NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/beer/8022

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!news.Brown.EDU!pilsner!plutchak
From: [e-mail] (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: alt.beer
Subject: Re: boston pubs
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:03:11 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
Lines: 61
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenneth J. Schneider) writes:
>i went out to the boston beer co. saturday and thought i would report. i wasn't
>all that happy w/ the experience, in contrast to someone who posted here a few
>months ago. prices were what i expected for brewpubs...

   Hmmmm.  Maybe Koch has a point with his lawsuit against the Boston Beer
Works.  Let's hope this message doesn't make it into the hands of his
lawyers.

>we ordered six of the ~12 types of beer they had. i don't remember them all, but
>i do recall several things: the outmeal stout was good but i didn't find it very
>"stout"; it was dark, but i felt it a bit lacking, at least compared to sam
>smith's. i ordered the barley wine. it was 10% alcohol--aren't they typically a
>bit stronger?

   I think they do lighter ales best, e.g. the brown ale, pale ale, and
bitter.  The stout is OK, but Guinness in bottles is better.  I really like
the strong ale, though.  My understanding of what is and isn't a barley wine
is that they start at around 8% alcohol, but are typically closer to 10 or
11%.

>tried the blueberry and cranberry beers. the cranberry was not discernable as
>having any cranberry flavor. the blueberry was better--the aftertaste was
>definitely blueberry. no whole blueberries though, as was reported here :-(
>--they said they were out. i was hoping for something similar to a lambic in
>either of the above. no luck.

   I find their fruit beers in general disgusting, but the holiday ale, with
orange and spices, was great.  Had they run out?

>on the back of the menu, it was stated that the brewing process takes about 10-14
>days. is this short? how 'bout for the barley wine? bbc had an eisbock which took
>about 3 months to make. apparently, while the beer is fermenting, the temperature
>is lowered so that some of the water freezes. the ice is then removed, raising
>the alcohol content to over 10% they claimed.

   Brewing and fermentation can take only 7-14 days, especially for ales,
which are fermented at warmer (and faster) temperatures than lagers.
Generally, any beer benefits from some aging after than point (my homebrew
tends to taste best 6-8 weeks after bottling).
>
>which they claimed was the strongest beer available (13.8 or 14.8%), with the
>exception of samiclaus, which they also had. the samichlaus was apparently from
>92--the waitress said they had run out of '91. is this right?

   Probably right.  It's brewed once per year, on something like December 6,
and aged for 11 months.  It's distributed about a year later, so I think
the 1992 Samichlaus was brewed in December of 1991.  As you can imagine,
once a previous year's supply is gone, it's gone.  I was lucky enough
to try a bottle of this year's brew.

>a few random questions:
>sunset had bier du garde. i saw this term go by earlier. what is it?

  Biere de Garde is a sort of French country-style beer, and is usually
strong, flavorful, and bottle-conditioned.  It's more like Chimay than,
say, Coors (:-).  I just had a nice blond biere de garde (Castlain?),
which was great.
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Disclaimer: Involuntary vocalization may occur.