Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0787
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 EAA08327 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:13:26 -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 EAA03408 for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:12:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3)
with X.500 id EAA02602; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:12:21 -0500
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3)
with ESMTP id EAA02598; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:12:17 -0500
Received: (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.12/8.6.5a (LANCE Revision: 1.3)) id AAA14655 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:30:07 -0700
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:30:07 -0700
Message-Id: <199602130730.AAA14655 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 #787 (February 13, 1996)
Lambic Digest #787 Tue 13 February 1996
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Judging Lambics, Again? (Jim Liddil)
Sob winners (Scott Bickham)
Enteric or Not to Enteric (Norman Dickenson)
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: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 7:43:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Judging Lambics, Again?
Ed said, quoting me:
> >I finally got my hands on a bunch of Lindemans Cuvee Rene. This is a truly
> >great product.
>
>
> I just had some at the Spirit of Belgium gathering (congratulations to the
> organizers and to BURP for a fabulous weekend!!!). It certainly isn't like
> anything else I've had from Lindemann, and it's certainly interesting, but
> the enteric/fecal notes were frankly a bit much for my palate.
>
> I would give it a score in the 30s if I were judging it at a competition,
> but I think "truly great" goes a bit too far.
>
Well I guess this is where we disagree isn't it? The Lindemans CR is a complex
multidimensional product. The fact that there is acidity along with brett and
vegetal aromas and flavors is what makes this such a nice beer IMNHO. This
beer represents the base beer Lindemans uses before it is destroyed with syrup.
How can you feel this beer only deserves a 30s score? I has all the necessary
elements of a fine gueuze. Lots of carbonation, great head retention, good
color. And excellent flavor and aroma characteristics. I dare say this beer
is in the same realm as Boon, Cantillon and Hansens. Any one else care to
comment?
> From: "Craig Jones." <Drake_Morgan at airservices.gov.au>
> Subject: Purple Mead!
>
> Chaps,
>
> I know that mead stuff does not usually belong on the
> lambic net, but does anyone know of any microorganisms that can
> make 24hr mead wort turn purple?
>
> It seems to have purple/dark brick red colloidal clots
> collecting on the edge of the fermenter (that look rather like
> the stuff you get out of a wine bottle), I'm using a new recipe,
> but all the stuff I'm using I've used before apart for a bottle
> of lime essence (thrown in just for the hell of it) which
> contained ethanol, lime oil, tartrazine, and a common blue dye
> (whose name eludes me). Any ideas. Could it be the 10g of
> Tannin (in 60L)?
Sounds like a lactic bacteria thing but I am just throwing out speculation.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:18:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Sob winners
Congratulations again to all of the winners. The first place entries
were all very solid beers, with perhaps the exception of my gueuze,
which was only brewed in November. Amazingly enough, the judges
thought it needed more time to develop complexity. I'll post
some of the recipes when I am more competely recovered from
Saturday night, but here are my comments on the beers I was
able to taste:
Belgian Pale (9 entries): My Orval clone won, though it was originally
brewed to be an altbier. It was a double decoction mash, with 3# each
of Vienna, Munich and Pilsner malt and it had 50+ IBUs and some Spalt
flavor and aroma. As it aged, the hops faded and it picked up
some spicy brett. character from a cross-contamination. Although
it still has too much bitterness, it is very similar to Orval.
The judges thought the other Orval-like beers were too sweet,
so I think the key is to overhop it slightly and allow the
brett. to develop for at least 4 months in the bottle. The intensive
mash schedule is probably also a good idea, though not essential.
Belgian Strong (28 entries): Finally Jim Busch gets some recognition
for the beer he brewed for the AHA conference. It tasted young
back in June, but the coriander and orange peel have mellowed out
and blended with the esters from the LaChouffe yeast. It goes
without saying that the competition was very tough, and I was
impressed with the number of well-made brews.
Belgian Dubbel (10 entries): The winning beer was very solid - it
won Best of Show out of 170+ entries in the War of the Worts a few
weeks ago. The judges thought it was a little estery and needed
more plum/raisin, but it definitely deserved to be there. Tom
Cannon thought this beer was better than the one entered by
Andy Anderson last year.
Belgian Triple (10 entries): The winning beer was again brewed by
Chuck Henning. I though the alcohol was a little too noticable,
but that's only when it was pitted against the other BoS beers.
I imagine the same yeast was used, but I'll post both recipes.
Belgian White (20 entries). Larry Grays brewed a nice wit, and
it was definitely better than the two I entered (they scored in
the 30s, and one had the brett. contamination that was in my pale).
Larry used lactic acid to get the sourness, so maybe he can give the
details.
Oud Bruins (11 entries): The judges had to combine the fruit and
non-fruit, simply because there were too many beers that were too
far out of style. I didn't get to taste any of these, so maybe
Tim Artz can give us his impressions when he has more time.
pGueuze (5 entries): See my first paragraph. I'll be interested
to see what happens to mine as it ages, but at the moment it has
more of a winey character than lambic. Maybe the candida has
overwhelmed the brett. and pedio, in which case some blending
might help.
pLambic with Fruit: The winning beer, brewed by Paul Edwards,
went straight to the top during the Best of Show judging. The
judges thought it was very balanced, though Paul says that it
hasn't done well in local competitions. No surprise there,
since it's often tough to find judges who are familiar with
the nuances of the style.
Scott
- --
====================================================================
E-Mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil FAX:(202) 404-7546
Office: Naval Research Laboratories Home and BJCP:
Code 6691, Complex Systems 7507 Swan Point Way
Washington, D.C 20375 Columbia, MD 21045
(202) 404-8632 (410) 290-7721
====================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:43:58 -0700
From: Norman Dickenson <Norman.Dickenson at sonoma.edu>
Subject: Enteric or Not to Enteric
Subject: Time: 2:00 PM
OFFICE MEMO Enteric or Not to Enteric Date: 2/12/96
In the February 12 issue of L.D. Ed Westemeier wrote:
>On 2/10/96, Jim Liddil wrote:
>>I finally got my hands on a bunch of Lindemans Cuvee Rene. This is a truly
>>great product.
>I just had some at the Spirit of Belgium gathering (congratulations to the
>organizers and to BURP for a fabulous weekend!!!). It certainly isn't like
>anything else I've had from Lindemann, and it's certainly interesting, but
>the enteric/fecal notes were frankly a bit much for my palate.
>I would give it a score in the 30s if I were judging it at a competition,
>but I think "truly great" goes a bit too far.
This is an interesting development! Would Lindeman's Cuvee Rene receive
a score in the 30's BECAUSE it's enteric/fecal notes are "a bit much for
my palate", or because of something else? I too have had the pleasure of
tasting Cuvee Rene and found it to be absolutely supurb. It's enteric
qualities provided a welcome additional flavor component not so readily
perceivable in Boon or Cantillon, while not so massively enteric as
Hansons (which was borderline being a bit much for MY palate). Now, while
I realize that my exposure to "real" lambics (as opposed to those
syruped products) is somewhat limited by West coast availability, I had
assumed that the aforementioned products represented some of the best lambics
(gueuze) available. I felt Cuvee Rene on a par with Boon's Mariage Parfait
and superior to Cantillon and Hansons (personal preferences).
Regardless of my personaltaste preferences, I feel that each of these products
would be a 40+ point beer with diverse flavor profiles.
My point is that I am confused, and feel less than competent to be a
judge of Gueuze until I resolve why I see Rene Cuvee as a 40+ point
beer whereas Ed would score it in the 30's. My training and experience
as a judge tells me to use "classic" commercial examples of a style for
evaluative comparison and to judge & score based on how well a beer
represents the style, not my personal preferences for or against
particular flavor components. I invite comments which might help me
resolve my quandary.
-norman-
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
