Well, the deadline to pass bills out of Illinois House committees has come and gone and HB205 was not acted on today by the Illinois House Executive Committee. So where does that leave the measure? According to the Illinois House Rules HB205 has been sent back to the Rules Committee under Rule 19(a).
19. Re‑Referrals to the Rules Committee.
(a) All legislative measures that fail to meet the applicable deadline established under Rule 9 for reporting to the House by a standing committee or a special committee, for Third
Reading and passage, or for consideration of joint action motions and conference committee reports are automatically re‑referred to the Rules Committee unless: (i) the deadline has
been suspended or revised by the Speaker, with re‑referral to the Rules Committee to occur if the bill has not been reported to the House in accordance with a revised deadline; or (ii)
the Rules Committee has issued a written exception to the Clerk with respect to a particular bill before the reporting deadline, with re‑referral to occur, if at all, in accordance with the
written exception. When a bill is re‑referred to the Rules Committee after failure to meet the Third Reading deadline, any floor amendment to the bill remaining in a standing or
special committee shall also be re‑referred to the Rules Committee.
This isn’t great news but it’s not the end of the world either. House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) has extended the deadline on bills in the past and could do so again in this case.
It is also worth noting that HB1988, a “shell bill” that we have been told will eventually be the Anhueser-Busch Bill, has also been sent back to Rules after not passing out of the Executive Committee.
HB205′s counterpart in the Senate, SB88, was passed over for the fourth consecutive time on Thursday in the Senate Executive Committee. That bill has not been amended and still keeps the barrel limit for breweries to self-distribute at 60,000 barrels. In an email to state lawmakers urging them to vote no on the bill the Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois called that number “ridiculous.” But the bill did pick up a second co-sponsor in State Senator Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge). That brings the total number of lawmakers who are on record supporting the legislation to three in the Senate and two in the House. Read in to that what you will.
Both the Illinois House and Senate are off all of next week. Maybe that will free up some time for lawmakers and the interested parties to put their heads together and reach a solution on HB205 and SB88.
If you need something to entertain you while you get caught up on this week’s Save The Craft happenings give this week’s Outside the Loop RADIO show a listen. Host Mike Stephen was kind enough to talk with Ryan about the Save The Craft campaign (starts around the 4:00 minute mark).
[Audio clip: view full post to listen]
Give the whole thing a listen and check out the Outside the Loop RADIO website for an archive of past shows. There’s a lot of good stuff there.
While we all sit around waiting somewhat patiently to find out if House Bill 205 will be called in committee this week, we thought we should catch you up on a few odds and ends.
First, if you haven’t seen the Chicago Sun Times from this past weekend they editorialized on behalf of craft brewers in the state.
A bill being considered in the Illinois House offers a sensible middle road.
It would allow self-distribution for breweries that produce fewer than 20,000 barrels of beer a year, while keeping the three-tier system in place for everyone else. Brewpubs that produce fewer than 50,000 gallons a year also could self-distribute.
The distributors argue that the cap doesn’t have to be that high to protect craft breweries trying to get their business off the ground, and maybe there’s room to negotiate on that. But we can’t see a good argument for further watering down the bill.
Once craft breweries grow to a certain size, they often switch to a distribution network to expand their reach. The proposed legislation would protect their ability, in a highly competitive market, to get that far.
Good stuff. If you haven’t done so already, read the whole thing here.
—
Don’t like reading? Well, you’re in luck. If you’re near a radio Thursday at 10:00 a.m. tune in to 88.7 FM, WLUW. Ryan was interviewed about Save The Craft by Mike Stephen, host of Outside The Loop RADIO. The program is a weekly news magazine that covers, “topics that don’t always get the proper attention in the media, all with a strong and independent Chicago slant.” And if you’re not close to a radio you can listen to the podcast anytime at Outside The Loop RADIO‘s website.
—
Save The Craft is both about preserving the rights of the two breweries in the state that self-distribute and to support the future of craft beer in Illinois. To that end we’ve been trying to put a face to this cause and tell you more about who’s craft we are are trying to save.
Argus Brewery, on Chicago’s south side, self-distributes about one-third of their beer while distributors handle the other two-thirds. The brewery got it’s start by contract brewing for restaurants. You can find their Country House Red Ale at Country House Restaurants in Clarendon Hills, Geneva and Lisle . They also brew McCaffrey’s Irish Cream Ale exclusively for the Ballydole Irish Pub and Restaurant’s in Aurora, Bloomingdale and Downers Grove. And they brew a steam beer called Patron’s Reserve for Quigley’s Irish Pub in Naperville. You can also find the aforementioned beers, along with their popular Pegasus IPA, at Binny’s.
The other brewery that we are fighting for is Big Muddy Brewing in Murphysboro. The produce about 400 barrels of beer a year and self-distributes every last drop of it. Now, you may find it hard to fight for something that you’ve never tried. But, you can’t use that excuse anymore. According to their Facebook page Big Muddy’s stable of beers; Kincaid Wheat, Saluki Dog Dunkel and Pale Ale are now on the shelves of Binny’s in St. Charles and Willowbrook.
So get out there and pick up a sixer of Pegasus, sip a pint of McCaffrey’s Irish Cream or grab an armful of Big Muddy’s beers. The next best thing calling your local lawmaker and urging them to Save The Craft is to support the two self-distributing breweries that are putting out great craft beer.
We posted some information on Twitter and Facebook today regarding House Bill 205, so we figured we would cover all our bases and include the info here too. An amended version of HB205 was jettisoned out of the House Rules Committee today and assigned to the House Executive Committee. The committee is scheduled to meet on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Thursday is also the deadline for House bills to be moved out of committee. We’d tell you that it is “now or never” for this piece of legislation, but the speaker of the house has extended the deadline for certain pieces of legislation in the past and could be moved to do so again, if need be.
As for the aforementioned amendment, on Friday we told that the bill had been altered, dropping the barrel limit for breweries that want to self-distribute from 60,000 barrels to 20,000 barrels. This amendment directly addresses a concern of the Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois, who oppose the legislation. They felt that 60,000 barrels was far too high to constitute a “small brewery”. They also oppose allowing brewpubs to distribute their own beer.
As soon as we find out when this bill will go before committee we’ll be reaching out to a group of lawmakers that sit on the House Executive Committee to urge the passage of HB205. And we would like you to do the same. Passage of this bill out of committee would be the first step in a long road towards making, not just Chicago, but Illinois a craft beer destination now and in the future.
Federal Judge Robert M Dow Jr has issued a stay on his ruling in the case of Anheuser-Busch v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission, extending the deadline for the legislature to reach a resolution in the matter to May 31st. That date coincides with the end of the legislative session. Judge Dow initially gave state lawmakers until March 31st to re-tool the Illinois Liquor Control Act after he found the Act discriminated against out of state breweries.
This is huge news for both Argus Brewery in Chicago and Big Muddy Brewing in Murphysboro. Argus self-distributes about one-third of its beer while Big Muddy self-distributes all of the roughly 400 barrels of beer they produce each year.
The current legislation in Springfield, House Bill 205 and Senate Bill 88, have seen little to no movement since they were introduced in January. Currently SB88 is scheduled for the Senate Executive Committee, but the measure has been passed over the last three meetings because there is no agreement in place between the Illinois Craft Brewers Guild (which wrote the legislation) and the beer distributors. The same goes for HB205. The measure has been awaiting a vote in the House Executive Committee but has not been called for a vote because of the lack of an agreement.
The sticking points appear to be the clause allowing brewpubs to self-distribute, which is currently not part of Illinois law, and the barrel limit for breweries. We told you last week about the Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois’ stance on the giving brewpubs the ability to self-distribute (hint, they don’t like it). And we told you Friday that State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) has introduced an amendment to HB205 that would drop the barrel limit for breweries who want to self-distribute from 60,000 barrels to 20,000 barrels.
Lawmakers go on spring break next week so this week is the deadline to move bills out of committee in the House. House co-sponsor Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro) hopes the bill can move this week. Right now Representative Harris’ amendment is awaiting action from the House Rule’s Committee, which filters bills out to committee and has also been known to let bill’s languish. If the amendment clears this hurdle it’s next step is likely the House Executive Committee. The Illinois House is scheduled to be in session Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this week.
Dark Horse 4 Elf
Spiced Beer, 11.5% ABV
Beer Advocate Rating of A-
Sayeth the Guys:
Karl: As I glance through some of the reviews of the 4 Elf on Beer Advocate, they all seem to say the same thing: “Should age well.” “Probably better with age.” Well, they were right. We sat down with three years of 4 Elf and determined the same thing. At least I did.
The fresh ‘10 Elf was full of raisin flavor and a gushing wetness to it, like it was wetter than normal fluids. There’s a viscosity & physics problem in there somewhere but as I am not an engineer, I’ll defer to someone else to figure it out. I have beer to drink.
Onto the ‘09: I expected this to deepen significantly in flavor over a year’s time, and I didn’t get what I thought I would. The flavors were more distinct but quieter, almost muted. Raisins and spice poke through, but the notes only got so high.
And then, the ‘08: NOW we’re talking. Ginger, cinnamon, spice cookie, rich body and full flavors – either it takes a couple years for this beer to really get crackin’, or the ‘08 batch just kicked a little more ass. Either way, this Elf was clearly superior to the other two years.
Andrew: We’ve done Christmas in July, we’ve done Christmas at, well, Christmas, and now we are doing Christmas on Valentine’s Day. We’ve almost come full circle on the Christmas beers, and I say bring it on. Seems as though the characteristics we find in Christmas-y beers really lend well to aging – the spices and dark fruits just continue to work their magic as they hang out for a year, or two, or five.
This is probably a cheap move on my part, but I concur with everything Karl has said about the 4 Elf.
I was less than impressed by the fresh 4 Elf. Had it stood alone, I would have liked it just fine, but sitting next to the ‘08 and ‘09, it didn’t stand a chance. In addition to what Karl said, I found the fresh 4 Elf to be a tad too bready and had kind of a soapy taste to it. What in the world was that about?
Once I tasted the ‘09 I really knew that I liked where we were heading here. The spices, cinnamon, ginger and raisins were starting to emerge a bit more than the ‘10…so that must mean that…
The ‘08 was incredible. I could have been convinced to believe that someone took some ginger bread cookies and crumbled them up and used them to make a beer and what emerged was this beer. Loved this beer. Wonder what happens if it had even more time to age?
Ryan: When we sat down with a 2009 bottle during our Christmas in July tasting I told you the story of how 4 Elf and I first met. It was a magical night, really. Filled with warming spices, aromas of dark fruits and all things Christmas. So to say I was jazzed about a three year vertical of this would be a serious understatement.
A freshly opened bottle of 4 Elf gives off hints of raisins, plums and dark fruits in the nose. A sip reveals flavors of the aforementioned raisins, cloves, nutmeg and some cinnamon. The flavors are very bright but none really stand out. I mean that in a good way. The 2010 Elf is very well-rounded and epitomizes a winter warmer.
Let one sit around for a year and what do you get? The best way I can describe it is by referencing two others beers; either Great Lakes Christmas Ale or Thirsty Dog’s 12 Dogs of Christmas Ale. Both can best be described as ginger-forward bringing back memories of Christmas cookies fresh from the oven. The ’09 4 Elf was rather gingery too. The cinnamon was much more pronounced as well.
Lose one in the back of your closet for two years and you get a remarkably awesome, ridiculously good winter warmer that would be perfect for a bone-chilling winters night. Cinnamon is the real star in the ’08 bottle. The nose gives off a burst of spicy cinnamon akin to opening a fresh pack of Big Red chewing gum. Sip away (highly recommended, no need to rush) and you get blasts of cinnamon, burnt cinnamon, ginger and clove. This bordered on an out-of-body experience.
I’d hate to rank them because I enjoyed all three on their own, so I won’t. But if you put a gun to my head I’d tell you to buy a four pack and drink one and put the rest back. Andrew brought up a good question too; what would happen if it had more time to age? Well, boys and girls, I may just have to find that out. I just passed through Dark Horse the other day and saw they still had some for sale. I might have to pick up a four pack and forget about it for a few years. You know, for the good of science.
Last month we told you to expect some changes to either HB205 or SB88 pertaining to the barrel limit for breweries that want to self-distribute. Lawmakers sponsoring the legislation formally took that step this week. On Thursday State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) filed an amendment to House Bill 205 reducing the limit to 20,000 barrels or 620,000 gallons of beer. The legislation that was initially filed would allow any brewery that brews less than 60,000 barrels, or 1.86 million gallons of beer, to distribute their product.
The reduction in the amount of beer brewed directly addresses a concern voiced by the Association of Beer Distributors. In a recent email to state lawmakers urging them to oppose HB205 and SB88, the ABDI called the 60,000 barrel limit “ridiculous.”
“The ICBG (Illinois Craft Brewers Guild) claims that small brewers need self distribution to establish their brands in the market but the ICBG wants to define a small brewer as a brewer producing less than 60,000 barrels of beer per year to be allowed to self distribute their product. 60,000 barrels equals 1,860,000 gallons of beer or 826,667 cases of 12 ounce beer or 19,840,008 12 ounce beer bottles – THAT’S A LOT OF BEER. “
An amendment to SB88 could follow suit or HB205 may be the bill lawmakers try and move first. Sources in the Senate have told us the legislation does not have the votes to pass in that chamber as is, so this amendment could be the catalyst to move the legislation. SB88 has been postponed twice and held once in the Senate Executive Committee within the last month and HB205 is still waiting to be heard before the House Executive Committee.
A federal judge gave lawmakers till March 31st to rewrite Illinois’ Liquor Control Act to level the playing field for out-of-state brewers after A-B InBev won a suit in court last year. If legislation is not passed by the end of the month both Argus Brewery in Chicago and Big Muddy Brewing in Murphysboro will lose their self-distribution rights. Argus currently self-distributes about one-third of its beer and uses distributors for the other two-thirds. Big Muddy, on the other hand, distributes all of its beer. They produce 400 barrels, or a little over 12,000 gallons of beer a year.
Karl: In order to tell you about the Wake & Moo Blend of beers, I have to tell you about Ben’s Chili Bowl in Washington DC. Stay with me here.
At Ben’s, a famous greasy-spoon style joint on U Street, they serve what’s basically a chili dog, chili fries, and all sorts of other chili-laden hangover cures. Now, if you were to break down their signature item, called a half-smoke, it wouldn’t be terribly impressive. The bun? Average. The sausage? Well cooked but not otherwise a huge standout. The chili itself? Good, but would you cross half the country for it? Probably not. But put them all together and it becomes a whole that’s far more than the sum of its parts. It becomes a coherent beast of a foodstuff, strong and hearty and rich. It’s magical, and it’s great.
I thought the same thing happened here with the blend of Wake & Bake and the Moo-Hoo or Yoo-Moo or whatever the sweet hell it’s called. Separately? Nothing spectacular. In fact, I didn’t write anything about the Chocolate Milk Stout on its own because I couldn’t really remember much about it. As I look at my notes, they just read as “Bleh, whatever.” And I don’t think I was in a bad mood that evening.
Put the two together, though, and they play off each other like a duet of beer music. The notes of chocolate and coffee and oatmeal and carbonation all roll together into a glass full of goodness. I liked this a lot, and I don’t know why. Barrel this, bottle it, throw it in a cask – the two together work great. If I lived where Terrapin was on draft I’d have to doublefist constantly just to pour the two together all the time. Alas, I don’t see this happening up here any time soon.
In general I love the idea of beer blends, and I believe it’s a trend that’s only going to grow in the future. Ryan and I first stumbled into it while sitting at the bar at Frontera Grill in downtown Chicago, when we found a blend of Rogue’s Mocha Porter with a Lindeman’s Framboise. It was gloriously raspberry-chocolate-y and a door-opener of a drink. Nothing was impossible any more. It’s nice to find further blends of beers that work just as well.
Ryan: I am pretty sure this is not the first time I have purposely “blended” beers. I bet when I was 22 I poured a freshly opened can of High Life into my glass that still had some Old Milwaukee’s in it. Ah, who am I kidding, I didn’t use a glass when I was 22. Straight out tha can was the way to go. Seriously though, pouring one kind of beer and another kind of beer into the same glass is still kind of foreign to me. Sacrilegious, almost. Sure, I had that Rogue Mocha Porter/Lindeman’s Framboise blend a few years ago but I kind of considered that closer to a mixed drink than a blended beer. It was under their fancy cocktail menu, if I recall correctly, and it was poured in to an over-sized red wine glass. It wasn’t until Karl and I hit up Goose Island’s tap takeover at Sheffield’s did I get over my uncomfortableness with blending two different beers.
‘“That’s blasphemy”, I thought. Blending two Bourbon County Stouts – what a waste. It’s funny that after you have sampled a dozen beers that doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. It also helped that the bartender said other people had been doing it to. So, Karl ordered up a coffee & cocoa nib BCS and I went for the cocoa and vanilla bean. Best decision of the night.”
So when Andrew told me he read Terrapin was pouring a blend of Wake ‘N’ Bake and Moo-Hoo I was intrigued. While I was not a big fan of these two beers separately, maybe combining them would make two okay beers into one good one. And you know what? It did.
The Wake ‘N’ Moo gave off a nose of fresh roasted coffee and peanut butter. The taste wasn’t far off with notes of roasted coffee, milk sugar and half and half with a dry, roasted finish. This blend, as I was hoping, took the flavors I liked most out of each beer and blended them seamlessly in to a very smooth and easy drinking beer. Even the carbonation was toned down considerably.
My hat goes off to you, Terrapin, for concocting a fantastic imperial-oatmeal-coffee-chocolate-milk-stout.
Andrew: Right before I received the shipment of Georgia beers, Josh gave me a heads up, “Just so you know, the brewery has been serving up a blend of the Wake ‘N’ Bake and the Moo-Hoo and they are calling it the Wake ‘n’ Moo. You might want to try it.” I’m glad we did.
Also, I knew Ryan and Karl would come around. In their mind the sum was greater than its parts, while I enjoyed the beers separately as well as the wonderful blend that is the Wake ‘N’ Moo. Admittedly this is the first beer blend I’ve ever had. I know both Ryan and Karl were raving about the blend(s) they tried at the Goose Island tasting at Sheffield’s over the summer, so I figured why the hell not, I’ll give it a shot. And the results? Yay for blends!
In the previous reviews of these beers I said that I thought the flavors were a bit muddled and subdued, just not what I was expecting. The Wake ‘N’ Moo resolved those problems. The chocolate and coffee and malts and carbonation just worked, everything played off each other very nicely. I can’t explain it much more than that. What a glorious concoction!
This marked the end of our journey through the beers from Georgia. Hopefully Josh and I can execute yet another trade soon so we can run Round 2 of “Dispatches From The South.”
Terrapin says:
“The Terrapin “Moo-Hoo” Chocolate Milk Stout proudly uses cocoa nibs and shells from Olive and Sinclair Chocolate Company to give this beer its great taste!”
Terrapin Moo-Hoo Chocolate Milk Stout
Milk Stout, 6% ABV
Beer Advocate Rating of A-
Sayeth the Guys:
Ryan: I have a rather passionate, love-hate relationship with milk stouts. My taste buds love them; with the aromas of milk chocolate and coffee with creamer and flavors of silky smooth chocolate. My stomach, on the other hand, hates them. Without going in to great detail we’ll just say there is a revolt of somewhat epic proportions in my stomach anytime I drink a Left Hand Milk Stout or Three Floyds Moloko. Kind of depressing, right? So when Andrew told me about this chocolate milk stout from Terrapin I was both really excited and slightly petrified.
Despite my trepidation I forged ahead, for you. The nose on the Moo-Hoo gives off a hint of chocolate milk, a faint bit of coffee and sugar. The smell is slightly underwhelming, but smells pretty good nonetheless. Take a sip and you get underwhelming flavors of milk chocolate and coffee with half and half. Color me rather disappointed.
I feel like there was more to this beer, or at least I want to believe there is, but everything was shrouded in a bubbly mess of carbonation. It was almost like drinking chocolate milk mixed with seltzer water. I don’t know if this beer got shaken up too much in transit or if this is how the Moo-Hoo generally is, but the over-carbonation took a lot away from this one.
Oh, and for those of you who might be curious about my intolerance to milk stouts – Andrew’s facilities were not harmed in the drinking of this beer.
Andrew: Well, I appreciate Ryan leaving my apartment without soiling my facilities or going through 2 rolls of toilet paper – thanks dude, you are a scholar and a gentleman!
I don’t have the love/hate relationship with Milk Stouts that Ryan does…I’d describe my relationship as love/love. When Josh told me he was sending me a Chocolate Milk Stout, I was excited. I was downright giddy. I was like a ten year old when he finds out school has been cancelled because of snow. And while the Moo-Hoo, much like the Wake ‘N’ Bake, fell into the “Not What I Was Expecting” category, I enjoyed this beer.
The Moo-Hoo had the aroma of, obviously, chocolate, a bit of coffee and the sweetness of fruit, cherries perhaps. True to form, the chocolate dominated the taste of this beer and frankly, it reminded me of the cafe mochas I used to order when I was in high school and didn’t like the taste of normal coffee, but a bit more subdued than that. For those interested parties at home, I have come around on coffee and can drink it without the chocolate and whipped cream…sometimes.
I’ll agree with Ryan and say that I was really thrown off by the carbonation, it was too much. I really wanted a smooth drinking, dense beer. Instead we were left with a somewhat thin beer that had the carbonation of a glass of champagne, no joke.
Bubbles aside, I liked the Moo-Hoo and enjoyed the remaining bottles.
I’ll add that later, when I tried the beer alone, I let the beer warm up to close-to room temperature which seemed to have somewhat addressed the carbonation issues that Ryan and I both noted above.
Terrapin says:
“Black as night, this coffee stout is thick, rich and full of real coffee flavor. Brewed with the Terrapin Wake-n-Bake coffee blend created by Terrapin & Jittery Joe’s Coffee.”
Terrapin Wake ‘N’ Bake Coffee Oatmeal Imperial Stout
Imperial Stout, 8.10% ABV
Beer Advocate Rating of A-
Sayeth the Guys:
(Editor’s Note: We checked out an ’09 and a ’10 on this particular tasting, making this another Adventure in Cellarsitting as well.)
Andrew: As we continue our tour of beers from the state Jimmy Carter called home, we dove head first into bottles of the ’09 and ’10 Terrapin Wake ‘N’ Bake…apologies to anyone expecting our next review to be Billy Beer.
I like stouts. I like imperial stouts. I like coffee oatmeal imperial stouts. And while I liked the Wake ‘N’ Bake, it really wasn’t what I was expecting at all.
(Brief side note – aren’t the labels for the Terrapin beers pretty awesome?)
If you would please, take a look at a previous review of an Imperial Oatmeal Stout here. With that in mind, as we headed this expedition that review is what I was expecting, a complex, boozey, hot mess. What we got, however, was a pretty “thin” beer with subdued flavors, lacking the hit-you-in-the-face quality that some Imperial Stouts have. Is that a bad thing? Not at all.
Coffee stole the show in the Wake ‘N’ Bake and while there was slight heat and burn from the alcohol, it wasn’t overwhelming. I also picked up on a touch of sweetness from dark fruits or something of the like in both the ’09 and the ’10. When put up next to each other, the beers, to me, were very similiar…the ’09 had thinned out a bit, which was to be expected, but there weren’t any glaring, obvious differences between two. There was some discussion/debate on which was sweeter, which had more coffee flavor, which seemed boozier and which one each of us preferred.
I gathered that the other guys weren’t all that impressed with this beer, perhaps because they were expecting a bit…more, more of everything…more booze, deeper flavors and a dense beer. But I liked it. I like that this was an easy drinking Imperial Stout, a beer I could sit and finish three or four in one sitting and not think twice about it.
Karl: Knowing nothing of the Wake & Bake except for the fact that my pothead high school friends would dig the name, we dug in headfirst to these two years of this Terrapin offering. Like many of my pothead friends, this beer had a lot of potential but not much follow-through.
Both the ‘09 and the ‘10 have a good coffee flavor but differentiate between liquor and wine, interestingly. The fresh bottle has a unique aftertaste of red wine, bringing to mind the laughably weird-sounding Chocovine, but working well enough. (I haven’t had Chocovine to compare it to, but I doubt it’d be favorable.) The year of age heated that red wine burn to a much warmer liquor burn, with tons of carbonation on it.
Neither beer had a considerable amount of body, surprising for a beer that promised oatmeal and imperial-ness. The fresh bottle had a touch more heft but not substantially, and neither of these would put you down any heavier than your average Guinness. Naturally, I had to find something weird in the profile of one of these, and I swear that I could taste tap water peeking through in the ‘09, as though a year of age pulled back the curtain on the brewing process and provided a peek straight down to the H20 in the boil. Maybe even a little tonic water as well, which could be provided by the huge fizz put together by Terrapin.
Neither of these really blew me away, unfortunately. Could it be that the colder climates are just naturally more accustomed to making big, hefty wool-coat beers that drape on you and keep you warm? We’ll keep checking into it.
Ryan: Wow. Chocovine. I never thought having a small glass of that with dessert at my dad’s a few months back would ever come up in a social setting, let alone a beer review. I feel so…unprepared. But here I am. Don’t blow it, Ryan. OK. Here goes. Chocovine is…it’s…awful. It’s thick like a milk shake, sweeter than chocolate milk and you can’t really taste much of the “Cabernet grapes,” which might be OK. It’s also kind of chunky, which is equal parts weird and gross. Is Wake ‘N’ Bake weird or gross like Chocovine? No. But it was a somewhat disappointing imperial oatmeal stout.
The ’09 gave off more coffee than chocolate and the ’10 more chocolate than coffee. In fact, the ’09 had some nice roasty, burnt coffee characteristics to it while the ’10 was dominated by espresso and the slightest hint of milk chocolate. As Karl noted above, I did catch some of the red wine notes from the 2010 bottle but it took on more of a white grape flavor than purple. Regardless of the color, the splash of grape in the aftertaste gave it a bit more character.
So what made this beer “somewhat disappointing” and not supercrazyawesomeyay? The carbonation. The ’10 offering only had a light trace of carbonation but the ’09 bottle fizzed like someone dropped an Alka Seltzer tablet in the glass. It was borderline abrasive and really took a lot away from the beer. Call me a snob if you want, but I don’t like my stouts having the carbonated mouthfeel (still not comfortable with that word) of a hefeweizen or wheat beer.
If the drinkers on beer advocate gave this an A- then I wonder what went wrong with the beer in my glass? Did it get knocked around too much en route to Chicago? Did Andrew slip something in my beer? Or are Terrapin’s beers just that carbonated? I want to like this beer, really I do, but I can’t bring myself to do it until I find one that’s less carbonated.
Sweetwater says:
“Winter Coat Season – a strong ale brewed with generous amounts of rich malt, coupled with a taint of cinnamon and mace to keep you warm and toasted all winter long. We double dog dare you.”
Sweetwater Festive Ale
Winter Warmer, 8.6% ABV
Beer Advocate Rating of B+
Sayeth the Guys:
Andrew: I recently received the Festive Ale in a beer trade with a friend from Atlanta (hat tip to Josh), so we decided it was best to sit down and sample this and the rest of the beers from Georgia in one night. While we will get to the rest of the Peach State beers later this week, I’ll go ahead and ruin the surprise (SPOILER ALERT) by saying that this was definitely the highlight of the night…at least for me.
I’ll even go so far as to say that if I could go back and make a change to our “12 Beers of Christmas” lineup and add a brew, it would be this beer – a really great winter warmer.
The description supplied by Sweetwater really sums up this beer nicely. It’s a picturesque ruby red beer that just oozes sweet, bready malts and all the spices you expect to find in a Christmas beer, cinnamon and nutmeg. I thought the addition of dark fruits, some nuttiness and a little brown sugar complimented the spices, hops and malts quite nicely. As any good winter warmer should, the Festive Ale finishes with an easy alcohol burn.
Now I’d like us to all I’d also like to take a moment to return to our high school physics class to discuss viscosity. I noted that the Festive Ale wasn’t nearly as dense as some of the other winter warmers we’ve had this season. And while I expected a thicker consistency in this brew, the Festive Ale was actually pretty thin. Maybe it was because we wrapped up the evening with this beer, but I was very pleased that this had all the good characteristics of a winter warmer, but was a little less of a beast to deal with.
I really enjoyed the Festive Ale, so if you happen to find some bottles of it, pick it up. And if you are so inclined, throw it back for a year and let us know what happens.
Thanks again, Josh!
Ryan: Spot on, Andrew. I thought this would have been a great addition to the 12 Beers of Christmas too. I would have easily put this up there with, and maybe above, the likes of Anchor’s Our Special Ale, Great Lakes Christmas Ale and Thirsty Dog’s 12 Dogs of Christmas. This was an A+ winter warmer that brought all things fruitcake, a warm cup of coffee and chocolate covered cherries together in one bottle.
This beer brought everything to the table that you would expect from a winter warmer; cinnamon, nutmeg and some allspice but it also had some porter or stout-like qualities too it as well. I picked up some subtle dark chocolate as well as just a touch of bitter, roasted coffee in the finish. Dark fruits also made an appearance with the aforementioned cherries, some raisins and plums. This was a touch lighter than other winter warmers, but not by much.
I am a little embarrassed to say, but I had to look up “mace” to see what it was and if I tasted it or not. The brewery notes it above as one of the main components of the beer. Turns out mace is the reddish, waxy covering of the nutmeg seed and gives off a flavor similar to nutmeg but it is a little more peppery. Now, I can’t say that I picked up the peppery aspect of the mace but I definitely noticed the nutmeg flavors.
Mace, and all, this is an intriguing and pretty complex beer for the style. Maybe Josh should send us some more so we can cellar it (hint, hint).
