Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0583
From postmaster at lance.colostate.edu Fri Apr 21 03:57:59 1995
Status: O
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["6363" "Fri" "21" "April" "1995" "00:30:36" "-0600" "subscription requests only" "lambic-request at lance.colostate.edu" nil "163" "Lambic Digest #583 (April 21, 1995)" "^Date:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2)
with X.500 id DAA29146; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 03:57:57 -0400
Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2)
with SMTP id DAA29137; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 03:57:56 -0400
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA26132
(5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Fri, 21 Apr 95 03:57:54 -0400
Received: (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.9/8.6.5a (LANCE 1.01)) id AAA01421 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 00:30:36 -0600
Message-Id: <199504210630.AAA01421 at longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Reply-To: lambic at lance.colostate.edu (postings only - do not send subscription requests here)
Errors-To: lambic-request at lance.colostate.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 00:30:36 -0600
From: lambic-request at lance.colostate.edu (subscription requests only - do not post here)
To: lambic at lance.colostate.edu
Subject: Lambic Digest #583 (April 21, 1995)
Lambic Digest #583 Fri 21 April 1995
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Cantillon visit part2 (ROB THOMAS)
Send article submissions only to: lambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu
Send all other administrative requests (subscribe/unsubscribe/change) to:
lambic-request at longs.lance.colostate.edu
Back issues are available by mail; send empty message with subject 'HELP' to:
netlib at longs.lance.colostate.edu
Phil Seitz' series on Brewing Belgian Beer is available; the index
from the archives lists individual topics and the complete set.
Start with the help message above then request the index.
A FAQ is also available by netlib; say 'send faq from lambic' as the
subject or body of your message (to netlib at longs.lance.colostate.edu).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 08:01:18 +0200
From: thomasr at ezrz1.vmsmail.ethz.ch (ROB THOMAS)
Subject: Cantillon visit part2
Hi all,
Hi all,
finally I rediscovered the posting address after yet another
system crash.
so here is part two of my, Mike's and sheri's Cantillon visit:
Cantillon Visit, With Mike and Sheri Sharp. 8/April/1995
Part Two, the Beer
By Rob. Thomas
Before I start, I am not a Certified (or certifiable) Beer Judge, and
I may be able to answer further questions, but techno-judge-speak is
out of my league, and I'll point you in Sheri or Mike's direction for
that!
So, to beer. Here is the list of what we had:
Cantillon gueuze
3 week old barrel
1 year old barrel
2 year old barrel
1 year old from a Port
barrel this season's brew of shaarbeek Cherries
Mike's framboise vs. Cantillon (fresh bottling)
St. Emilion grapes
17 year old gueuze
1. Cantillon gueuze
This was the typical (and in this session the benchmark) brew. An
initial lactic and mild acetic acidity led nicely into a warm (not
alcoholic) flavour, well blended with earthy and sweaty Brett tastes.
This rich taste lasted very well, and developed into a long Brett
after taste mixed with the acidity. The completeness of this flavour
development would have matched well with a brew of far higher final
gravity, but for the complete lack of sweetness.
2. 3 week old barrel
hop bitterness was evident but low. There was no hop aroma. The beer
was working hard, with a yeasty and sweet taste. The overall
homebrewers assessment was a half fermented Wit beer (about 1.5 to2
days in my case). The sweetness was a richer maltiness that straight
wort (maybe fewer monosacch.?)
3. 1 and 2 year olds
These to my taste buds were very similar to each other. Neither had
the Cantillon sourness, but were a rather less sweet version of a
Morte Subite (sur lie or on tap versions at least). the progressing
dryness was evident from one to the next, but I would be hard put to
identify them blind. They both lacked the complexity and balance of
the bottled stuff.
4. 1 year old from a Port barrel
this was much more recognisable as a Cantillon product. Its acidity
was very much in evidence. this was combined with a deeper colour and
a grape skin aroma. The taste also showed the presence of a grape
tannin influence as well as a mild but evident port taste. This is the
sort of lambic that if discovered in my barrel at home would be
bottled immediately (preferably under forced carbonation so i could
immediately drink it my self!)
5. this season's brew of shaarbeek Cherries
this is very difficult to describe for me. However, I'll try!
Certainly it was a kriek, however, above and beyond this simple
description it had a taste and smell all its own. These cherries
really do give a completely different flavour to any others I've
tasted. They have an intensity that can't be match (I think) even by
higher addition rates of normal fruit. Jean-Pierre assured me that
these cherries are not "Edelfaul" that is not like the grapes of the
same name (AKA "noble rot").
6. Mike's framboise vs. Cantillon (fresh bottling)
I have a preference here, that is neither instructive or inobvious.
Firstly, J-P liked it. There is a political reason why he should even
give a beer from so far from Payottenland a chance, but he also had
comments and questions. His first and continual question was "is is
spontaneously fermented?". We covered the legistical difficulties, as
well as the natural advantages he has. His comments on our attempts
(and Mike's framboise) were very positive. His major negative comment
was the tannin. This he attributed to too much fruit. The rational
being that the pips would add the tannin. In retrospect it is most
likely the barrel Mike was using. I personally felt there was a
presence in the nose and mouth of what I can only describe as
"Strawberry pit". This had the effect of cutting the flavour
development short. Just as the flavour was begining to develop in the
mouth, it stopped.
7. St. Emilion experiment
This is unfortunate in that I remember little of it I didn't scrawl in
notes after the visit. This should not be taken as a negative point.
The brew was excellent. As I said before, this was essentially a
lambic-gueuze in the cold, warming into a splendid wine. However, with
so much water under the bridge (and lambic under the belt!) I can't do
justice to it here.
8. 17 year old gueuze
this was a real treat. Unlike Jackson's descriptions of old gueuze,
this was certainly not flat. It had a beautiful tight white head that,
appart from colour would have been perfect on a guiness! It was still
spritzy in the mouth, but had mellowed. The acidity was still present,
but far less up front than the youngsters. It was perhaps a little
darker than the new gueuzes. I think it may have benefited being
another 10 to 20 years old. This is the kind of drink to lay down for
your childrens' 21st birthday (along with the tho. hardy). It had
thrown a crusty sediment rather like an old wine (or a drie fontainen
kriek). Any oxidation that might have occured was not really in
evidence.
That's it for my trip report. I apologise for the sometimes very
sketchy descriptions of the beers!
When I get time I'll drop in a few comments and notes, more on the
politics and philosophy of lambic than on the brew itself.
Cheers, Rob.
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
