Thoughts On Freshness Of The Hop Focused Beers

With the IPA thread going, I thought I’d ask what concerns any of you have as to the freshness and storage of your hoppy beers. Sometimes when I see differing notes, I wonder if it is that people are actually drinking different beers because of freshness or lack there of.

Jason

Seeing as how the original purpose of hopping beer was to PRESERVE it, this is kind of like asking if people are drinking tannic wines at differing ages, no?

Well the original purpose is very different today, at least with west coast guys and their followers. I don’t think Pliny or Arrogant Bastard add hops to preserve.

J

Many folks think of those beers as agers, no? I know several collectors who have multiple vintages of Pliny in their cellars. I know the BREWERY doesn’t think so but then most Champagne houses want you to drink up right away too…

Most people I know drink Pliny within a few months of bottling, so in my experience, most people follow RRBC’s suggestion to drink young.

Could be a marketing thing a little bit. The more you drink, the more you buy…

I would be interested in trying to age one. I am not sure even how something hoppy would age. Anyone have any experience with this?

Again, the original point of over hopping the beer was to preserve it on un-refrigerated ocean voyages from Great Britain to India. There are literally centuries of experience at this. Not unlike aging wines, the initial, clearly delineated aromas and flavors soften and meld into something which many people PREFER over the initial, more direct version.

Forget it. Maybe I was unclear. Russian River, Stone and the like are going for strong hop aromas and flavors meant to be enjoyed at their freshest. I am talking about new wave hop heads. Many scientific & biological innovations have unintended consequences. In this case there are a large number of folks that want an abundance of hops. They want the fresh hops! That is the goal. Stone, Russian River and others are not adding hops to age their beer. I haven’t heard of people aging Pliny but it may develop nicely. Just like a Loring Pinot. But Brian’s main goal is to enjoy the fresh fruit.

For the purpose of this discussion, I am looking for thoughts based on the goal of freshness. Just as written on the bottles of Pliny & Blind Pig, communicated by Stone and others like Lagunitas.

Why don’t you start your own thread if you want to discuss the positives and negatives of aging hoppy beer. I’ll happily join the discussion.

Your initial post:

“Sometimes when I see differing notes, I wonder if it is that people are actually drinking different beers because of freshness or lack there of.”

I was just exploring that and noting that the differing notes may be because of evolution in the bottle.

right. As I said, I guess I was unclear. In my mind I had a specific type of note. I don’t recall a note of purposefully aged Imperial/Double IPAs. Someone looking for big hoppy beers might drink an aged unrefrigerated Pliny (lets say 12 months old) and have a note drastically different than the person tasting a fresh Pliny. My limited experience with this type of thing shows that the changes happen much faster than say a Cabernet.

With bottles that don’t stamp the date, you never know if are getting a 2 month old IPA or a 12 month IPA. I think things change fast. That is way I tasted Racer 5 on multiple occasions. First few times I figured I was tasting one that wasn’t fresh. Nope, the beer just didn’t float my boat. I guess I should age a few bottles.

Time is not a friend of hoppy beers, I stated this in the IPA thread. I don’t know why anyone would want to hold these too long as the hops and the flavors ( grapefruit, citrus, etc…) seem to fade and turn into just a less aggressive piney flavor.


I can definitely tell the difference between an IPA that is 1 week old and 2 months and there is no comparison, fresh is the only way to go.

As a related aside . . .

What are your Hop-Lovers favorite aromatic & most fresh-hoppy brew faves?

For me nothing yet has beat Stone’s 2009 Cali-Belgie IPA.

A Mountain of fresh hop aromas assault your nose!

Sad to say the '10 version not in the same league whatsoever.

Other favorites in this vein out there???

I wonder if it is something like oak on wines. As in the effects of new oak on wine have become a major selling point and up front feature on many wines where previously the wood was a useful storage and aging tool where certain effects were noticed on the wines. I think hop editions are similar in that as Roberto points out they were used to certain effect at one time and are more used for their flavor components or effects on the palate feel. In both cases I think that maybe the emphasis has moved from the structural effects to the flavor effects without regards to the changes in this might have on building the product. Lessons to be learned possibly.

this is my opinion as well. the aggressive hop flavors and aromas seem to dissipate, leaving behind a beer that gives an impression of greater maltiness than it did when young. almost without fail, when i have an IPA that is around a year old, it is but a shell of its former self — often, it’s a bit skunky, too.

You want fresh? I grow my own hops. For the beer (IPA’s) that I brew, I prefer that they have a few months on them.

I’ll often pick a fresh hop and chew on it for a while to test it’s bittering capabilities. Kind of cheek and gum, tobacco style.

I think you also have to look at intended results. As Roberto and Cris noted, in the past it was known that addition of hops would help preserve the beer. That was the main goal, and the flavor additions were secondary. Now we have a generation of brewers who have instant (relatively speaking) access to the freshest ingredients and the intention is to make aromatically complex, flavorful beers that accent the freshness of the hops. The goal is not, necessarily, simply to add hops to preserve the beer. The different goals have different results.

On an individual note, however, I think that it is the malt base that has just as much importance in the outcome. Something like a Pliny is lighter on its feet and is probably best when freshest. I don’t care what they tell you at Stone Brewing, those are malty monsters that can handle all the hops they put in them and while the hoppy freshness may dissipate over time, that’s the kind of beer that could handle the voyage from Essex down around Cape Horn and up to India.

Now it’s up to us to sift through it all and decide what we like best.

I’m assuming Jason is speaking of the beers that are shooting for extreme hoppy aromatics - that are interested in adding a lot of hops late rather than boiling them to extract bitterness - late dry-hopping doesn’t preserve or add bitterness necessarily, it adds volatile aromatics and flavor. Those characteristics tend to wear off rather quickly, while brews with a lot of bittering hops (during the boil) do not. Thus the fresher the better. Hopheads around here run tap beers through a hop filter just before serving for an extreme example of acheiving the freshest possible hop taste.

John,

Thanks for the clarifications on methodology, I didn’t consider that in my answer.

Oh I think the malt certainly plays a role as well…and if you want a super-floral hop aroma, you don’t want a bunch of malt absorbing it…

Interesting.

A lot of people do like BIG hops though!

I enjoy the ales made with fresh hops. It was a treat to be at Lagunitas two Thursdays ago when they tapped a firkin of IPA made with four varieties of fresh hops grown in the garden of one of their servers. I was also fortunate to be at Sierra Nevada to enjoy their Southern Hemisphere Fresh Hopped ale from cask on it’s release day. Glad I got there early as it was soon three deep at the bar.

I can’t imagine either of these would benefit from age. Last weekend I had a very attractive IPA called Hop Czar (87 IBU) from cask at Bridgeport in Porland. At 7.5% alc, it was very refreshing.