After all the talk about whether it's worth the willpower to cellar
SNCA, I figured last night was as good a time as any to see how my
little collection was faring.

Answer: Not Good.

Methodology: All beers have been kept refrigerated since purchase,
either in a proper fridge or, a couple of times, in an ice chest when
moving to a new house. It's safe to say that none of them have ever
experienced temps about 50F since I've had them, and none have ever seen
the light of the sun or a fluorescent bulb.

I used clean glassware. SNCA glasses, just to be extra-geeky about the
whole thing.

Results:
2002: SHITE. Oh, sweet Jesus was this bad. Looked fine when poured, but
a sniff told me this was going to be nasty. No hops, no malt. Just
alcohol. A taste proved my nose right. Sort of like Bigfoot, only
without the redeeming taste qualities.

2003: SHITE. See 2002.

2004: GOOD, but barely. There was still a fair amount of malt to be
found in this bottle, and the hops hadn't yet faded entirely, but this
was clearly going south in a hurry.

That was enough for one night. I'll be hitting the 2005 in the next day
or two. I figure it's going to be just fine. And I'll be over my little
obsession with collecting and cellaring SNCA. Drink it fresh, mates.

dave
in austin

"dave kelley" > wrote in message
...
> After all the talk about whether it's worth the willpower to cellar
> SNCA, I figured last night was as good a time as any to see how my
> little collection was faring.
>
> Answer: Not Good.
>
> Methodology: All beers have been kept refrigerated since purchase,
> either in a proper fridge or, a couple of times, in an ice chest when
> moving to a new house. It's safe to say that none of them have ever
> experienced temps about 50F since I've had them, and none have ever seen
> the light of the sun or a fluorescent bulb.
>
> I used clean glassware. SNCA glasses, just to be extra-geeky about the
> whole thing.
>
> Results:
> 2002: SHITE. Oh, sweet Jesus was this bad. Looked fine when poured, but
> a sniff told me this was going to be nasty. No hops, no malt. Just
> alcohol. A taste proved my nose right. Sort of like Bigfoot, only
> without the redeeming taste qualities.
>
> 2003: SHITE. See 2002.
>
> 2004: GOOD, but barely. There was still a fair amount of malt to be
> found in this bottle, and the hops hadn't yet faded entirely, but this
> was clearly going south in a hurry.
>
> That was enough for one night. I'll be hitting the 2005 in the next day
> or two. I figure it's going to be just fine. And I'll be over my little
> obsession with collecting and cellaring SNCA. Drink it fresh, mates.

I finished the last of my SNCA 2005 in June and it was closer to a malt bomb
than a hop bomb. ;^) That's not a complaint mind you as it was quite tasty
that way.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article >,
"Bill Becker" > wrote:

> I finished the last of my SNCA 2005 in June and it was closer to a malt bomb
> than a hop bomb. ;^) That's not a complaint mind you as it was quite tasty
> that way.

Drinking the last bottle of '05 right now, and it's still ****ING GOOD.
The hops have faded slightly, as you noted, so it's a much richer,
rounder beer. If I wanted to go all geek, I'd say I taste notes of
cinnamon, and then I'd stop myself before I got too lame.

dave
on to the 2006...

"dave kelley" > wrote in message
...

> After all the talk about whether it's worth the willpower to cellar
> SNCA, I figured last night was as good a time as any to see how my
> little collection was faring.
>
> Answer: Not Good.

I'm not surprised. SNCA has never struck me as being the sort of beer that
would be that conducive to cellaring. For one, too much of its character
depends on the more aromatic properties of its hops. Sure, it's got plenty
of bitterness, but it's that fresh hop nose that really makes it (for
example, it's the lack of that that makes me disappointed in this year's
batch). And aroma is one of the first things to go as you start aging a
beer.

More pertinently, it's just not that strong a beer to make for worthwhile
cellaring. There are "everyday" American IPAs that are in the same
neighborhood or exceed SNCA. Would you consider cellaring a bunch of Racer 5
(7 percent abv, compared to SNCA's 6.8), or Stone IPA (6.9)? I personally
wouldn't. They lack both the alcohol and the complexity (and, IME, it's malt
complexity that really makes for cellarable beers) for good multiyear
evolution, and SNCA's in the same book, to me.

Still, I'm glad you did and reported on the experiment. I could have made
this guess all I wanted, and had no way of knowing if it would be true or
not. It's good to see some experience with it out there. Thanks for the
report.

-Steve

Steve Jackson > wrote:
>"dave kelley" > wrote:
>> After all the talk about whether it's worth the willpower to cellar
>> SNCA, I figured last night was as good a time as any to see how my
>> little collection was faring.
>>
>> Answer: Not Good.

>Still, I'm glad you did and reported on the experiment.

Ditto. Thanks.

>I could have made this guess all I wanted, and had no way of knowing
>if it would be true or not. It's good to see some experience with it
>out there. Thanks for the report.

Some years ago I would hold back a couple bottles of it
to try alongside the fresh batch. That one-year difference
alone was enough to convince me not to keep doing that, let
alone save it longer.
--
Joel Plutchak

"Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)

Steve Jackson wrote:

> SNCA has never struck me as being the sort of beer that
> would be that conducive to cellaring. For one, too much of its character
> depends on the more aromatic properties of its hops. Sure, it's got plenty
> of bitterness, but it's that fresh hop nose that really makes it (for
> example, it's the lack of that that makes me disappointed in this year's
> batch). And aroma is one of the first things to go as you start aging a
> beer.

I agree, and I actually feel the same way about Bigfoot.
I've done many Bigfoot verticals, and while it's drinkable
for many years, it's a shadow of itself after only one year.
The only thing that makes Bigfoot stand out in the crowd
is its fresh hop character. Take that away with age,
and it's pretty darned uninteresting.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:28:32 +0000, dave kelley wrote
(in message >):

> After all the talk about whether it's worth the willpower to cellar
> SNCA, I figured last night was as good a time as any to see how my
> little collection was faring.
>
> Answer: Not Good.
>
> Methodology: All beers have been kept refrigerated since purchase,
> either in a proper fridge or, a couple of times, in an ice chest when
> moving to a new house. It's safe to say that none of them have ever
> experienced temps about 50F since I've had them, and none have ever seen
> the light of the sun or a fluorescent bulb.
>
> I used clean glassware. SNCA glasses, just to be extra-geeky about the
> whole thing.
>
> Results:
> 2002: SHITE. Oh, sweet Jesus was this bad. Looked fine when poured, but
> a sniff told me this was going to be nasty. No hops, no malt. Just
> alcohol. A taste proved my nose right. Sort of like Bigfoot, only
> without the redeeming taste qualities.
>
> 2003: SHITE. See 2002.
>
> 2004: GOOD, but barely. There was still a fair amount of malt to be
> found in this bottle, and the hops hadn't yet faded entirely, but this
> was clearly going south in a hurry.
>
> That was enough for one night. I'll be hitting the 2005 in the next day
> or two. I figure it's going to be just fine. And I'll be over my little
> obsession with collecting and cellaring SNCA. Drink it fresh, mates.
>
> dave
> in austin



Sierra Nevada IPA is an interesting one.

I was given a 6 pack of this all-English ingredient stuff last march
and consumed the first four month by month over four months.

I would have drunk them sooner but I found it desperately boring -
something like the terrible English "IPAs" like Greene King, only
stronger (I am English btw). I just couldn't see the point.

After 7 months though, the fifth and sixth had matured beatifully. The
hops and malt had gelled into something special. Not the piny/citrus
hop monsters with high bitterness of most US craft breweries but a more
subtle, highly refined and sophisticated beer.

I had my doubts at first about what KG was trying to achieve - it took
7 months to discover I was drinking it too fresh.

You could say 7 months approximates to the journey time to India - I
should have known.

In article > ,
Tim > wrote:

> Sierra Nevada IPA is an interesting one.
>
> I was given a 6 pack of this all-English ingredient stuff last march
> and consumed the first four month by month over four months.
>
> I would have drunk them sooner but I found it desperately boring -
> something like the terrible English "IPAs" like Greene King, only
> stronger (I am English btw). I just couldn't see the point.
>
> After 7 months though, the fifth and sixth had matured beatifully. The
> hops and malt had gelled into something special. Not the piny/citrus
> hop monsters with high bitterness of most US craft breweries but a more
> subtle, highly refined and sophisticated beer.
>
> I had my doubts at first about what KG was trying to achieve - it took
> 7 months to discover I was drinking it too fresh.
>
> You could say 7 months approximates to the journey time to India - I
> should have known.

That *is* interesting. Short-term cellaring. I've a bottle of Hercules
double IPA that I'm now going to let sit for a few months. I wan't
impressed with it at first, but maybe a little "time out" will be just
what it needs.

dave
in austin