Vb Hop Schedule Please

[jonocarroll]

It was never meant to encompass infected or light struck beers or mishandled beers it's just about what a bloke likes.

There are beers made and sold with full intention, not accidentally ruined, that are shit. Watery, foul-tasting crap that doesn't deserve to be called beer. This isn't "well, West End Draught has a funky flavour I don't particularly like" [preference], or "I find 'blue cheese' and 'stinky tofu' gross" [personal taste], this is 3-year-old's-attempt-at-breakfast-made-with-mud bad [shit].

The fact that some people may enjoy these shit beers doesn't mean that the beers aren't shit, it means that some people enjoy shit beers just like some kids eat dirt. Do they enjoy them better than craft beers? Harder so say.

 

[mh971]

Must get back to real brewing converastions.

 

[mh971]

QB,

last post being typed before yours read.

I see you are with Bum on this.

Did you read DrS posted article on another forum on why people drink ridiculously hi hopped beers. It starts out as dick measuring, I'm an individual who can handle this stuff sort of attitude of exclusivity, then their tastes adjust and they begin to like it. Bit like eating Chilli.

I now like Blue Cheeses, in my 20's I hated it, same with neat single malt whiskey, this is a recognised phenomenon of how our palate degrades with age and loses the sugar receptors and begins to favour bitter and sour tastes .

Beer is similar, whilst still young I reckon our palates find bitterness offensive, as we grow older or develop our palate by experience it becomes a pleasure, so super hoppy and aromatic beers become more pleasurable. Doesn't mean a very plain beer is bad. And maybe even a plain infected beer can seem ok to some.

Are you now trolling me for fun.

I'm out of this one.

 

[jonocarroll]

Did you read DrS posted article on another forum on why people drink ridiculously hi hopped beers. It starts out as dick measuring, I'm an individual who can handle this stuff sort of attitude of exclusivity, then their tastes adjust and they begin to like it. Bit like eating Chilli.

No, I read this forum. While that may be the case for some, I certainly didn't take that route. My love of highly-hopped beers came from tasting them and loving them, not from others opinions of my ability to drink them. What was your point?

I now like Blue Cheeses, in my 20's I hated it, same with neat single malt whiskey, this is a recognised phenomenon of how our palate degrades with age and loses the sugar receptors and begins to favour bitter and sour tastes .

Beer is similar, whilst still young I reckon our palates find bitterness offensive, as we grow older or develop our palate by experience it becomes a pleasure, so super hoppy and aromatic beers become more pleasurable.

Doesn't mean a very plain beer is bad.

This is precisely what I'm NOT saying, as per my examples above. I am NOT talking about things you don't happen to like. In any case, I would say that the palate improves with age to more refined tastes.

And maybe even a plain infected beer can seem ok to some.

Doesn't stop it from being shit, though. Once again, dirt is a pretty shitty food. Just because kids eat it, doesn't mean it's otherwise.

You're not getting this, are you?

Boring beers /= shit. Personal tastes determine the preference for/against.
Terribly made beers == shit. Personal tastes irrelevant here.

If I made a beer with toe jam it would not be 'a beer that only very few people like, but is not shit'... it would be shit. It would be shit at qualifying as a beer. While commercial examples won't go this far, some of their efforts are unworthy of the name 'beer'.

 

[vr4_psych]

Clearly 'good' and 'shit' are being defined very differently here. But defining good based on mass popularity is inherently flawed. Wasn't Hitler once very popular? How about Bieber? Because millions like him, does that make him a good singer? No, it makes him a popular singer.

Surely quality can only be judged by those experienced and educated on a given topic.

 

[dougsbrew]

ok some people dont like vb, i know that. the people that dont like it are of a minority, it is bought and consumed all around the globe. thats not what this thread was about. how many brewers sell their beer out of a b double like this one. surely their beer cant be too bad.

and thanks to those small number of posts out of 4 pages that was of relevance.

 

[Bribie G]

XXXX gold, served at the correct temperature on a hot day actually isn't a bad beer - it's well made, has far less sugar adjunct than XXXX heavy, is made with real hop flowers and hits the spot for a million or so beer drinkers. Of course it's the equivalent of Tip Top bread but there again a million people are probably off to work today on a couple of slices of Tip Top toast with a Tip Top corned beef and pickles sandwich in their briefcase. This is sneered at by people who only eat sourdough or dark Rye from big wicker baskets out the front of a craft bakery run by a lady called Polly who is definitely a cat lady and drives a Citroen CV2 and Edna Everidge spectacle frames.

I don't mind the odd sourdough myself but don't sneer at the Tip Top eaters (have an ALDI loaf in the fridge ATM)

 

[pcmfisher]

There are beers made and sold with full intention, not accidentally ruined, that are shit. Watery, foul-tasting crap that doesn't deserve to be called beer. This isn't "well, West End Draught has a funky flavour I don't particularly like" [preference], or "I find 'blue cheese' and 'stinky tofu' gross" [personal taste], this is 3-year-old's-attempt-at-breakfast-made-with-mud bad [shit].

The fact that some people may enjoy these shit beers doesn't mean that the beers aren't shit, it means that some people enjoy shit beers just like some kids eat dirt. Do they enjoy them better than craft beers? Harder so say.

Could you give me an example of one of these "Watery, foul-tasting crap"

I notice you put West End Draught in a different category :huh: :huh:

If you make a 1000ibu floral bowl of fruit beer and you like it, does it mean its not a shit beer??

Old gramps has been making beer for 30yrs.
Coopers Draught, 1kg table sugar, brewed in the shed at 29deg for 4 days.
Yes, technically a shit beer.
But old gramps loves it. Thinks its just the best.
He likes his better that yours. He says yours is shit.
Is he wrong????

 

[Supra-Jim]

If you make a 1000ibu floral bowl of fruit beer and you like it, does it mean its not a shit beer??

Old gramps has been making beer for 30yrs.
Coopers Draught, 1kg table sugar, brewed in the shed at 29deg for 4 days.
Yes, technically a shit beer.
But old gramps loves it. Thinks its just the best.
He likes his better that yours. He says yours is shit.
Is he wrong????

What is it they say? Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder?

Cheers SJ

 

[jonocarroll]

If you make a 1000ibu floral bowl of fruit beer and you like it, does it mean its not a shit beer??

Old gramps has been making beer for 30yrs.
Coopers Draught, 1kg table sugar, brewed in the shed at 29deg for 4 days.
Yes, technically a shit beer.
But old gramps loves it. Thinks its just the best.
He likes his better that yours. He says yours is shit.
Is he wrong????

Congratulations! You've missed the point 100% -- PERFECT SCORE! --

Old gramps' beer IS NOT (NECESSARILY) SHIT (though it might be). If it's made well, there's a chance that it's not. Did none of my point about something not being liked and something being shit get through at all? You've claimed that Old gramps' beer is shit because it's simple. Bollocks. You've claimed mine is shit because you don't like it. I would make the point again, but clearly I'm doing this wrong.

I think part of the problem here is that you're still confusing personal taste with actual quality. If gramps says his is the *best* (as opposed to *good*) then presumably he's tried all the others and likes his more. If someone *prefers* fusels, esters, twang, and harshness over cleanly made (although simple) beer, I would suggest that they do indeed like shit product. Calling the Sistine Chapel frescoes 'shit' because you prefer finger paintings is the wrong use of the word.

Could you give me an example of one of these "Watery, foul-tasting crap"

Without going too far from home; Gulf Brewery Sou'Wester - terribly made beer (which, yes, some people might like, but it's terribly made) as an example. Some of the Lovely Valley beers would also fit the description. Beers like XXXX, WED, etc are very well made for what they are. I don't like them, but they're not shitty quality.

 

[Jimboley]

Old gramps has been making beer for 30yrs.
Coopers Draught, 1kg table sugar, brewed in the shed at 29deg for 4 days.
Yes, technically a shit beer.
But old gramps loves it. Thinks its just the best.
He likes his better that yours. He says yours is shit.
Is he wrong????

This sounds like half my customers.

It was 37C yesterday afternoon, I bought and drank a Carlton Draught... I really enjoyed it...somehow it was just what I needed.....

For the OP.....

My 24L AG Vic Bitter recipe

4kg JW Export Pilsner
1kg JW Trad Ale
300g WY Carapils
200g JW Caramalt

20g POR @ 60 mins
10g Cluster @ 20 mins

1/2 tab Whirlfloc @ 10 mins
1/2 tsp Yeast Food

Yeast suggestions:
Mauri 0541, Safale S04 (ferment at 18C)
or W34/70 (lager version- ferment at 12C)

Mash in 15L @ 60C for 30 mins
then raise to 66C for 60 mins
Sparge with 4L @ 70C

Boil for 20 mins before adding hops.

Chill, pitch, ferment, keg/bottle & enjoy!

...It's not VB..but it's close & probably tastier IMHO

(5%ABV at 72% brew house efficiency)

I made this with and without the Cluster addition, and prefer it with.

I've also use Nugget with a good result.

 

[Leigh]

But who defined shit? So the experts claim beer "a: is shit...are they right?

Infections are bad and mean shit beer? Weren't the first beers all infected?

I piss myself laughing at the meaningless debates on this forum! Most are scientifically incorrect...the above relies on n=1 statistics...again meaningless!

I think I'll go to the Ford Forums and read about how Holdens are shit lmao

For the OP, My recipe is heavily based on Bribies. Run with that and then tweak to your liking.

 

[Bribie G]

Jimboley, interesting yeast choice there. When doing a Carlton style a couple of years ago I did a double batch and fermented one with 34/70 and the other with Mauribrew lager yeast and although the Mauri didn't turn out as crisp, it didn't have the sulphur overtones of the other one. I took a couple of bottles to a case swap and no bad comments, even though by that stage everybody's buds had been zapped by hop monsters etc.

 

[Malted]

if you have ever known anyone who kept pet mice in cages, that's the faint whiff you get in their room and it's a fleeting aftertaste you get with VB or XXXX,

He he he, Mouse Shit? Go on, we know you wanna say VB or XXXX has a Rat Shit aftertaste! :lol:

Ah now I see, these beers are not actually shit, they just have an aftertaste of shit. I get it now. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Bribie G]

It's more in the pee, you know the stuff that soaks into the sawdust at the bottom of the cage. Or maybe - here's a thought - it gets into the malt in the storage area -

 

[Jimboley]

Jimboley, interesting yeast choice there. When doing a Carlton style a couple of years ago I did a double batch and fermented one with 34/70 and the other with Mauribrew lager yeast and although the Mauri didn't turn out as crisp, it didn't have the sulphur overtones of the other one. I took a couple of bottles to a case swap and no bad comments, even though by that stage everybody's buds had been zapped by hop monsters etc.

Hi BG,
Isnt VB tradionally an Ale?

The Mauri 054 is a English Ale Yeast.
Mauri Lager yeast leaves heaps of Banana'ish notes IMHO it reminds me of S23 (MAX SULPHUR)
I reckon the W34/70 is great, so clean and quick to condition.

 

[pcmfisher]

Old gramps' beer IS NOT (NECESSARILY) SHIT (though it might be). If it's made well, there's a chance that it's not.

Coopers Draught, 1kg table sugar, brewed in the shed at 29deg for 4 days. I suppose there could be a chance that its well made. Screwing the fermenter lid on slowly and filling the airlock with holy water maybe.....Might not be shit.
Please define "well made"

Did none of my point about something not being liked and something being shit get through at all?

Yes it did. According to you, if something is well made, regardless of taste, its good and if something is not well made its shit. Arse paper

You've claimed that Old gramps' beer is shit because it's simple.

No I didn't

You've claimed mine is shit because you don't like it.

Well thats as valid as you saying gramps' beer is shit because it was not made properly

If gramps says his is the *best* (as opposed to *good*) then presumably he's tried all the others and likes his more.

That is possible. Maybe he doesn't like too much hop flavour, bitterness and body or in fact the taste of beer.

If someone *prefers* fusels, esters, twang, and harshness over cleanly made (although simple) beer, I would suggest that they do indeed like shit product.

Thats your opinion. And probably technically correct but totally irrelevant to them though.


I do not think your definition of shit because its not made properly is if any use to anyone other than a beer snob.

So you would rather drink a beer that is made technically perfectly but tastes like shit to you than one made using less perfect procedure and happens to taste ok.

All I am trying to say is surely the only thing that is important is ones taste, and nobody has the right to tell anyone they are drinking shit beer.

 

[Nick JD]

...and nobody has the right to tell anyone they are drinking shit beer.

If you remove the lid of their fermenter, pull down your trousers, sit on the rim and squeeze one out ... then yeah, you do.

I call it Dry Plopping.

 

[bum]

You're still talking about preferences, pcmfisher.

Infections are bad and mean shit beer? Weren't the first beers all infected?

Sure but I guess it depends how we define "infected". They were certainly accidental. They were certainly wild fermented. But once you've got a precedent set (while not utterly set in stone, I will accept) you've got room to fairly call some infections actual infections rather than just a matter of preference, surely?

And, of course, if the old claim is true and all HB is infected to some degree then there certainly are also infected beers that aren't shit but when that infection turns the beer into something other than it was mean to (or should) be then I think you've got fair claim to label the beer "below par" (since some people really seem to be getting hung up on the word "shit").

 

[jonocarroll]

You've claimed that Old gramps' beer is shit because it's simple.

No I didn't

and yet...

Old gramps has been making beer for 30yrs.
Coopers Draught, 1kg table sugar, brewed in the shed at 29deg for 4 days.
Yes, technically a shit beer.

Coopers Draught, 1kg table sugar, brewed in the shed at 29deg for 4 days. I suppose there could be a chance that its well made. Screwing the fermenter lid on slowly and filling the airlock with holy water maybe.....Might not be shit.
Please define "well made"

Careful sanitation and procedure with good yeast viability and by some miracle no terribly off-flavours. In all likeliness it will be shit, but that would be presumptive of me.

Well thats as valid as you saying gramps' beer is shit because it was not made properly

Old gramps' beer IS NOT (NECESSARILY) SHIT (though it might be). If it's made well, there's a chance that it's not.

Odd interpretation.

Thats your opinion. And probably technically correct but totally irrelevant to them though.

I don't care what they think of my opinion, particularly more-so if it's 'technically correct'.I wasn't interested in getting into 'are people who drink shit beer offended by the fact that others know they drink shit beer?'

So you would rather drink a beer that is made technically perfectly but tastes like shit to you than one made using less perfect procedure and happens to taste ok.

Who said I would rather drink it? My point was that it existed.

All I am trying to say is surely the only thing that is important is ones taste, and nobody has the right to tell anyone they are drinking shit beer.

Why not? Is it some god-given right that protects you from me labeling the quality of your beverage? The point made earlier was that 'there is no such thing as shit beer'. I opposed that statement. Somehow saying 'there is such a thing as shit beer' violates basic human rights, I suppose.

I'm leaving this here. I see no point continuing further off-topic when you're contradicting yourself and putting words in my keyboard. If you make a terrible beer, I'll still call it shit. If you want to live in your own little world where there is no such thing as 'bad' then go nuts, by all means. You have the support of the drunk teenagers who think 'any alcohol is awesome coz it gets you pissed!!! woo!' Beer - like any substance - shouldn't be naively elevated above it's actual quality for the sake of popularity.