Doggie Claws, IPA, Clovenator

After a little hiatus, here I am, with three new beers to blog about. Along with the two beers Ryan posted about earlier, I brought back another two beers from my trip back to Oregon. The first being from the small but superb Hair of the Dog brewery. Their Blue Dot Imperial IPA is still one of my favorite beers. I had high hopes going into Doggie Claws, their version of a barelywine. Unfortunately, my stupidity led me to pour the yeast at the bottom of the bottle into both mine and Ryan's glass. See, Hair of the Dog beers are bottle conditioned, meaning they will continue to age if you let it. This also means there is a bunch of yeast at the bottom of the bottle that you aren't supposed to pour into your glass. I was looking forward to this beer too, recieving an average of A- from BeerAdvocate. What I can tell you though is that the beer looks to have had a golden color. The taste also had a strong carmel flavor to it but because of my mistake, I cannot properly give my opinion on the beer. Maybe next time.

Anyways, the second beer I brought back was the West Coast IPA by Green Flash Brewery. This beer smelled great. It had a great strong hop smell that I liked. The beer poured a golden orange with an off white head. One first taste, you will realize that all the citrus hops you smelled was just a preview of what was to come. This is a seriously hoppy beer. It was also a seriously bitter beer, leaving a bitterness that stayed at the back of my tongue. It was like I had a sour candy in my mouth, constantly making it water. There is some sweetness up front but it quickly fades into a citrusy hop kick. Now, I like hoppy beers, but this is even a little too bitter for me. It didn't have enough of a malty backbone to balance out the hops. This beer is definitly a sipper.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go to a local restaurant here to celebrate a friend's birthday. The restaurant specializes in Austrian food and has probably the largest portions ever. Anyways, to my surprise, they also brew beer! Well, technically they aren't a brewery as they don't have a liquor license (BYOB), but the employees are brewers themselves. We were given a free sample of a new beer one of them had brewed. I don't remember much of the color other than it was fairly dark. It was supposed to be brewed in the style of a winter warmer. I was also told that the nickname given to the beer was the "clovenator". I tried it and, wow, what an aptly named beer. Cloves were pretty much the only thing you tasted. It wasn't a bad beer, just unique.

Until next time, here's a few pictures of the beers Ryan and I talked about.

Tasting Notes: Pliny the Elder and St. Rogue Red Ale

Hi folks. Sorry for the week-long hiatus, but that collegiate ritual known as Spring Break led me to the not-so-beer-friendly (well... not totally anti-beer -- there was that pay $20 and drink as much as you want for two hours, two nights deal -- but anti-real beer) confines of Daytona Beach.

I drank my fair share of cheap swill, but I also managed to sneak in a few tasty pints while my friends weren't looking. Sweetwater 420, a pale ale from Atlanta, was quite tasty: nicely balanced, good hop kick, very drinkable. This stuff was ubiquitous at even the lowest common denominator bars speckling St. Simons Island on the southern tip of Georgia, where I made a two day layover before heading south for a more revelrous environ. Also sipped a nice glass of Dale's Pale Ale at a pretty cool bar with a decent tap list. Damn it if the name doesn't escape me.

Anyway, I'm back with two new beers: Russian River's Pliny the Elder -- hailed throughout the blogosphere as one of the world's preeminent DIPAs -- and Rogue's St. Rogue Red Ale.

Pliny's hype had me salivating. A quick scan through its first page of BeerAdvocate reviews reads like a lesson in hyperbole: "lovely golden elixer", "orgasmic mouth watering experience", "the perfect IPA", and on and on ad infinitum. Is Pliny really an orgasm for the tastebuds, that much better than the rest of the pack? No, but it is a damn fine double IPA.

Pours a hazy orangish amber, bordering on gold, with a cloud-like two fingers of sticky white head. Retention is fantastic, with small clumps spiderwebbing the glass throughout. Smells intensely of hops: pine trees, oranges and pineapple with a slighly medicinal undertone. (Pick something with a faintly citrus scent and you could probably pull it out of this glass...) The first sip extinguishes that hop explosion only slightly. Citrusy sweet initially, then the hops kick back in -- not overwhelminly so, though. This is one balanced beer. Some malty richness tames the hops and helps hide the high alcohol content, 8.0. Finishes with a lingering bitterness expected from such a hopped-up DIPA. Pliny is definetely one of the standard bearers of the style, at least from my somewhat limited tastings, but like anything else, don't be a sucker for the hype. Taste it, enjoy it, but realize there is no end all-be all out there.

On to St. Rogue's Red. Pours an orangish red with 3/4 inch tan head. Smells faintly of burnt sugar and red fruits with a touch of hops creeping in at the end. First sip: pretty watery and understated. Subdued malty, fruity sweetness, followed by an almost roasted bitterness. Flavor is really mellow-- also flat and one dimensional. Sip after sip I'd hoped for more out of it, but it left me disappointed. Finishes with a little citric, piney bitterness that disappears quickly. Not a bad beer -- crisp, light and easy drinking -- but not one of my favorites from Rogue.

Post-Repeal Laws Still Holding Us Back

Courtesy of Maureen Ogle, author of Ambitious Brew (a great read -- read it if you already haven't -- that provides an expansive history of beer in America), comes an interesting, thought provoking read in January's U.S. News and World Report. If only I would have found it sooner.

I've long admired Maureen. Ambitious Brew is a truly ambitious book, and a great piece of history, full of quirky anecdotes and succinct and thoughtful analysis. She beautifully captures the many characters along for beer's ride through American industry and our psyche, while never losing sight of the larger narrative. My respect grew last spring when I e-mailed her, on a whim, asking for an interview for a column I was working on. She got back within hours, and we had a great chat. She couldn't have been more helpful or accommodating.

Here's a snippet of our discussion:

Q: In an interview on the Ambitious Brew website, you mention that parents, and society, ingrain in children an idea that alcohol is bad, which leads children, once older, to "mismanage" their drinking? Do you believe that's the root cause of the dangerous drinking in the U.S.?

M: I absolutely believe that adults demonize alcohol, and then pass on that message to children. And, yes, that's the root of "dangerous drinking," in this society or any other.
Science does seem to have demonstrated that some people are genetically wired with an allergy to alcohol and that's what it appears to be: their bodies experience a hostile chemical reaction to alcohol, much the way people do who are allergic to bee stings or milk. Other people are wired for excess, whether it's shopping, drinking, or whatever; they seem to lack control mechanisms.
But most of us can tolerate alcohol and know when we've had enough. Except kids. They need to be taught -- but they can only learn that message if they first learn that alcohol should be treated with respect, that it's a normal part of human existence and has been for at least ten thousand years and probably longer.
The demonization message leads to irrational behavior, like binge drinking and teenagers slugging down as much as they can: they've been taught that alcohol is dangerous and forbidden and so of course they're going to want to engage in the forbidden. That's what adolescents do!
Similarly, the campaign against drinking while pregnant is just as irrational. If alcohol were harmful to fetuses, the human race would have died out thousands of years ago. Becuase until about a 150 years ago, everyone drank alcohol every day (adults and children) because it was the safest way to hydrate the body (there wasn't any safe drinking water). And in many parts of the world, it's still true. So if alcohol were harmful, humans wouldn't have survived. But that rational notion has become obliterated by the irrational message that all alcohol is always evil.

Q: What would you say to critics who say that teaching children to drink at a young age is bad because alcohol, even in moderation, could lead to dangerous decision making and is part of an unhealthy lifestyle?

M: I don't think anyone advocates teaching children to drink at a young age. What sensible advocate is teaching children that alcohol is a normal part of the human experience. There's a big difference between those two things!
Also, where is the evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol "could lead to dangerous decision making"? I doubt there is any evidence! Again, part of the problem -- indeed, most of the problem -- is that prohibitionists are making the leap from alcohol to evil: if you drink, you are therefore making bad choices, living an unhealthy lifestyle, and being inebriated. There's no logical connection. Some people "abuse" alcohol. But not everyone who drinks abuses it.

Q: Do you think the growing popularity of craft beer, aided by websites like BeerAdvocate and the respect of food and wine writers like Eric Asimov of the NYT, could help transform America's drinking culture?

M: Good question! And the answer is: I doubt it. The Times, for example, has had a wine columnist since at least the 1970s, and probably earlier. And our drinking culture is the same as it's been for more than a century. Part of the problem is that people like Asimov and the Alstroms are preaching to the converted: adults who already understand that alcohol is part of human culture and not necessarily evil. The people who need to be reached are kids, not adults.

Q: I read a blog post from Nov. 2006 in which you write that the "neo-prohibition" movement rarely misses a chance to attack to the alcohol industry. Do you think any of their attacks are well-founded?

M: Another good question. The argument is that alcohol manufacturers target their advertising and message at young impressionable kids (with things like the cute A-Busch frogs and Spuds McKenzie and spring break promos). Same argument is made about cigarette manufacturers with things like Joe Camel.
The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much solid evidence that a) the advertisers are specifically targeting kids ("Hey guys, let's write an ad campaign about beer that will appeal to ten-year-olds!"). If advertising seems juvenile, it's because we infantalize drinking. We don't treat drinking and alcohol as serious subjects worthy of our respect. And b) there's not much evidence that kids actually respond to the ads. There were a ton of studies about this in the 1970s and 1980s, and no one could find evidence that kids were seeing ads and then trying ot go buy cigarettes or booze, or that, once they were of legal age, they sought out brands whose ads they'd seen as children.

Q: In that same post, you write that groups like MADD are part of the problem, not the solution. Could you expand on that thought a bit?

M: MADD is a huge part of the "drinking problem." They're the single most important source of the "let's demonize alcohol" campaign. Tthey try to "protect" children and to infantalize adults, and they promote alcohol as a dangerous, evil substance. Both messages simply exacerbate the problem that kids get this message and so pursue the forbdden and then they grow up and repeat the cycle with their own kids.

Q: Many say that underage drinking is a sort of rite of passage. You go to college and lose control, so the mantra goes. How difficult would it be to change that line of thinking? Do you think it's even possible?

M: Well, it's sure not possible to change the message in college! It's too late by then. The average freshman arrives at college fully indoctrinated into the "disrespect and demonize alcohol" message. I think it's a total waste of money for colleges to mount this Just Say No-type campaigns. It's never going to work.
As for underage drinking being a rite of passage -- well, that's the problem, isn't it? Teenagers absolutely will pursue the forbidden. Teach kids a different message and we'll end up with a different attitude and a different result.

Q: I've talked with a number of health officials who say that teaching college students of the dangers of drinking is the only way to combat underage drinking, which is linked to about 5,000 deaths annually. Do you think there's a more effective way to curb what clearly looks like a real problem?

M: It's simply too late at the college level. Total waste of money. As for that annual death statistic, let me guess: it's from MADD, right? MADD regularly and routinely and knowingly distorts any and all stats related to alcohol. It's part of their method, just as it was for the Anti-Saloon League a century ago. Indeed, the people at MADD are scarey because they've learned the lessons of the past!
So first step is: figure out what the "real problem" is. Second, persuade states to rethink their alcohol education programs, which are mostly mis-education programs, in K-12. But of course that would be tough. MADD is well-organized, and it's very, very hard to step up and say anything positive about alcohol. The ASL knew that back in the 1890s. It's much easier to define a problem and then launch a campaign against it, than it is to run a campaign in favor of what has already been defined by the opposition as a problem.
It's unfortunate that the focus is on "binge" drinking and "underage" drinking and on college students. Because all that does is obscure the deeper issue of adults' destructive attitudes and the way in which we Americans demonize alcohol and infantalize drinking. Those are the real problems. "Problem drinking" in colleges is simply a symptom.

If you haven't already, check out her blog at MaureenOgle.com/blog.

Old Speckled Hen: What's in a name?

If given an indiscriminate sip of Old Speckled Hen (Greene King, 5.2% abv.), that is without knowing the name of the beer I was sampling, I'd probably nod appreciatively, maybe smack my lips a bit at the lingering bitterness, and move on to something else. But there's something about that name -- Old Speckled Hen.

I was first introduced to Speckled (or should it just be hen?) at Brew Zoo in Altoona, Pa., the home-away-from-home for the father of a good friend of mine. I should clarify: Brew Zoo, not Altoona. Never is the kid-in-a-candy-store cliche more apt. Set this man inside Brew Zoo and sheer hilarity will ensue. That hilarity followed by the passing of wads of money from his hand to the cashier's, then an equally hilarious ride home with several cases of beer sloshing around the roomy trunk of a Chevy Suburban. The man likes beer, and on that day in December, he liked Speckled Hen (sounds better) more than most.

"It's spectacular," he told me as he hoisted a case from the bottom shelf -- it would join the nearly full case he already had sitting in his garage and the three random cases he'd picked up that day. We'll see if it holds up to that endorsement in a bit.

But that name, what of it? It wasn't until this evening, my fridge barren save for two bottles of Speckled Hen (left over from a weekend visit from said friend) and a few Yuenglings, that I decided to get to the bottom of it. First, I opened a bottle to get me in the right frame of mind. Then it was off to Google.

The story befits our current economic conundrum, what with on-the-brink car companies announcing cutbacks almost daily. Abingdon, U.K., home of Morland Brewery, became home to British automaker MG in 1929. At the time, MG was tinkering with a demo dubbed the Speckled Hen. Fast forward 50 years: Morland introduces Old Speckled Hen to mark the company's 50th anniversary in Abingdon. Then, go figure, the MG plant shut down. So much for a thanks.

What about the proclamation of spectacularity? The beer pours a deep amber with about 1/2 inch of off-white head that recedes quickly and holds on only slightly. Smells faintly of sweet caramel. My nose is stuffy, but I don't think I'd get much more even if I could smell. First sip: slightly sweet caramel, breadiness followed soon after by an almost medicinal bittnerness, which lingers. As it warms, a touch of alcohol creeps in. It's quite thin, with low carbonation. This isn't a very exciting beer, and I was put off by weird metallic tastes that, as it warmed, popped up in the finish and lingered unpleasantly. That said, if I see Speckled Hen on a menu a few years from now, assuredly I will order it, hearkening back to that day at Brew Zoo when I first heard of this funny-named beer.