Brew U

This post is one in a series of making small adjustments to a single recipe in order to improve it, learn more about the impact each ingredient has on the finished product, and the art of recipe creation. The rest of the comparison tastings in this series can be found here.

All fifteen of my previous side by side comparisons of this red IPA have been completed with me knowing which beer I was drinking, admittedly making it harder to battle my preconceived notions of a beer I’d had plenty of times before I sat down to compare it to another. After much goading in the direction of a blind tasting for comparison purposes, I finally admitted to myself that was the best way to go about this and took the extra effort to bother my wife with helping me out and handing me beers (after I’d taken my notes on appearance of each). She humored me with the process—not missing out on calling me a nerd along the way—and I do think that I was able to concentrate more on the flavors and aroma in front of me at the moment without knowing which beer I had been handed.

Recap

The recipes for each beer are as follows:

Appearance

Both beers poured with a medium head. Iteration 6 had great retention, maintaining a small bit of foam on the top until I reached the bottom of the glass. It was a copper/amber hue.

Iteration 9 had decent head retention, but not as long-lasting as Iteration 6. This beer was properly red.

Aroma

Iteration 6 smelled fruity and sweet. The hop aroma was gone.

Iteration 9 had an aroma of cherry, plum, and citrus. The aroma in this beer was deeper and more complex than version 6 (age is probably a factor in this as well).

Flavor

Although the formerly pleasant aroma of Iteration 6 was basically gone, the flavor stood up to age. It tasted strongly of cherry, with notes of plum, some cattiness, and a hint of citrus flavor. The citrus flavor was somewhere between orange and grapefruit.

Iteration 9 had a rich plum flavor paired with black cherry. There were also notes of orange. The malt and hop balance was nice, but honestly more on the malty side.

Final Thoughts

Something that stood out to me with this comparison was the difference in color between the beers. Both beers had the same grain bill and OG; however, Iteration 9 was definitely redder than Iteration 6. I’m not entirely sure why this would be the case, unless age is playing a factor here; even then, my original notes for this beer indicate it was amber rather than red (a small distinction, but one I’ve tried to make throughout this process).

Regarding Iteration 9, the grassiness noted in my initial tasting has basically faded at this point and is letting the other flavors shine through; unfortunately, the hoppiness seems to have faded with the grassiness, so I’m unable to see what this beer would have been without that off-flavor. The flavors are good and play well together, but it still needs more hop punch to hit that IPA-level of hoppiness that I want in this beer.

This post is one in a series of making small adjustments to a single recipe in order to improve it, learn more about the impact each ingredient has on the finished product, and the art of recipe creation. The rest of the comparison tastings in this series can be found here.

The difference between Iterations 7 and 8 of this red IPA recipe were meant to be differences in hops alone. However, I did make the mistake of not reviewing my notes prior to brewing Iteration 7 and ended up with less pre-boil volume gathered than intended. This resulted in overshooting my OG. I did not make that same mistake with Iteration 8, so these beers have a significant difference in ABV (1%). This understandably affects the perception of some elements that I did not intend to change between these batches, but the differences in those elements are still worth exploring to determine how best to move forward with this recipe.

Recap

The recipes for each beer are as follows:

Appearance

When I popped the cap for Iteration 7, I had an idea of what I was in for. With no tell-tale pop or hiss of escaping carbonation, I knew I had unfortunately saved a bottle that had an improper seal, and therefore did not carbonate fully. As would be expected, this beer had very little head at all, despite a vigorous pour. It did, however, have a pleasant deep red hue.

Iteration 8 had excellent head with excellent retention. The red color was not as deep as Iteration 7, but was still distinctly red.

Aroma

Iteration 7 had an aroma of dark cherry, black plum, and orange rind. Iteration 8 had a strong note of orange/lemon zest in the nose. The noticeable malt characteristics were red cherry and red plum.

Flavor

Iteration 7 tasted of black cherry with a hint of raisin. It also had notes of black plum and black muscadine grapes. Iteration 8 had notes of cherry, orange, and plum.

Final Thoughts

Overall, Iteration 7 is a richer beer from a malt perspective. This is not surprising considering the difference in OG between these beers. This is also not to say that Iteration 8 does not have richness or depth of malt flavor—it is simply less so compared to Iteration 7. Those deep malt flavors, though, are not truly the best for this beer. Iteration 8 hit target OG and has what I think is the appropriate level of malt character for a red IPA.

The muscadine flavor present in Iteration 7 is not one I’d noticed before. I have to wonder if the lack of carbonation combined with the 8.3% ABV of that beer was responsible for bringing out an almost wine-like character. Wine-like is perhaps not the best descriptor, because it by no means tasted like wine or had the body of wine. It did, however, have that muscadine grape flavor with a higher ABV that I am having difficulty describing another way.

Iteration 8 is certainly an improvement in hop character from Iteration 7. Still, more hops are needed in the recipe to get to that IPA-level of aroma and flavor. The flavor itself, though, is the profile I hope to maintain as the hops are scaled up.

This post is one in a series of making small adjustments to a single recipe in order to improve it, learn more about the impact each ingredient has on the finished product, and the art of recipe creation. The rest of the comparison tastings in this series can be found here.

Recently, I’ve ended up comparing beers of varying OG and ABV due to overshooting my gravity with Iteration 7 and the changes made after Iteration 5 to help ensure consistency. However, versions 6 and 8 of this red IPA recipe are identical in grain bill, OG, and FG. This is one of the truer comparisons I’ve been able to make regarding analyzing the variable I changed between recipes–in this case, hops.

Recap

The recipes for each beer are as follows:

Appearance

Both beers poured with an excellent head and had great retention, lacing the glass with foam as the beer level lowered. Both beers were also red in color, although Iteration 8 was the slightest bit darker that Iteration 6.

Aroma

Iteration 6 had an aroma of citrus and cherry along with some floral notes. The biggest impression I got from this, though, was a big ripe fruit aroma.

Iteration 8 smelled of plum, cherry, and citrus. The aroma was slightly richer in this beer, although it is a fresher beer so that might be the reason for that difference.

Flavor

Iteration 6 had a catty flavor, along with some citrus, plum, and sweet, red cherry. Iteration 8 tasted of red plum, Bing cherry, and orange zest.

Final Thoughts

Overall, I’m surprised that the hop aroma in Iteration 6 is still as present as it is. The other beers in this series had almost fully lost their hop aroma at two months old. That said, Iteration 8 tasted “fuller.” It was more rounded out and multi-dimensional in both flavor and aroma. While I think some of that has to do with age, I think a majority of it has to do with the different and more multilayered hopping regimen of Iteration 8, especially considering that these beers have the exact same grist, OG, and ABV. Additionally, the hop profile of Iteration 8 has much more citrus flavor than Iteration 6 and lacks the Simcoe cattiness that just didn’t meld well with the other flavors in this recipe.

Truthfully, these are both really good beers, but I’m pleasantly surprised to see this large of a difference between them. It serves as proof to me that this recipe has continued to improve, even after it crossed that line of being only okay into being a good beer. With this kind of improvement between two solid beers, there’s no sense now in settling for “good.”

This post is one in a series of making small adjustments to a single recipe in order to improve it, learn more about the impact each ingredient has on the finished product, and the art of recipe creation. The rest of the comparison tastings in this series can be found here.

Despite almost exactly the same grain bill, Iterations 5 and 8 of this red IPA recipe have a 10-point difference in OG and, subsequently, a 1% difference in ABV. By way of explanation, in the first several versions of this recipe, I had an issue with wildly varying efficiency. Iteration 5 was the brew day where I eliminated the final possible reason for that variation outside of an inconsistent crush (via my LHBS). From that point on, I’ve had my LHBS double mill my grain in hopes of mitigating any variation in my conversion efficiency, and so far that has been successful. Iteration 5 was the final version wherein I had a lower than expected OG; such is the reason for the difference in ABV. Despite that difference, these beers did still have (almost) the same grist, which made me interested in seeing how the differences in my hop schedule affected this beer, as well as determining how much 10 gravity points impacted the malt flavor.

Recap

The recipes for each beer are as follows:

Appearance

Iteration 5 poured with an excellent head, had excellent retention, and was an amber (slightly copper) hue.

Iteration 8 was a bit over-carbonated (apparently due to an uneven mix of priming sugar throughout the beer, based on the first few under-carbonated bottles I opened). As such, it had quite a large head with lots of staying power. This beer was exactly as red as I’d like a red ale to be.

Aroma

Iteration 5 had grapefruit, floral, and cherry notes in the nose. There was a certain sweetness in the aroma, too. Iteration 8 had an aroma of orange, plum, and Bing cherry.

Flavor

Iteration 5 tasted of cherry, an indistinct citrus, floral hops, and had notes of an indistinct sweet fruitiness (which is an unfortunate new development as this beer ages).

Iteration 8 had flavors of cherry and plum, with a hint of orange and a hint of floral notes.

Final Thoughts

Overall, Iteration 8 is richer than Iteration 5, both in aroma and flavor. I attribute this “richness” to the 10-point difference in OG. The richness is by no means off-putting as it is not overly rich, but rather a definite malt balance to the hop flavors in this beer. Perhaps a better word than “rich” is “deep.” This beer has a deep malt flavor. Rich seems to indicate that there is a fullness to the mouthfeel and perhaps makes this beer a sipper, but at an FG of 1.010, this beer is quite quaffable for having such deep malt flavors.

This post is one in a series of making small adjustments to a single recipe in order to improve it, learn more about the impact each ingredient has on the finished product, and the art of recipe creation. The rest of the comparison tastings in this series can be found here.

Outside of a 1% difference in ABV, Iterations 6 and 7 only differ in hop choice. However, the difference in OG that accounts for that ABV difference is rather significant in how it impacts the taste.

Recap

The recipes for each beer are as follows:

Appearance

Iteration 6 poured with an excellent head with good retention. The color was a reddish amber.

Iteration 7 had minimal head, which seemed to be the unfortunate result of a poorly sealed cap as this result was an outlier for this iteration. The color was deep red.

Aroma

Iteration 6 had a nose of red plum and red cherry. There were also slight notes of citrus, floral aromas, and a slightly catty aroma.

Iteration 7 smelled of black plum, dark cherry, citrus, and apricot.

Flavor

The flavor of Iteration 6 was one of cherry and orange. There was also a note of red plum, but it was a note of the darker flesh immediately surrounding the pit, as it had a slightly bitter bite in that flavor. There were also hints of floral flavors and dankness.

Iteration 7 tasted of black plum, black cherry, orange zest, and apricot. The malt flavors, overall, were much richer in this iteration.

Final Thoughts

The difference in depth and richness of the malt flavors is the most striking distinction between these beers. As I mentioned before, the intensity of the malt flavors in Iteration 7 seems to detract from the hop profile, while it should contrast it in order to complement it. However, there is something appealing about it compared to the malt flavor in Iteration 6. It is leaving me wondering if I should attempt a compromise between the two while keeping the ABV at the 7.3% of version 6. I would try to accomplish this by increasing both the OG, but also increasing my mash temperature to end at a higher FG and thus maintain the same ABV. On the other hand, I really enjoy the drinkability of this beer despite its high ABV, and I think some of that is resting on it finishing in the range of 1.008-1.010. I think I will wait to see how Iteration 8 turns out before making this decision.

This post is one in a series of making small adjustments to a single recipe in order to improve it, learn more about the impact each ingredient has on the finished product, and the art of recipe creation. The rest of the comparison tastings in this series can be found here.

Going into this tasting, I wondered how much of a difference there would be outside of the hop character of these red IPAs. Aside from the age of Iteration 5, I knew that the only difference in the grain bill was 3 oz. of C120. Certainly these beers would be more similar than the beers last tasting I did with Iterations 4 & 7. With a 17 point difference in OG, and the resultant 2% difference in ABV, these beers were quite different in a way that I probably should have expected but didn’t.

Recap

The recipes for each beer are as follows:

Appearance

Iteration 5 poured with a moderate white head that dissipated rapidly. It had an orange/amber hue. Iteration 7 poured with a decent off-white/tan head that had moderate retention and was distinctly redder in color than the other beer.

Aroma

Iteration 5 had an aroma of orange, floral and plum. Iteration 7 smelled of cherry, plum, apricot/pear, and a hint of orange. The aroma of this beer was much richer and had more depth than Iteration 5, despite the grain bill being the exact same, except for an additional 3 oz. of C120 in Iteration 7.

Flavor

Iteration 5 tasted of cherry with a hint of cracker and floral notes as well. Iteration 7 was, again, richer in depth with notes of plum, black cherry, orange rind, and apricot.

Final Thoughts

Iteration 5’s malt flavors were comparatively lacking next to Iteration 7. This cannot be accounted for in the additional 3 oz. of C120 alone; certainly, the difference in OG played a large role in how different these beers are. Although the richness of Iteration 7 is absolutely delightful, I have to imagine it’s covering up the hop aroma and flavor some. I could combat that by adding more hops; however, I do not believe that the intensity of these flavors would ever be complimented by the greater hop aroma and flavors I desire. I’ve mentioned before that I intend to lower the OG (and subsequently, the ABV) closer to what it was in Iteration 6 (1.066 and 7.3%, respectively). Not only should this return this beer to a standard-strength IPA instead of a double, but it should mitigate the manner in which the malt character is overpowering the hop character.

This post is one in a series of making small adjustments to a single recipe in order to improve it, learn more about the impact each ingredient has on the finished product, and the art of recipe creation. The rest of the comparison tastings in this series can be found here.

When I sat down on the couch last night with two beers, my wife asked me which version of this recipe has been the best so far (she’s pregnant at the moment, so she doesn’t exactly know what my recent beers have tasted like). I was able to confidently say that one of the last two versions (6 or 7) had been the best, and as I thought about it, I was also able to say that almost every version has been better than the last. At times I forget my progress, but this tasting was helpful in reminding me of the improvements that have been made since the start of this journey.

Recap

Iteration 4 was the last version of this red IPA recipe before I finalized the malt bill. As such, even though these recipes are only three single steps away from one another, they are quite different. The recipes for each are as follows:

Appearance

Both beers poured with a good head with moderate retention. Their colors were also very similar; however, upon closer inspection and comparison, Iteration 4 was more of an amber hue while Iteration 7 was a definitively darker red.

Aroma

Iteration 4 had a sweetness to the nose that, to me, is indicative of staling. Aside from this (which was the most prominent scent), there were also aromas of bread and citrus.

Iteration 7, in order of prominence, had aromas of plum, cherry, apricot/pear, and citrus.

Flavor

Iteration 4 tasted of bread and a staling sweetness which presented itself initially as a slightly citrus, nectarine-like flavor. This sweetness changed character as it warmed, but it was distinctively one I’ve come to associate with older beers. Any other flavors that were there were difficult to define because they were all rather faint—to the point of being indistinct.

With Iteration 7, perhaps due to its contrast to the lack of flavor in 4, I was able to pick out more precise types of flavors than I’ve been able to before. The taste was one of Bing cherries, black plum, apricot, and orange rind, although the citrus flavor was faint.

Final Thoughts

The stale quality of Iteration 4 is not altogether unexpected, as it is four months old at this point. I still find it important to see how these beers age, because they have all aged differently. I know some of this is due to a process change I made when I realized I had an issue with oxidation, but I have to think that some of it is due to the different ingredients used as well. Whatever the cause of the difference, this will be the last time I think it will be useful to compare Iteration 4 to another version of this recipe. One more month and I’m sure this beer will be undrinkable.

I’ve brought up the issue of clarity a few times before, speculating once that chill haze was the cause of my beer’s cloudiness. Both of these beers cleared up while they sat out. In fact, the level of clarity that both reached was one I would expect from a commercial beer of this color. Because I was able to observe this in both beers and they began to clear around the same time, I’m now confident that chill haze has been my issue all along.