Lambic Digest #0792

eZine lover (@eZine)

Published in 

Lambic Digest

 · 7 months ago

Return-Path: postmaster at lance.colostate.edu 
Received: from srvr8.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr8.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.81]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA18295 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 04:18:08 -0500 (EST) 
Received: from totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.144.16]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA26291 for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 03:56:22 -0500 (EST) 
Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) 
        with X.500 id DAA22950; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 03:56:21 -0500 
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) 
        with ESMTP id DAA22946; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 03:56:20 -0500 
Received: (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.12/8.6.5a (LANCE Revision: 1.3)) id AAA19358 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 00:30:07 -0700 
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 00:30:07 -0700 
Message-Id: <199602180730.AAA19358 at longs.lance.colostate.edu> 
From: lambic-request at lance.colostate.edu (subscription requests only - do not post here) 
To: lambic at 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 
Subject: Lambic Digest #792 (February 18, 1996) 

 

 

 
Lambic Digest #792                             Sun 18 February 1996 

 

 
        Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles) 
                Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator 

 

 
Contents: 
  Scatology of a good lambic (Todd Gierman) 

 

 
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 
Note that the request address is not an automated server.  It forwards 
to a real person who may not be able to process the request immediately. 
Subscription changes often take 2-5 days, sometimes more. 
  
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: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 16:13:28 -0500 
From: tmgierma at acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman) 
Subject: Scatology of a good lambic 

 
>On Fri, 16 Feb 1996 16:47:55 -0800 
>BrewsMead at eworld.com wrote about Odor descriptors: 
> 
>While not having lots of time to delve into details right this minute, I 
>disagree with your assertion ,Todd that we should lose the enteric /fecal 
>tone for describing aromas. 

 
Okay, we can all see where this is heading.  I'll try not to take it there. 

 
>I do not purport to agree or disagree that the bacteria exist or not in brew 
>and / or actually contribute aroma of a primary/secondary or tertiary level , 
>as Meillgard would describe character. I only insist that gut feelings not be 
>used to categorically disallow the use of functional adjectives because you 
>or others don't like the term fecal. 

 
Well, I only insist that gut products not be used to describe something 
that is pleasing to the palate or worthy of aesthetic contemplation.  I 
mean, I know that the artist's shit in a can has been successfully sold as 
art, but I believe that this was based on the ironic content of the work, 
rather than the contents of the can - the main idea being "what fool would 
pay top dollar for shit?" (answer = more than you'd think).  And you're 
right, I am uncomfortable with such overly clinical terms as "fecal" being 
used in the evaluation of beer (particularly ones that cost nearly $15 a 
bottle).  I think that "poopy" is much softer and fits with the warm glow 
that the AHA promotes - something to consider for next year's SOB lambic 
judging. 

 
Maybe my perspective is biased by the issue that fecal/enteric is most 
often used to disparage what is frequently the outcome of the sour mash 
approach to p-lambic brewing.  It just hardly seems a fitting tribute to a 
well-crafted product. Moreover we would not want to give those who live in 
regional markets barren of these beloved products the impression that a 
good lambic is merely sour Budweiser with a little turd essence.  Oops!  I 
think we've arrived. 

 
:-) 

 

 
BTW, I think that the truly best lambics have only a hint of the character 
that we are talking about.  In my experience that is about 1 in every 3 
bottles of Cantillon and the occasional Boon product.  Two of every 3 
Cantillon products tend to be overly aromatic (and acetic) - very rough.  
The best of Boon and Cantillon take you to the edge, but are delicate 
enough to not throw you over.  I can't speak of the CR at the moment.  The 
bottom line is that buying good lambic, as well as making it, really is a 
crapshoot :-O 

 
Todd 

 

 
------------------------------ 

 

 
End of Lambic Digest 
************************ 
-------