This is the Beer.
And these are the tools we needed to open the beer.
This is another tool. We did not use this one to open the beer.
Date attempted: Tuesday March 6th. I only had about four sips of what you see in that glass, and then poured the rest into D's glass (he liked it, so he should comment. Ahem). Beer Brother T helped with the other half of the bottle, so it didn't go to waste, and D didn't have to get wasted. It was NOT what I expected. I'm not sure what I expected.
For one thing, the cork was dry, and as you can see, extremely difficult to remove, so I wonder if this went bad. It is two years old, and, according to the website, best if used within one year. Damn.
My first impression was that it has very little nose at all. It had an acrid old-red-wine undertone. It tasted medicinal, pruney, bitter (not in a good way), too boozy, woody (more like paint thinner woody, not goody woody). I suppose if you really really love whiskey, you might like this a bit. D noted that it got better as it warmed. Not my kind of beer. I should have saved the Chuck Norris award for this beer (it's not for the faint hearted), but it wasn't worth it.
Hmmmmm. Just thought of a new rating system. The CNN (Chuck Norris Number). This can be a good or bad. Zero = My Little Pony. Fifty = Uma Thurman from Kill Bill. Seventy-five = akin to Aughra (see below). 100 = Chuck Norris (duh). The higher the number, the more likely the beer could be used as motor oil, a Rogaine substitute, or jet fuel.
This one gets a 90.
ABV 10.3 %
COR: 0.1 %
CNN: 90
Degrees Lovibond: not sure, can't see through it
IBU: couldn't find it on the net. Why don't Americans record the damned IBU all the time?
If you know who she is without googling her, I will give you a Young's Double Chocolate Stout (exceptions apply).
No comments:
Post a Comment