The Life and Times of Neil

So a quick word tonight on a bottle of what proclaims itself “the strongest Belgian beer”, coming in at a fairly hefty 12%abv.

The beer is bronze in colour with a nose that drifts between malty and slightly floral. On the palatte, the beer is quite sharp with hints of citrus; but there is also a noticable sweetness, particularly after it’s been stood in the glass for a while. The high alcohol content also leads to a certain astringency. The finish is somewhere between bitter and sour and tends to catch in the back of the throat. At first the finish is somewhat muted, but once again becomes more pronounced with exposure to air. Overall, I can’t say I was overly impressed. I felt the beer lacked character; although I would not say the beer was unpleasent.

I should probably note that the bottle I sampled did have a slightly cloudy appearance. I’m not sure if this means the beer is bottle conditioned (the bottle makes no indication if this), it had thorn a chill haze, the glass had some residue in it which reacted with the beer, or it was simply a sub-standard batch that slipped through (the beer was still within its best before date). So my review may not be based on the best specimen. Looks like I need to go back to Belgium for some more!

Given this, my scoring may be a little unfair, but I am going for a 6 out of 10. While a very drinkable beer, I just felt it lacked character and is sold mostly under the claim of being “the strongest Belgian beer”. Of course, if I find a better specimen I may yet change my mind and update thus review and score.

Posted November 14, 2009 Comments(1)

Right, lets start by getting the hippy and marketing crap out of the way…

For the envirohippies; Innovation is brewed in a new energy efficient plant, the glass is thinner and so uses 34% less glass, and the cardboard box is made using recycled waste.

For the marketing drones, it’s a limited edition beer. I have bottle 1533.

So let’s now get on to the important stuff… The beer! Comes in a 500ml bottle and is 6.7%ABV, so 3.4 UK units.

Described as “golden” by Adnams, I have to disagree and say it’s more copper/bronze. I’ve seen and held a gold ingot (Bank of England museum in London), and this beer is not the same colour!

The nose is very muted. Because I have an almost full glass at the moment, I think I’ll try and come back to that later!

On the tongue, it’s very much about the hops. According to the ingredients list, Innovation is made using 3 hops: Boadicea, Styrian Goldings and Columbus. These combine to produce a very floral beer. The taste lingers, perhaps with slight bitterness developing in the finish.

I said earlier Innovation is 6.7%ABV, but it doesn’t taste it. Certainly not a weakling though… I’d probably have put it closer to the mid 5% range.  Also, unlike many bottled beers, the level of condition (i.e. the CO2 content) seems quite low, so is unlikely to lead to the usual bloated feelings you get with some bottled beers.

So back to that nose now that I have room to agitate the beer. It’s hops. Again! Perhaps a slight lemony citrus in there somewhere.

So the main characteristic of Innovation seems to be summed up in one word… Hoppy.

So a score… Despite it being, to me, very one-dimensional I can’t really grumble about it. It is a pleasant beer, once you get past the hippy and marketing gimmicks. It’s not a beer I’d spend a night drinking. Quite possibly a mildly warm and sunny summer evening sat out in the garden relaxing type beer. I think that overall I’m going to give it a 7 out of 10. It may have got an 8, but I’m afraid the hippy/marketing side confirm the lower end of what I was considering.

And thanks to Dire Straits for providing the music while sampling this beer.

Posted August 22, 2008 Comments(0)

Yep, it’s that time of year again… The limited edition Innis & Gunn Oak Aged Beer is out. This year’s edition is in a light brown box.

The beer describes itself as an IPA and comes in at a reasonable 6.4%ABV, but the bottle is small – only 330ml. The beer is matured in oak barrels, into which hops have been added, for 60 days before being bottled. The production run comes in at “only” 68,000 (a very round figure!)

Described by I&G as “sunshine” in colour, I would say it was closer to a pale copper. Perhaps it’s been so long since they’ve seen the sun in Scotland they’ve forgotten what it looks like.

On the nose, I&G claim hops, orange, lemon zest and mellow oak. I have to admit, I can’t really say strongly one way or the other on this. Sadly the hayfever is playing up a little, and so the nose isn’t working as well as it could. There is certainly a mellow whisky-like aroma in there. I would assume this is the mellow oak; my being reminded of whisky being due to whisky being matured (generally speaking) in oak casks. I&G do not make any mention as to where the oak casks are sourced from, so I am unsure if they have previously been used for whisky of some variety.

So on to the taste, and the Oak Aged always seems to have some taste that I can’t put my finger on. I can’t even decide if I like it or not. I guess that given I’ve had the last 2 years’ expressions as well, it can’t be that bad! The beer is very mellow, albeit quite malty. I&G describe a slight sweetness to the beer, which I almost agree with. However there is some bitterness on the tongue as well. Other than that, there’s not much to it.

The finish is very subtle and can take some time to make itself known. Once again, I want to say whisky, but it’s not. There’s something else in there; possibly a slight fruitiness. It’s almost reminiscent of a continental lager, but heavier.

Anyway, I have to admit this is not a beer I would rave about. It’s not unpleasant, and it is certainly something different. However, it’s probably more one for those who are already into beer in a big way but who want to try something a little different. Overall, 6.5/10.

Posted August 13, 2008 Comments(2)

Interesting whisky tasting last night. We (the Durham University Whisky Appreciation Society) have started doing an annual blind tasting. Essentially we get 4 cheap (under £15) whiskies, and one well-known “expensive” one (around £20-£25). We then get members to taste each whisky and score them out of 10. At the end we total up the scores to see which was the favourite of the night, and also if anyone can spot the “expensive” one.

This year we had a bottle of Macallan 10 Y/O Fine Oak (bought last June, and can’t remember how much we paid for it), a Great Glen (£8.99 from Tesco), Sainbury Sherry Wood Finished single Highland malt (£12.49), Waitrose Irish Whiskey (£11.49) and a bottle of Highland Earl (£7.49 from Aldi)

It has to be said, the Great Glen was universally disliked, and unsurprising distant 5th placed whisky. Surprisingly, the Macallan was a disapointing 4th, once again some way off the top 3, and not one person managed to spot it or have it as their highest scoring whisky!

We had a tiee for 2nd place. Joint runners-up were last year’s winner the Waitrose Irish Whiskey and the Sainsbury Sherry wood finish. Of the 12 people who didn’t know what the whiskies were, 4 places each of these as their highest scoring whisky.

Our winner, also placed highest by 4 people, was also the cheapest whisky of the night – the Highland Earl. One interesting comment from the night was the member who said she was tryng to decide which of whiskies B and C she liked most. As I later revealed, B was the Macallan and C was the Highland Earl; so a real difficulty in distinguishing between the 2 extreme costs.

So I suppose this raises an interesting question… Can you really base your opinion of a whisky on its cost? It’s hard to give a good answer to this. Yes, the cheapest was the favourite and the well-known whisky 4th of 5 tasted; but we also saw the 2nd cheapest come last with the 2 mid-price come 2nd and 3rd.

I suppose at the end of the day a lot comes down to personal tastes, and wha you want the whisky for. The remains on the Great Glen were sold to someone who was going to use it purely as a cooking whisky. Given it will be mostly overpowered my the main part of the dish, you may be willing to spend a little less, even if the whisky itself does not taste as nice. But for that special dram… Well I guess you may be willing to pay a little more for quality, or you may accidentally find a hidden bargain.

It would be nice if more whisky outlets, and in fact alcohol in general, were more open to the idea of having tastings of their products before you buy. When you choose a whisky there’s a good chance you’ve not had it before, so there is a gamble on whether or not you’ll even like it! I wonder if the £14,000 bottle of Springbank in Caddenhead’s is really worth that much when tasted?

Well, unless I win the lottery; I guess I’ll never know!

Posted February 22, 2008 Comments(4)