A couple of months ago, I wrote:

> 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.

I'm now reconsidering this stance. I've been delving into
my stash, which goes back 10 years. Seems I'd forgotten
just how spectacular old Bigfeet are when tasted alone.
Certainly lacking in hop flavor and aroma, but all kinds of
crazy complexity going on between malt and hop bitterness.

This makes me rethink how to do Bigfoot verticals.
In the past, mimicking how one would do it with wine,
I've always proceeded newest to oldest-- best for last,
I suppose. But given how much young Bigfoot blows
away the palate with hoppiness, masking the subtleties
and complexities of the older beers to follow, from now
on I'll go oldest to youngest.

Perhaps this is where to insert "Well, duh!", but it
was a bit of a revelation to me.

Jon Binkley > wrote:
>> I've done many Bigfoot verticals, and while it's drinkable
>> for many years, it's a shadow of itself after only one year.
....
>I'm now reconsidering this stance. I've been delving into
>my stash, which goes back 10 years. Seems I'd forgotten
>just how spectacular old Bigfeet are when tasted alone.
>Certainly lacking in hop flavor and aroma, but all kinds of
>crazy complexity going on between malt and hop bitterness.

I pulled out a '99 a week or so ago and wasn't
too impressed. I will be getting rid of half my
stash in a vertical of odd years starting with '99
next week at the local homebrew club meeting. (I'm
hoping the new release will be out... anybody spot
it yet?) Should be informative, and I'll definitely
start with the oldest first. But I'll enter it with
a bias, so who knows.
--
Joel Plutchak "I never let anything as tenuous as moral
standards get in the way of drinking beer."
- Jon Binkley

On 2007-01-26, Jon Binkley > wrote:

> Perhaps this is where to insert "Well, duh!", but it
> was a bit of a revelation to me.

No such admonition. You make a valid point. I'll give it a try.

Maybe it's just me, but the problem I've found with BF is it's
tendency to develope tobacco flavors as it ages. The older, the
stronger. Now, I'm a lifelong tobacco lover, though I no longer
indulge, but there can be too much of a good thing. I've only gone
back about 5 yrs, but the '01 I tried was like drinking old cigar
butts, with the others similar to vary degrees depending on age. OTOH,
this was during a vert tasting. Another time, when trying an '03 by
itself, the tobacco flavor seemed nowhere near as pronounced. It was
downright tasty. Now, having said that, I have to admit I prefer my
BF of the current year. To me it's like drinking hops candy.

nb

I've been drinking and cellaring BF since 1999 and have been enjoying my
cellared ones less and less. I used to love to drink a BF that was a couple
of years old but lately prefer only the fresher, current year. In fact, if
anyone is looking for some vintage BF send me an email. Maybe even a trade?

metransue at comcast dot net
eugene

"Jon Binkley" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> A couple of months ago, I wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm now reconsidering this stance. I've been delving into
> my stash, which goes back 10 years. Seems I'd forgotten
> just how spectacular old Bigfeet are when tasted alone.
> Certainly lacking in hop flavor and aroma, but all kinds of
> crazy complexity going on between malt and hop bitterness.
>
> This makes me rethink how to do Bigfoot verticals.
> In the past, mimicking how one would do it with wine,
> I've always proceeded newest to oldest-- best for last,
> I suppose. But given how much young Bigfoot blows
> away the palate with hoppiness, masking the subtleties
> and complexities of the older beers to follow, from now
> on I'll go oldest to youngest.
>
> Perhaps this is where to insert "Well, duh!", but it
> was a bit of a revelation to me.
>