Recommendations for chocolate in the US?

originally posted by Todd Abrams:

There are a lot of over-the-top craft beers being made but using hop pellets isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on style. Also, not sure what you mean by spoofy yeasts in regards to beer. To me, spoof beers would be the basically undrinkable, 14% abv, ultra-hoppy Imperial stouts, double IPAs, and the like, which doesn't really have anything to do with yeast types.
Click to expand...

High attenuation, high alcohol tolerance yeasts are pretty spoofy to me (and these are necessary for the spoofy beer types you cite).
 
I'm not understanding how hop pellets are spoof. I think beer needs to be looked at differently than wine. Yeast choice is part of brewing (unless you are going for a wild yeast/coolship beer or some such thing). The things that affect taste in beer are different - there's no terroir to speak of in craft beer because beers made with local hops, malt and yeast are really, really a minority. The water..OK, that's terroir a bit (if it's well water) but that's a stretch especially because the effect of the water is expressed through the other components (hops, grains) which probably aren't local. Again - there's certainly uber-local exceptions but they are too limited in scope and reach to be really considered as much other than a novelty.

So if you are picking your yeast anyway, why not choose it for flavor or for alcohol tolerance? Or inoculate with Brett to make a sour? And if you are using hops from New Zealand or Oregon or wherever (and you aren't in those areas) what does it matter if they are fresh cones or pelletized?

Is adding fruit to beer OK or not?
 
originally posted by Yixin:
originally posted by Todd Abrams:

There are a lot of over-the-top craft beers being made but using hop pellets isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on style. Also, not sure what you mean by spoofy yeasts in regards to beer. To me, spoof beers would be the basically undrinkable, 14% abv, ultra-hoppy Imperial stouts, double IPAs, and the like, which doesn't really have anything to do with yeast types.
Click to expand...

High attenuation, high alcohol tolerance yeasts are pretty spoofy to me (and these are necessary for the spoofy beer types you cite).
Click to expand...

Most Belgian yeasts (including most 'traditional' Trappist strains) are high attenuation and very alc. tolerant. Also, most of the spoof beers Todd alluded to are fermented with pretty common yeast strains, though sometimes a second yeast is used to finish fermentation. Up until ~12+% you're fine with Chico, which covers most of your spoofy IPAs and Imperial Stouts. Yeah there's the mega-yeasts and the beers that are 15+% alcohol (though some of those are at 12% and soak up some bourbon from barrels), but I think that the number of spoofy beers made with normal yeasts pretty radically exceeds the number of spoofy beers made with crazy hi-alc yeasts (also the high alcohol tolerant yeasts were bred, not GM'd, if that impacts your idea of spoof).

That said, there's nothing worse than a beer with 100+IBUs and a brewer who thinks that adding more Crystal malt will make it balanced.
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Every time I shop there she's like "Ohhhh, this one is broken, I can't sell it, you wanna try it? Really good!"
Click to expand...
She just did that to me this afternoon. What kindly wickedness.
 
I recognize that the definition of spoofy in wine is already somewhat porous, but is there a definition of spoofy in beer that means something more specific than "I don't like it" or "not my kind of beer." I get the objection to IPA, but unless it is based on something other than "not like beer to me," why not just say that? By the way, I am no beer afficionado and will be happy to take an answer. It's just that the meaning of the word here isn't self-evident to me.
 
We need to make up a new word to describe beer that tastes spoofed, allowing for the fact that it can't actually be spoofed because it's beer.

How about "Jeebus."
 
Whiskey barrel aged beer = spoof for me.

Anything is fair game regarding yeast.

Hop pellets are OK, easy way to store them. Hop oils, I'm not sure, I think they lean towards spoof.

Fruit/honey/non hop herbs are all OK, there is long standing traditions there.

I hate Imperial style IPAs, just too much. Not sure they qualify as spoof though. Disgusting, yes.
 
But this is just an itemized list of things you object to as spoof. It isn't an indication of the common terrain of spoof, so to speak, much less a definition. I'll settle for a common terrain, by the way. For instance, why are hop pellets OK, but not hop oil? Is it just tradition? Why is the tradition a good one? Is there something about the beerness of beer (since terroir doesn't seem to be the issue) that could at least be pointed too? Inquiring minds need to know.
 
India Pale Ale is a traditional style, Imperial Stout is a traditional style, one has a basic understanding of what they might expect from the beer regardless of the brewery. Imperial India Pale Ale has no meaning, except perhaps that it is bigger in every way. Call it spoof, call it novelty, don't bother pouring me a glass.

This doesn't mean that brewers must be shackled by tradition but frankly these huge beers are a lazy way for a brewer to express themselves. It's far easier to brew a face-melting beer than one with balance and subtlety. And the monster beers certainly get more attention.

I think hop pellets and oils carry the stigma of processing. In my experience, pellets are perfectly fine as a bittering agent. I usually use whole cone hops for aromatics when available but never really found a differnece in quality when using pellets. From what I understand, oil extracts work well when you want to add aromatics without bitterness. I'm pretty sure that a lot of German breweries use oils and Germany is no slouch when it comes to brewing, as you know.
 
When it comes to beer, I don't know shit from potatoes, and, quite frankly, I'm not getting any help. I think I'm back to I know what I like. This works for drinking, but not for much else.
 
Well, I suppose we can take the Code of Hammurabi and the Reinheitsgebot as the basis for traditional work and posit the Campaign for Real Ale -- who have a National Beer Scoring plan -- as "the points guys". Eh?
 
I think we're trying to fit beer into our definition of wine. Beer is made in the brewery where the "anti-spoof" movement would say wine is basically made in the vineyard and the vigneron just coaxes it along it's way once the grapes are picked. Beer is very different and putting labels on certain ingredients for a product that is by-and-large made from ingredients seems very arbitrary to me.

I'm not a fan of many IIPA, but when the alcohol is relatively in check ~8% tops, I do like many of the VT IPAs which are certainly "untypical" against the defined IPA style in their hop profiles, etc.

Jonathan, I do not think there is an answer to your question. Spoof in beer is an arbitrary categorization based on an individual's (consumer/brewer/etc.) opinion. There is certainly a framework, the styles are defined by history and an IPA or Porter should include certain things and not include certain other things. Or the Reinheitsgebot also gives us a framework. But that's all for judging and competition against an "ideal" of the style.

There is nothing that says that deviating from that ideal in some way might not taste better to a group of consumers. And it may also taste worse to some. But better or worse, it's still a product, not a dogma.
 
originally posted by mlawton:
I think we're trying to fit beer into our definition of wine. Beer is made in the brewery where the "anti-spoof" movement would say wine is basically made in the vineyard and the vigneron just coaxes it along it's way once the grapes are picked. Beer is very different and putting labels on certain ingredients for a product that is by-and-large made from ingredients seems very arbitrary to me.

I'm not a fan of many IIPA, but when the alcohol is relatively in check ~8% tops, I do like many of the VT IPAs which are certainly "untypical" against the defined IPA style in their hop profiles, etc.

Jonathan, I do not think there is an answer to your question. Spoof in beer is an arbitrary categorization based on an individual's (consumer/brewer/etc.) opinion. There is certainly a framework, the styles are defined by history and an IPA or Porter should include certain things and not include certain other things. Or the Reinheitsgebot also gives us a framework. But that's all for judging and competition against an "ideal" of the style.

There is nothing that says that deviating from that ideal in some way might not taste better to a group of consumers. And it may also taste worse to some. But better or worse, it's still a product, not a dogma.
Click to expand...

I'm more than willing to accept this, but then I think the term "spoof" should be abandoned with regard to beer in favor of terms of evaluation that more nearly fit the basis on which the evaluation is made. A dumb movie isn't bad because its spoofed; it's bad because it's dumb. IPA may draw scorn not because it's spoofed but because it tastes overdone in the wrong direction--if that's how you feel. I'm sure that Coors is just as natural as can be, but I remember when I first got west of the Mississippi in the 70s to taste it (Paul Newman's favorite and all) and it just tasted like alcoholic bubble water to me. I never trusted Paul Newman again.
 
I haven't read this thread but it is curious that a thread titled "Recommendations for chocolate in the US?" appears to have morphed into a discussion about beer.

. . . . . . Pete
 
Jeff served some Kee's chocolates for Christmas. Generally delicious although the fennel was my least favorite. The black sesame was great.
 
I've heard good things about another chocolaterie in NoLita called "Stick With Me Sweets." The confections look beautiful and they are certainly expensive enough to cover the rent on the space. I haven't tried them - anyone have an informed opinion?
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
But this is just an itemized list of things you object to as spoof. It isn't an indication of the common terrain of spoof, so to speak, much less a definition. I'll settle for a common terrain, by the way. For instance, why are hop pellets OK, but not hop oil? Is it just tradition? Why is the tradition a good one? Is there something about the beerness of beer (since terroir doesn't seem to be the issue) that could at least be pointed too? Inquiring minds need to know.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delayed reply. Busy with work here.

Beer for me is the combination of 4 basic ingredients. Malted grain, yeast, hops and water.

All 4 should be in some sort of balance to make a good beer.

Of course some styles will emphasize the malt or hops, and this is fine.

Using other ingredients such as spices, fruit, different grains then malted barley all seems fine to me and still within parameters of what I think of as beer. For me the best Belgian style beers emphasize the byproducts of the yeast fermentation, ester and aldehyde flavors from the yeast. Added spices should be in the background and not the primary flavor. When these other ingredients become the feature flavor in the end product, I start to object. I guess this is more of my personal paradigm of how I think of beer and of course my personal tastes come into play.

Beer aged in new whiskey barrels tastes more like whiskey then beer to me, and therefore seems "spoofed". I don't care for this flavor in beer.
Lots of folks like a bourbon flavored beer, and these can be very well made with a lot of care and thought behind the recipe and process.

Hops are a key ingredient and I feel that beers using the distilled hop oil, just like using syrup of malt extract vs using the whole grains is probably going too far away from using the basic 4 ingredients, and to me approaches "spoof".
 
originally posted by Marc D:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
But this is just an itemized list of things you object to as spoof. It isn't an indication of the common terrain of spoof, so to speak, much less a definition. I'll settle for a common terrain, by the way. For instance, why are hop pellets OK, but not hop oil? Is it just tradition? Why is the tradition a good one? Is there something about the beerness of beer (since terroir doesn't seem to be the issue) that could at least be pointed too? Inquiring minds need to know.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delayed reply. Busy with work here.

Beer for me is the combination of 4 basic ingredients. Malted grain, yeast, hops and water.

All 4 should be in some sort of balance to make a good beer.

Of course some styles will emphasize the malt or hops, and this is fine.

Using other ingredients such as spices, fruit, different grains then malted barley all seems fine to me and still within parameters of what I think of as beer. For me the best Belgian style beers emphasize the byproducts of the yeast fermentation, ester and aldehyde flavors from the yeast. Added spices should be in the background and not the primary flavor. When these other ingredients become the feature flavor in the end product, I start to object. I guess this is more of my personal paradigm of how I think of beer and of course my personal tastes come into play.

Beer aged in new whiskey barrels tastes more like whiskey then beer to me, and therefore seems "spoofed". I don't care for this flavor in beer.
Lots of folks like a bourbon flavored beer, and these can be very well made with a lot of care and thought behind the recipe and process.

Hops are a key ingredient and I feel that beers using the distilled hop oil, just like using syrup of malt extract vs using the whole grains is probably going too far away from using the basic 4 ingredients, and to me approaches "spoof".
Click to expand...

I can see a logic to this too. Now if you can get all the other beer drinkers to agree to this logic, or even enough so the term is used consistently, I'll be able to follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top