This is a train of thought sparked by the large amount of sediment in the two bottles of Thornbridge Halcyon that I drank this week, although it's not specifically about that beer or brewery. For the record, I think it's a great beer, and after having been lucky enough to have a couple of pints at the Sheffield Tap last night, think that Thornbridge are one of the most most focused, exciting and technically proficient breweries in the UK today.
My question is pretty straightforward: How do people feel about brewers releasing new beers that turn out to be slightly flawed in some way? I made my feelings clear about Gadd's Reserved a few months ago, and would point out that Eddie Gadd correctly (but still quite magnanimously in my book) offered to replace any beers that people weren't happy with. Also, I'm sure that it was awesome when it was bottled, but perhaps it wasn't stable enough for the long haul (or even the medium haul).
This year's Halcyon is a great beer, but speaking to brewer Kelly Ryan, it's clear that they didn't actively engineer or desire the loose sediment that has occurred. And there are a few brewers currently making small batch trial beers (3 or 4 brewer's barrels at a time) which are just that - trial beers. And every now and again, something will happen so that a batch of a signature brew isn't quite what it should be. Should they be selling them? As a retailer, it's easy to sell the first case or two of a new beer, but the real test is repeat sales - are people coming back and buying it again, or is it a bit underwhelming? And if it is underwhelming, should it even be on sale in the first place?
I'd love to know your thoughts.
Have you ever tried Boggart...?
ReplyDeleteDo tell.
ReplyDeleteThey're a good example of your point. They have, in the past, anyway, sold bottles that are obviously under par. Way too much carbonation, variations in the same batches and "new" beer which were hardly different to the old ones. I remember a retailer complaining to me that it was frustrating as he was trying to support them but repeat sales were falling off.
ReplyDeleteQuestion is, why do breweries do it?
If it don't taste right don't sell it!
ReplyDeleteIf the issue is with appearance then that's a different matter, but if the customer doesn't understand that the problem is just appearance and doesn't affect the flavor then the brewer risks his reputation, its a hard decision.
If the beer is infected then it's a definite no. If the beer come out different to what they expected but it still tastes ok, then that's fine, even if they just sell it as a one-off and don't brew again (breweries need to experiement to develop new beers). If it didn't turn out ok and it doesn't really taste that good then I'd suck in my pride and pour it away - a bad beer from a brewery is damaging to their reputation and any self-respecting brewer shouldn't put out anything that isn't of a 'good' quality.
ReplyDeleteLoose sediment doesn't worry me, a slight haze or cloudiness is fine, but not something that doesn't taste good. That's what I think.
Bolloks i just wrote a huge great reply and the blogger crashed!
ReplyDeleteI agree with mark, loose sediment and haze doesn't worry me.
I've noticed that more and more beers are coming with warnings about sediment and haze and i hope its not putting too many people off, i do know a few that wont drink a beer if its not crystal clear and doesn't have a head, but each to their own.
the releasing experimental brews is an interesting thing as a i recently had an email from someone asking me to change a review on a product as what i had tried was a test batch, when i questioned the fact there was no indication that it was a test batch and that i had paid good money for the bottle they didnt have an answer.
I don't have a problem trying or buying test beers but i thought that was a pretty poor excuse for my not so complimentary words.
I think the real test comes with how a brewery/brewer/sales person deals with feedback on brews, not everyone will like a brew but it doesn't mean its a bad brew, unless the signs are there that it was off.
ive found my self tipping beers sometimes because they have gone off in which case i usually let the brewer/supplier know but more increasingly just because i dont like them, no fault of the brewer so it just goes down as one not to drink again.
Zak - I remember having a conversation with you a while back in the shop about a certain brewer who (we thought) had some kind of issue with standard control. If I remember, you picked up the phone and spoke to them too - which is the right way to go. Communication is key, and the brewers can often set you straight. Would it be fair to say that if the brewer says to you 'it's cool, go ahead and sell' , you would do? Regardless of reservations? Or would you pull it? Interesting points though, and an interesting view 'from the other side of the counter', so to speak.
ReplyDeleteWe spoke about this on the blog a few weeks back with specific reference to the cask version of Halcyon, which we didn't like at all. Our view is that some breweries, like Thornbridge, have earned the right to the odd dud when they're experimenting because 99% of the beer they make is excellent. There are other brewers, however, who really should be more self-critical and think about the long-term harm they are doing their business by shipping out sub-par product.
ReplyDeleteMost brewers wouldn't ship beer they knew would be wrong in any way. But real beer can change after it's left the brewery - take that Reserved (since you mentioned it), there was a low level of brett detectable a month or so after bottling but it added, rather than detracted from the flavour. That is, until levels got too high some months later. A further example would be a strong IPA - sediment can, in certain circumstances, increase to alarmingly high levels some time after conditioning is complete - it's protein related and linked to high sparge temperatures. But the poor old brewer doesn't know this is going to happen until the beer's in trade - question is, does he initiate a product re-call? It's a judgement call.
ReplyDeleteOr we could just pasteurise it?
Tyson - a longstanding bete noir has been a popular local microbrewery whose beers I consider to have a process fault - there is a pronounced burnt note to them. I've spoken to them about it, and they said that they had solved it (changing a carbonised element and losing a brewer in the process). They seem to sell well in cask, but I feel that their bottled offerings are poor. Against my best instincts, and after a fair bit of badgering by the brewery, we stocked their beers for a bit, and received lots of returns and complaints. I consider that reaction a serious blot on my copy book, but I'm also amazed that the brewery continues to sell what I consider to be poorly made beer, to local acclaim. Even people who should know better acknowledge that heir beers are "an acquired taste". I've asked the owner about the burnt, smoky note in their beers, and his response has been that they don't know where it comes from, but people seem to like it. That, to me, isn't acceptable - but clearly it is to some drinkers.
ReplyDeleteStu - to your credit, I know tha you've bottled beer that you won't sell, because you consider it to be not quite right. All brewers need to be vigilant for that.
ReplyDeleteMark - you're right of course, although quite a lot of brewers that I talk to mess around with the recipe a bit as a matter of routine - it's as though they can't bring themselves to do anything as dull as brew the same beer twice. I guess the question then becomes: At what point do we call this a new beer?
Andy - that's a good example, and is sort of the point of my post. If you pay good money for a beer, then the brewery has released as a commercial product, and it should be evaluated as such. If it's a test batch, send a couple of dozen bottles to your mates, and then send a couple of dozen to neutral parties. And then if you still hear nothing bad, release it.
Leigh - I used the example of that brewer in my first reply - thanks for reminding me. But recently, I've also recently had a couple of badly bottled beers from a very well-respected brewery - flat and oxidised, pointing to a bottling fault. I gave the brewery the option to recall all the stock that we held, but they said that they were confident their beers were good, my two bad bottles notwithstanding. I told them it was their name and reputation on the bottle and on the line. They were happy enough for their beers to remain on sale.
ReplyDeleteBailey - that's an interesting point of view - is it perhaps linked to the acceptance that you might sometimes get a duff pint (or cask) of beer, and you should just chalk it up to the nature of the beast?
ReplyDeleteEddie - thanks for commenting - it would be great if more brewers did. Your last line "Or we could just pasteurise it?" is interesting. Obviously there is some middle ground to be struck between a beer that has a five minute shelf life and one that will last forever, and I understand that it's hard to meet consumer demand all the time (although as I mention in the main post, all of your other beers I've had have been great, and the hop cone in the IPA was an outstanding touch). At the other extreme, right now I'm drinking a Stone Ruination IPA - they only put three months shelf life on it on release, because to them, freshness is everything - the beer is ready to drink on release, and goes downhill from there. Talking to their importers, the knock-on effect of this is that last year they imported eight pallets of Stone beers, whereas this year they only imported two and a half pallets, despite the fat that Stone's beers obviously stay good beyond their absurdly short BBE date.
I'm fortunate enough to rarely encounter infected bottles. However, the one time I did, I emailed the brewery about it, not angling for a replacement, just to be nice and let them know about the problem. They didn't even bother to reply.
ReplyDeleteI thought this post was going to be about some of the nutters in the brewing industry!
ReplyDeleteAs stated it totally depends on the fault. Low level diacetyl or D.M.S. are forgivable, acetaldahyde less so, bacterial infection absoulty not. Haze isnt a biggy. Although there does seem to be a growing trend towards hazy beer. Alot of highly hopped American beers are being churned out with high levels of haze and there does seem to be a growing opinion here that beer tastes better hazy.
ReplyDeletebit of a concern as I totally disagree with that position.
Barm - when I've done that, the majority have shrugged it off or claimed that it was part of their house style.
ReplyDeleteEd - that's another post altogether
Kieran - it's interesting you disagree about hazy beer - is that founded on anything other than personal preference? (and I'm no denigrating personal preference)
If the haze is hop related its not so bad but if its yeast I think it adds a sharpness (yeast bite) that is detrimental to the balance and muddies the flavour profile.
ReplyDeleteIf tey want to sell a test batch, they should just label the beer as just that, lots of us would want to try it out.
ReplyDeleteI also tend to agree with Bailey, if a brewery has a consistent record of excellence, I'm willing to forgive the occational flawed experiment.
Kieran - yeast bite seems to me to only be a problem in some beers, not all - I've no idea why that should be.
ReplyDeleteKnut - that's very even-handed of you. One other instance that comes back to me is that recently a very well-respected brewery said that the new hand bottling of one of their beers was much better - they didn't think much of the previous machine-bottled batch, although that didn't stop them from selling it anyway at full price.
I found this whole discussion very interesting and as a result eventually wrote a blog post.
ReplyDelete