Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0792
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
************************
-------
