Sierra Nevada Northern Hemisphere Harvest.

I didn't necessarily want to pick up a whole six-pack for my last couple of days so I ended up getting two bombers, both happening to be interesting and new. I wouldn't even have seriously considered this one had it not said "wet hop". This is the companion ale to the Southern Hemisphere Harvest which uses fresh hops flown in from New Zealand. The confusing thing about wet hop and fresh hop is that fresh hops are actually whole-cones dried and then used within a few days while wet hops are undried and whole-cone hops used withing 24 hours of picking. The wet hops for this one, naturally, came from Yakima.

Pouring with a pretty full head, it leaves plenty of lacing down the glass. It's also a touch darker than I might see in an American IPA. The aroma is surprisingly subdued, noting the hoppiness but exuded some pine-y, woody, more organic character. The taste is fairly deep with a strong, lasting bitter but not palate-wrecking. Rather than resin-y, it's more oily and flavorful. It's well-smoothed over by the malts making for an exceptionally well balanced beer, both in terms of malts and hop and in terms of mouthfeel. It's full without being too voluminous.

This is really a well-put-together beer for Sierra Nevada. Assertive but not ostentatious, no off-flavors. At 6.7%ABV, it's still easy-going enough to be a relaxing beer or a dinner beer. I like it.

• Appearance: Dark copper with a luxurious head, which dissipates to moss but laces well.
• Smell: A subtle, subdued hop aroma; aromatic and organic.
• Taste: A solid but not overpowering hop bitterness. It balances well with the malts. Slightly grassy, pine-y, woody.
• Mouthfeel: Carbonation is spot on, full and refreshing.
• Drinkability and Overall: 6.7%ABV is a little high for sessioning, but it is still a solid, occasion beer.

Epic Portamarillo.

I have no idea why I bought this beer. After a pretty shit day, all I really want is a solid, hoppy IPA (to be followed with gin and tonics, martinis, or whiskies), but taking a look at the label on this one: "the world's first tree tomato beer". Fuuuuuck. A self-described "sorta-porter" brewed with Tamarillos smoked over NZ Christmas Tree wood chips, oh boy. I guess I bought this because it seemed intriguing at the time and it was a collab brew with none other than DFH. Of course, DFH always does weird stuff. Also, a tiny, barely visible best-by indicates 19.10.11 so cool.

My first sip was really tentative because, gosh, a tomato beer sounds awful. As it turns out, it tastes like a decent, creamy porter. It's a very dark, translucent, ruby red against the light. The overall taste is quite mild, no tomato-y nonsense. The smoked component is subtle but noticeable and pretty tasty without being overpowering like some smoked beers. The center is fairly nondescript, most akin to a porter. I don't normally like porters because I don't care for that thin body and half-assed roasted malts, but this is pretty good. There's also a slight ashy, savory taste. It's smooth and creamy, The finish is somewhat more interesting as it's a bit astringent and hints of chocolate show up around the edges as I feel my tongue drying a bit.

An interesting beer, much better than I had feared. It leaves at a bit of a loss, no idea how to pair or how to follow it.

• Appearance: Dark but clear; creamy-looking head that subsides a bit but is still mossy.
• Smell: Couldn't get much out of the nose, typical of porter.
• Taste: First impression is the smoke but that's mild. Hints of chocolate, ash, and savory.
• Mouthfeel: Thin but smooth and creamy without frothing. Noticeably astringent on the finish.
• Drinkability and Overall: 7%ABV so strangely strong for a porter. Both interesting and run-of-the-mill at the same time. Worth a try but not anything I'd pick up again.

High Water Brewing Hop Riot IPA.

After spending the last few months climbing in the gym, I finally went outdoor climbing. We got pretty destroyed, and I almost fell off a cliff in the worst way. I'm pretty sure I've definitely earned this beer maybe. Also, this is a beer that I got from Cool New Friend Who Buys Beer For WF, so that is pretty cool. For some reason, the label looks very familiar, and i don't know if it's because I just saw it a lot here or if I've actually seen it back home. Beer labels are kind of like beers in that way that there's ones you remember and ones you don't. For some reason, this label makes me think of amateur homebrew guy trying to get some sales and distro. I think it's the font. I guess I am just not that into so much serif.

The pour looks resin-y and produces a decent, lasting head so that's potentially a good start. The aroma is hoppy, more on the weedy side than floral or grassy, perhaps an effect of the dry-hopping, of which they don't specify the format. The undercurrent of malt keeps a fairly potent bitterness in check, and there's a noticeably nice balance there, something that's far too uncommon in IPAs. My only outstanding complaint would have to be the carbonation level and shape which is a little too fizzy, a little too diet soda-like. Otherwise, it's not bad. It's a fairly standard, no-real-complaints, IPA, which is perhaps it's greatest detraction, that there's nothing outstanding about it. At 7.3%ABV, it's unusually strong, but no real complaints there. Because it's so bitter, I'm not sure I would want to pair it against anything other than a very spicy Thai curry with coconut milk.

Also, what is the deal with such aggressively named beers? I don't want a riot in my mouth. People get beat up at riots. Why can't they make an IPA called Hop Symphony or Sock Hop or Hop Pants-off Dance-off? These possibilities are far more intriguing than riots, armageddon, or other such devastation.

• Appearance: Slightly darker than typical, more of a copper tone. Clear. Moderate head that manages to persist.
• Smell: Strong, bitter hop aroma. Noticeably not fresh but certainly not stale either. More on the weedy, resin-y side.
• Taste: Solid bitter with a well-balancing malt. Somewhat one-dimensional, but not as obnoxious about it as, say, Hoptical Illusion.
• Mouthfeel: Somewhat overcarbed, but otherwise of a pleasant, standard weight. Slightly resinous, leaving some stickiness, which denies it the ability to be crisp and clean.
• Drinkability and Overall: 7.3%ABV, somewhat high for a standard IPA. It lacks the depth to stand too much scrutiny and the residue gets a little annoying. It's otherwise a simple drinker to be consumed while doing other things.

Epic Armageddon IPA.

With the rash of New Zealand hops being used these days, I thought a New Zealand beer might be an interesting change of pace. Clearly, they are apt on marketing abroad as the top of their label proclaims "ALL THE WAY FROM NEW ZEALAND". I wonder what folks in New Zealand think when they see this. To be contextually appropriate, I am now listening to Flight of the Conchords.

It's business time.

The whiff is rich and malty with a almost resin-y with hops. Very nice. That's foreplay. Sweet, green, and grassy with lots of lacing. I know this bottle must have been sitting on the shelf forever, but it still smells almost fresh, not dried or pellet-y. But when we get down to business socks, it is not as epic as its namesake. And that's the unfortunate curse of many beers that insist on their epicness, that they will wreck your palate, and otherwise cause catastrophic devastation and calamities. No one wants that in their mouth anyway.

The hop character, while not a cataclysm, is thin and sharp, evident and rather firm. It's not necessarily metallic, but more akin some more organic surfacing material around a full, more-of-a-pale-ale body. It has a session feel despite being the odd 6.66%ABV. It's also a curious format, 1 pint and .9 fl oz. Everything's backwards on that side of the world. That being said, it's a very solid, retro IPA, without some of the more floral or wide-ranging hop complexities that's more commonplace today. Ultimately, I think it's lacking a solid malt backbone, which makes it very drinkable without being filling. The strong-enough hop character is just enough to carry its flimsy compatriot.

At the end of the day, it'll never be a concert flautist, but it's a decent, drinkable beer, depending on the street. I'm not sure if I would want to sit down and drink this on its own, but it might be a good opener for a night.

• Appearance: Clear, slightly darker golden straw. Fluffy, finger head which settles down a bit but leaves plenty of lacing.
• Smell: A rich hoppy, malty, aroma, fresh and grassy.
• Taste: A bit might thinner than one might expect from the smell. Thin, hard hops but without the malts to fill it out leaves it so-so.
• Mouthfeel: Thin on taste but the mouthfeel is a voluminous pale ale. Not uncomfortably filling though.
• Drinkability and Overall: Based on feel, it's sessionable, but at 6.66%ABV, it's slightly steep. I just wasn't terribly impressed. less than epic.

Speakeasy Big Daddy IPA.

Speakeasy is a SF-local brewery. I had been putting off picking any up this summer since I figured I would get down there at some point. Since I'm packing up an leaving in a couple weeks, I'm doubtful I'll find myself there. And after having tasted this one, good time not wasted.

The head almost indicated something promising, but I couldn't get anything of the nose, which is really weird for an IPA. As it turns out, there's nothing to get out of the nose because there is nothing there. I have had lagers hoppier than this. This has got to be one of the wateriest IPAs I've ever had. And it's kind of flat to boot. This is my disappointed face: '_'

Hands down, one of the worst IPAs I've had. To be honest, I don't even want to finish this. There are IPAs that are terrible because they just totally fucked up going for something or because it was a bad bottle (I did get to try Denogginizer again; better bottle than the one I had.) but this is the worst because there's no effort. And that's basically as bad as Lex Luthor stealing forty cakes.

• Appearance: Too clear golden straw. Mossy head that is lacing a bit, but too little, too late.
• Smell: Virtually nothing. lolwut?
• Taste: Very mild hops that manage to not taste pellet-y and only slightly metallic on the finish.
• Mouthfeel: Soda going flat. There is not much hop or malt so the finish is pretty clean.
• Drinkability and Overall: Terrible. Do not buy. No redeeming qualities.

Karl Strauss Boardwalk Black Rye.

I've been to Karl Strauss a couple times now, and the beer had always been a decent experience. Most brews are not bad but nothing spectacular. I usually pass over the Karl Strauss options because I was never really wooed, but I saw this one at the store, I had to give it a try. I have a penchant for rye; whiskey, beer, bread, it's all good.

A nice black pour, with about a centimeter of dirty head, I got a nice whiff of spice. There's a bit of chocolate right on the tip of the tongue. There's no strongly dominant flavor but it starts toasty, progresses to roasty, and finishes fairly burnt, like burnt toast. There's hints of spiciness throughout, but unfortunately not as potent as I'd like. I think it gets a bit overwhelmed by the strong roasted malts. It's a bit sticky on the finish but is otherwise clean on the palate.

So I'm going to guess that this is supposed to be a Cascadian Dark with rye. I'm not feeling it. Yet again, the label indicates their strong hop character ("of a Double IPA", ha!) but fails to follow through. This is supposedly rated at 80IBU and has garnered some decent ratings on BA, but I just don't get that strong of a hop impression with this, nor many other Cascadians. I don't get it. Maybe I should try a blind tasting sometime and see if the visual cue is what's screwing with my palate. Or maybe there's just not that much hop to taste.

• Appearance: Opaque black with a centimeter of light brown head. Fades pretty quickly though.
• Smell: A spicy, cereal aroma.
• Taste: Predominantly dark malt impressions of varying toast. The hop character is just not there for me. There's a bit of chocolate on the tip at the beginning.
• Mouthfeel: Clean, round, and smooth. Finishes a bit sticky.
• Drinkability and Overall: As with Karl Strauss's other beers, it's not bad, but it's not knock-your-socks-off. At 8%ABV, maybe a way to start of a meal at one of their brewpubs.

Straffe Hendrik Bruges Tripel 9.

I picked up a bottle at the recommendation of a WF guy who "loves malty, fruity things", tripels among them. Right on popping the cork, a spicy, tart aroma emerged, an auspicious start. A slightly reddish golden pour, topped by a fine, creamy head, which is a little low for the style. Despite that, it is persistent as a moss. The palate impression is rather phenolic, slightly tart, slightly bitter. Surprisingly, not as sweet and malty as I might have thought, given the source of the recommendation. I also have to say the carbonation level is rather low. What is up with that lately?

Actually, taking the last sip from this glass, it's almost completely flat, which sucks. However, I did pick up a perfume-y flower petal note as well. Also, a slight inhale on a sip yields some characteristic banana notes.

Pouring to finish off, the sediment is kicked up pretty early. It is not caked down. Slightly annoying, but maybe a candidate for harvesting? I might pick up some of the other Straffe Hendrik line, but I will rinse and save this bottle because I like the label (not paper, printed!). The others utilize the same moon image, presumably signifying the Halve Maan Brewery, but change the color of the label, much like Chimay. I enjoy tripels too much to think they need a pairing so nothing really comes to mind for this one. A gander at the label also indicates that this is a "Brugean tripel", with 6 malts and Saaz and Stryian Golding. Apparently, this is a local specialty of the Bruges area, using darker malts than normal, hence, perhaps, the reddish color. Neat.

• Appearance: Reddish golden. Rather thin, creamy head; low retention.
• Smell: Rather tart, a bit pear-like.
• Taste: Banana, tart, flower petal perfume. Not as malty as I might think.
• Mouthfeel: Carbonation is fine albeit a bit low. Slightly drying on the finish, which is nice.
• Drinkability and Overall: 9%ABV clearly disqualifies it from sessioning, but it's a unique tripel variation worth trying.

Sam Adams Longshot Blackened Hops.

The last unique installment of the Longshot 6-pack. After the dismal Friar last time, I was hoping this would better. And it is. But only marginally. I suppose this is supposed to be akin to a Cascadian Dark, formerly known as Black IPA (THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE). The pour is pretty rich-looking and the head is creamy, so it almost looks like a stout. However, the mouthfeel is creamier than a regular stout. So the first few sips, I wasn't too impressed but now that I'm not distracted and actually paying attention, I'm getting hints of chocolate. It's a bit like drinking a non-viscous chocolate syrup though the sweetness and cocoa intensity are quite low. There is a nicely balanced roasted malt bitter as well as hop bitter towards the finish. The finish is also pleasantly clean, no metallic off-flavors.

Again, this is a self-proclaimed hop punch but I'm finding it to not deliver, which is not a bad thing. I think the level of hopping in this just right, considering everything else. It's restrained and mostly grassy, pine-y, leafy than tongue splitting. I really think the mouthfeel is probably the most outstanding characteristic though. It's cohesive but not terribly viscous like heavier stouts. Like heavier stouts though, it carries a good amount of roast and a somewhat heavier body. It's extremely smooth and pleasant on the palate, a constant low simmer of carbonation keeping it from sticking too much.

I am still not a huge fan of Cascadian Darks, mostly because I have yet to try one that really impresses me and pulls off what it claims to be doing, but this is a nice one. It's stout-like leaning makes it a unique alternative with cheese plates. Perhaps a bit too heavy for an apertif, but I think if the meal were simple, small, and hearty, it'd go over well. I'm thinking of it as a good well-into-fall-heading-into-winter kind of beer, after you get sick of pumpkin beers, tired of harvest ales, but not cold enough for heavy stouts.

• Appearance: Opaque black, barely translucent reddishness against the light. A constant but thin head, very fine and creamy.
• Smell: That unique Cascadian Dark aroma of roast and hops, but fairly subdued on both fronts. It is still a confusing one to me.
• Taste: Fairly toasty and burnt, there is some chocolate sensation as well as a leafy, pine-y hop on the back end, though contributing rather little bitterness.
• Mouthfeel: Superbly smooth and silky. The low viscosity belies the weight of this one. A very nice combination. Cohesive is the best way to describe it.
• Drinkability and Overall: It does not finish as cleanly as I would like, but it is still a pleasant beer. At 7%ABV combined with the stickiness, I don't think I would drink more than one or two.

Sam Adams Longshot Friar Hop Ale.

Second installation from the Longshot. A viscous, vinous-looking pour into a pint glass. First sip: ugh. What the hell happened here? It is very malty sweet, slightly unripened fruit, and cloying even though it's not a refined sweetness. Supposedly, this guy loves hops and he loves spicy Belgian ales. This has neither. There is some dark ale maltiness in the nose, but the taste is bordering on sour. To be honest, this seems to be either underfermented. or extremely young. Or maybe that sourness is supposed to be a mega-citrus component, but I'm just not feeling it. The more that I think about it, it tastes like some other Belgian-styled beer I had recently, but knows what the name was. Maybe this is just one of those beers.

I wanted to like it, I really did. But there's something not balanced out here. If they said to put some age on it, I would. I'm really missing the hops that were supposed to be in here, too. What gives? I don't even want to finish this bottle. It'd be well enough to piece out for a tasters, but what is it supposed to represent? For sure, this is a higher ABV at 9%, but if that's all you're getting, I'd be happier drinking a bourbon or gin.

• Appearance: A bit of a golden amber but kind of pissy. Slightly viscous-looking
• Smell: Super malty with a bit of nondescript, but reasonably fresh, hop aroma
• Taste: Just too malty, sugar-y, and unusually tart. The hops are nowhere to be found.
• Mouthfeel: Vinous and sticky. Carbed out by the time I got towards the bottom. Pretty dismal.
• Drinkability and Overall: It just didn't hit enough marks to be passable. I'm not sure what it supposed to be going on here, but whatever it was, it wasn't for me.

La Trappe and Rogue Public.

I finally made it out to La Trappe, a bar in SF specializing in imported/Belgian beers. The setting is pretty cool. There's a small dining area upstairs, but downstairs is the bar with more dinner seating. The bar area is a pretty dimly lit, cozy cellar. Their bottle list is at least a dozen pages, each front and back, small print. I didn't really have the time or resources to work on that. The draft lineup was about a dozen beers, a lot of which are pretty freely available in bottles so I focused on the most obscure ones. Notes are brief.

Van Steenberge Gentse Tripel: Very smooth and sweet, a little undercarbed. Nice fruity phenolic character.

De Keersmaeker Mort Subite Blanche: A white lambic, i.e. a lambic brewed with wheat. Awesome strawberry and tropical fruit notes, very clean and light.

I forget what this was called. I overheard the bartender chatting up some girl about this one. It is apparently the original Hoegaarden recipe.

We made our way down to Rogue as well for some dinner. The menu as La Trappe looked nice, but I didn't get the vibe that I was going to get a lot of food for my money. But the joke was on me because I had a terrible fish and chips at Rogue. In retrospect, I should have remembered that because the last time I was there, one of my associates got the fish and chips and I got a taco salad. Both looked terrible.

Coincidentally, I recently had someone mention Mata Veza Morpho to me, about how it is a 0IBU beer or something, which is bizarre. I only had a taste, and it tasted more like a tea than anything.

Anderson Valley Port Stout: I actually wasn't thinking when I ordered this. On the first sip, I realized the "port" was referring to port wine. An interesting spin on a stout, not really sure if I like it though. I certainly wouldn't want to sit down with more than a half-pint. Rather tart up front with some body; underneath it is still a stout. Not sure how well the characters blended.

Deschutes Hop in the Dark: I presume this is a Cascadian Dark. Not bad, I think. I didn't take any notes for this one, and nothing really stands out in my memory other than the free Dead Guy the waiter accidentally brought me.

Rogue Chipotle Ale: I always pass over this one in the store. It wasn't bad, more peppery than a punchy spice or heat. The style never really appealed to me so I never drank it, but maybe I should sit down with a bottle and give it a shot.