom -- but so far my favorite is Bridgeport's.

Stay tuned: the season is just getting started.

Jubel Vertical Tasting, 2007

Last night we had our annual vertical tasting of Deschutes' Jubel Ale. This being our fifth winter in Portland, we had five different years of Jubel to try.

Before going into the details, some history. In the winter of 2003, we had only been living in Portland a few months, but we already had a regular neighborhood pub night going, usually Mondays at the Lucky Lab. My next door neighbor, Dave, was excited when that year's Jubel Ale came out, and after a taste (or two or three) I understood his point of view. It's a delicious, dark, sweet, spicy winter brew.

Dave and I were buying cases of it at a time, and somehow it got into my head that I would save a case every year, and every year break out a six-pack from earlier years, to keep a five-year "beer ladder" going. There have been ups and downs with that program -- the case of 2004 I put down seems especially terrible -- but in my stubbornness I have persisted, and here we are in 2007 with five different years to try.

The 2003 Jubel Ale certainly seemed to be a standout, and each year it still is one of the best-tasting. I have high hopes for 2007, it seems to me to be at least as good as 2003. And the 2006, which didn't drive anyone wild when it was fresh, tasted very good this year after aging for a year. One reason the 2004 might be bad is that I bought refrigerated 12-packs and then stashed them in the basement. Last year we decided "ferrous" was the best word to describe it. It tastes like iron, or blood, or a mouthfull of pennies.

Being the lazy blogger that I am, I invited dozens of people over for the vertical tasting, and put out sheets of paper for them to mark their comments on. That way, all I have to say is that I rank them in this way: 2003, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004. Surprisingly, at least some of the tasters this year liked the 2004. I'm not ashamed to say that I thought it tasted as bad as ever.

Here are the anonymous, sometimes dubious, but often insightful comments of this year's tasters:


2003

• More stoutish
• A bit sweet, molasses, rich
• Porter/stouty, like mushroom hunting in the fog
• Smooth, cherry(?), balanced hops
• Nutty, sweet... chestnut essence
• Super full flava
• Sweet! (Dude!) Sweet! (Dude!)
• My favorite
• Silky smooth pajama
• Sweet, nutty, but with a bite at the end

2004

• Tastes like a tree, or sap, a little molasses or tar
• Flat, metallic, spoiled
• Bitter -- not so good
• Fruity, light metallic, similar to '05
• Sweeter
• Butter love
• Flat -> in a good way
• No bitterness/Not too sweet

2005

• S'allright
• S'right
• Spicy -- a bit metallic(a)
• Hoppyish taste -- more "fresh" tasting
• Bitterish
• "Middle of the batch" tonight -- not notable but OK
• Crispy critter
• Sweet, chocolate-like
• The winner according to Gypsy

2006

• Like the '04 but sweeter, smoky like the sausage
• Whole lotta hop
• Definitely hoppier than previous years
• Tinny taste
• Effervescent
• Big opening flavor, mellows with a slight bitterness
• Smoooth butt

2007

• Tastes brand new, not as complex as other years, but kinda easier to drink
• Good balance of hop and malt, but lost the spices
• Clean tasting -- distinct flavors -- balanced
• Thick but still hoppier than the old school '03
• Simpleton

So there you have it. I don't know what to make of "smoooth butt" or "simpleton", but generally you get an idea of peoples' opinions of the different years. Happy Holidays!