Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => Yeast and Fermentation => Topic started by: Oiscout on October 24, 2020, 09:19:28 am

Title: WY vs WL
Post by: Oiscout on October 24, 2020, 09:19:28 am
I have been mostly only using white labs products since I got back into brewing. Was wondering if anyone has any commentary to weigh in on the subject of WY strains vs WL strains good bad or indifferent?

I brew mostly Alt-biers hefes and English style beers and the tragically underrated kentucky common dark

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: denny on October 24, 2020, 10:03:24 am
I generally prefer Wyeast.  That's at least partially because it's made a couple hours from here and I oftejj get packs dated a day or 2 before.  I also prefer s several of their strains, especially for alt and APA/A IPA.  But that's not to say that White doesn't have some very good products, also.  They both and see which you prefer, because it's all about your own preferences, not someone else's.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Oiscout on October 24, 2020, 10:25:56 am
I forgot the White labs number for their "london fog" but that was one I definitely didn't like. I recently did a northern brown. With WLP002 and pulled a sample very satisfied with it. Might do a 10 gallon batch and do a little side by side comparison

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Bel Air Brewing on October 24, 2020, 10:44:46 am
Wyeast, hands down winner in my experience.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: erockrph on October 24, 2020, 11:28:39 am
Wyeast tends to offer some year round strains that I like that White Labs either doesn't have or only offers seasonally, such as 1469 and 1762. I also like the smack pack packaging as piece of mind, since I mail order most of my liquid yeast. All that said, I've never had bad results with White Labs and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them either.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: dmtaylor on October 24, 2020, 11:52:21 am
I used White Labs exclusively for many years.  I actually loved their old capped tube containers, fortunately I saved dozens and still put them to good use.

That being said, more recently I much prefer the Wyeast smack pack advantage, where I know for sure days in advance whether my yeast is alive or whether I might need to buy some more.  So now if I can get Wyeast at a good price (they are all competitive now), I'll tend to go that direction for my liquid yeast needs.

And THAT being said..... I still find the dried yeast advantages to outweigh all this, and I use dried yeasts about 90% of the time.  Sometimes there just isn't a good dried yeast available though, so then I'll get liquid.

On a recent batch I bought White Labs, so I still get whatever is fresh and available.  But given two fresh packs White Labs vs. Wyeast, I'll tend to lean towards Wyeast now.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: EnkAMania on October 24, 2020, 11:57:16 am
Try Omega yeast.  I've used their British V in a lot of beers and it is an animal.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Oiscout on October 24, 2020, 12:28:25 pm
Awesome! Reason I ask is I see more WY yeast mentioned on forums and websites then I do White labs, definitely looking for a different here strain then the usual from white labs

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: hopfenundmalz on October 24, 2020, 01:41:41 pm
Imperial Organic Pub and Bell's, Omega Lutra, and several dry yeast are I'm my fridge.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: BeerfanOz on October 24, 2020, 02:01:42 pm
I brew a lot of 3-4% beers and it’s very handy using wyeast because if it swells within hours, I’m happy to pitch without making a starter at lower gravities ( sub 1.040 ). I’m in Australia but some brew shops get them fairly fresh considering the journey.

But I’ll happily use whitelabs as well
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Oiscout on October 24, 2020, 02:03:05 pm
I brew a lot of 3-4% beers and it’s very handy using wyeast because if it swells within hours, I’m happy to pitch without making a starter at lower gravities ( sub 1.040 ). I’m in Australia but some brew shops get them fairly fresh considering the journey.

But I’ll happily use whitelabs as well
Hey beerfan I take it since your in australia you also no chill brew? I just did two no chill batches and am super psyched they worked out. ( My ground water temp here isn't optimal to efficiently chill my wort down !

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: BeerfanOz on October 24, 2020, 02:08:34 pm
I brew a lot of 3-4% beers and it’s very handy using wyeast because if it swells within hours, I’m happy to pitch without making a starter at lower gravities ( sub 1.040 ). I’m in Australia but some brew shops get them fairly fresh considering the journey.

But I’ll happily use whitelabs as well
Hey beerfan I take it since your in australia you also no chill brew? I just did two no chill batches and am super psyched they worked out. ( My ground water temp here isn't optimal to efficiently chill my wort down !

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Yeah mate, no chill. I have a water tank on order so I might give chilling another go, it’s been over a decade since I chilled, but with a water tank there’s no wastage, I’ll just pump back into the tank. Though I’ve been quite happy with no chill, even hoppy beers can be done quite well. To be honest, my favourite hopping schedule is just a bittering addition and then a dry hop.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Oiscout on October 24, 2020, 02:12:00 pm
I brew a lot of 3-4% beers and it’s very handy using wyeast because if it swells within hours, I’m happy to pitch without making a starter at lower gravities ( sub 1.040 ). I’m in Australia but some brew shops get them fairly fresh considering the journey.

But I’ll happily use whitelabs as well
Hey beerfan I take it since your in australia you also no chill brew? I just did two no chill batches and am super psyched they worked out. ( My ground water temp here isn't optimal to efficiently chill my wort down !

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Yeah mate, no chill. I have a water tank on order so I might give chilling another go, it’s been over a decade since I chilled, but with a water tank there’s no wastage, I’ll just pump back into the tank. Though I’ve been quite happy with no chill, even hoppy beers can be done quite well. To be honest, my favourite hopping schedule is just a bittering addition and then a dry hop.
Right on, it's getting to be winter here in Pennsylvania and the temps will be dropping. You have any experience lagering with the no chill method?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: BeerfanOz on October 24, 2020, 02:14:07 pm
Summers almost here for us, the kviek strains mean I can brew lager in the fermenting fridge, while I brew a kviek ale in the hit garage with a heat belt haha, so odd!

Lagering in the cube?  Do you mean using the cube as a secondary to lager in?
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Oiscout on October 24, 2020, 02:14:47 pm
As far as getting the wort down to pitching temperature for a lager yeast in the cube

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: BeerfanOz on October 24, 2020, 02:18:34 pm
As far as getting the wort down to pitching temperature for a lager yeast in the cube

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

When I brew lagers I put the cube in the fermenting fridge at 10c and add my starter flask to the fridge ( after it’s at high krausen) and then when both are at pitch temp, pitch into the fermenter and put back in the fridge
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Saccharomyces on October 24, 2020, 02:20:39 pm
I have been brewing since February of 1993.  White Labs did not exist at the point in time, but Wyeast had been a player for several years. To be completely honest, after spending most of the time in brewing culturing my own yeast, I am looking seriously toward finding suitable dry cultures.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Oiscout on October 24, 2020, 02:26:02 pm
That's a long time !

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: RC on October 24, 2020, 05:11:38 pm
For the same liquid strain, White Labs and Wyeast are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. Imperial beats both. However, there's a wider variety of strains at WL and WY, so I still use them occasionally.

But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Saccharomyces on October 25, 2020, 06:09:21 am
But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.

Dry brewing yeast in the early to mid-90s was just dreadful.  It is why a lot of us who started brewing during that period of time have rejected dry yeast for so long.  The state of dry brewing yeast at that point in time and the difficulty of obtaining reliable Wyeast smack packs on the East Coast is why I started plating and slanting my own yeast during my first year of brewing. Having my own bank of cultures on slant removed yeast culture availability constraints from my brewing. However, dry yeast cultures are not as sensitive to shipping conditions as are liquid yeast cultures. 

I pitched and repitched BRY-97 a couple of times several years ago. The slow onset of fermentation on the initial pitch was disturbing, but the repitches started like any other yeast culture. It is a good culture, but too me, it does not bring anything more to the table than W-34/70 when pitched at ale temperatures.  I am looking for a dry ale culture with British character that can be top-cropped.  I am hoping that Verdant IPA is that culture; however, I fear that it may be a little too tutti frutti.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: BrewBama on October 25, 2020, 06:58:37 am
...BRY-97 ...now my go-to...

+1


...it does not bring anything more to the table than W-34/70 when pitched at ale temperatures.

+1. It is a clean slate that allows hops and malt to shine thru.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: denny on October 25, 2020, 08:45:10 am
For the same liquid strain, White Labs and Wyeast are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. Imperial beats both. However, there's a wider variety of strains at WL and WY, so I still use them occasionally.

But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.

I have found distinct differences between wga5 are supposedly the same strain.  For instance WLP001 and WY1056.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Northern_Brewer on October 25, 2020, 02:52:57 pm
And we now know the mutations (https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/from-the-lab-family-tree-of-white-labs-yeast.642831/page-2#post-8916547) that cause the differences between different Chicos.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Saccharomyces on October 26, 2020, 12:26:41 am
With new genetic information coming out about the parent of Chico; namely, Siebel BRY-96 (Tobias Fischborn let the cat out of the bag that Siebel BRY-97 is an isolate of BRY-96 with better flocculation characteristics), we can probably be assured that it is not Ballantine's ale culture, which is held by the NRRL as Y-7408.  That being said, I remember what a well-respected member of  BURP (the big DC brewing club) who brewed part-time at Old Dominion when it was in Virginia said about the culture back when I first started to brew.  She said that it was used by Narragansett to make Ballantine XXX after Falstaff shuttered the doors on the Ballantine brewery in Newark, NJ.  Even she assumed that the culture came from Ballantine.  However, now that genetic research has ruled out the Ballantine ale yeast culture being the parent of BRY-96, we have to look for a new source.  While someone has started brewing under the Narragansett label, Falstaff shuttered the original Narragansett brewery in 1981.  If what I was told in the early nineties is true, there is a high probability that somewhere in the Narragansett archives lies the source of BRY-96.  We have yet another yeast mystery on our hands.

By the way, it is probably old news to most of us, but the original Ballantine ale culture is available from Al Buck's company as ECY-10 Old Newark Ale. Given his description of ECY-10's origin, Al definitely acquired the culture from the NRRL.  He has asserted for years that BRY-96 and Chico by extension are not the same culture as ECY-10.  Most people dismissed his claim.  However, we now know that his assertion is correct.  We know that NRRL Y-7408 was brought to Ballantine from Scotland, but the culture appears to have ceased to be used in the production of beer after it was deposited into the NRRL.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: BeerfanOz on October 26, 2020, 01:11:27 am
With the wy danish yeast now being a PC strain, I’ve tried a few other strains, one of them being S189. It’s pretty damn good for malty lagers I think. And wy San Francisco at colder temps is also really good.

Not sure why they do seasonal strains? As a business, why encourage people to try other businesses products?. I love the danish lager yeast from wyeast. The WLP one is similar but I prefer the wyeast one

Either way, for homebrewers now there are so many good yeast strains to choose from dry or liquid
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: hopfenundmalz on October 26, 2020, 07:14:25 am
With the wy danish yeast now being a PC strain, I’ve tried a few other strains, one of them being S189. It’s pretty damn good for malty lagers I think. And wy San Francisco at colder temps is also really good.

Not sure why they do seasonal strains? As a business, why encourage people to try other businesses products?. I love the danish lager yeast from wyeast. The WLP one is similar but I prefer the wyeast one

Either way, for homebrewers now there are so many good yeast strains to choose from dry or liquid

The seasonals have lower demand. When the produce yeast in bulk, it goes out to the supply chain. Yearly production would result in a lot of product getting old on the shelf. Seasonsl strains concentrate the demand, so less product goes to waste.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: erockrph on October 26, 2020, 12:22:40 pm
With the wy danish yeast now being a PC strain, I’ve tried a few other strains, one of them being S189. It’s pretty damn good for malty lagers I think. And wy San Francisco at colder temps is also really good.

Not sure why they do seasonal strains? As a business, why encourage people to try other businesses products?. I love the danish lager yeast from wyeast. The WLP one is similar but I prefer the wyeast one

Either way, for homebrewers now there are so many good yeast strains to choose from dry or liquid

The seasonals have lower demand. When the produce yeast in bulk, it goes out to the supply chain. Yearly production would result in a lot of product getting old on the shelf. Seasonsl strains concentrate the demand, so less product goes to waste.
This, plus not every seasonal strain is available from one of the other labs. WY3864 Canadian/Belgian (i.e., Unibroue), for example, is only available from Wyeast and only as a PC strain. I've also been told by the folks at Wyeast that they use how well a PC strain sells as one way of determining whether to move it to their permanent lineup.

On a self-serving note, 3864 is also one of my favorite yeast strains and is available now, so go buy some! Maybe one day I'll be able to get it year round without having to culture up from a bottle :)
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Cliffs on October 27, 2020, 11:08:34 am
For the same liquid strain, White Labs and Wyeast are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. Imperial beats both. However, there's a wider variety of strains at WL and WY, so I still use them occasionally.

But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.
Maybe some strains, but I can confidently say that the WL and WY scottish ale yeasts are very different, with WL being more malty, full bodied and complex, and wyeast being more neutral. WL is much slower to ferment at lower temps as well.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Cliffs on October 27, 2020, 11:11:14 am
With new genetic information coming out about the parent of Chico; namely, Siebel BRY-96 (Tobias Fischborn let the cat out of the bag that Siebel BRY-97 is an isolate of BRY-96 with better flocculation characteristics), we can probably be assured that it is not Ballantine's ale culture, which is held by the NRRL as Y-7408.  That being said, I remember what a well-respected member of  BURP (the big DC brewing club) who brewed part-time at Old Dominion when it was in Virginia said about the culture back when I first started to brew.  She said that it was used by Narragansett to make Ballantine XXX after Falstaff shuttered the doors on the Ballantine brewery in Newark, NJ.  Even she assumed that the culture came from Ballantine.  However, now that genetic research has ruled out the Ballantine ale yeast culture being the parent of BRY-96, we have to look for a new source.  While someone has started brewing under the Narragansett label, Falstaff shuttered the original Narragansett brewery in 1981.  If what I was told in the early nineties is true, there is a high probability that somewhere in the Narragansett archives lies the source of BRY-96.  We have yet another yeast mystery on our hands.

By the way, it is probably old news to most of us, but the original Ballantine ale culture is available from Al Buck's company as ECY-10 Old Newark Ale. Given his description of ECY-10's origin, Al definitely acquired the culture from the NRRL.  He has asserted for years that BRY-96 and Chico by extension are not the same culture as ECY-10.  Most people dismissed his claim.  However, we now know that his assertion is correct.  We know that NRRL Y-7408 was brought to Ballantine from Scotland, but the culture appears to have ceased to be used in the production of beer after it was deposited into the NRRL.

anyone who thinks ECY-10 is the same as Chico has probably never used ECY-10. ECY-10 is a much more robust top cropper and produces more sulfur during ferm than Chico.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: denny on October 27, 2020, 11:18:25 am
For the same liquid strain, White Labs and Wyeast are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. Imperial beats both. However, there's a wider variety of strains at WL and WY, so I still use them occasionally.

But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.
Maybe some strains, but I can confidently say that the WL and WY scottish ale yeasts are very different, with WL being more malty, full bodied and complex, and wyeast being more neutral. WL is much slower to ferment at lower temps as well.

I agree.  Even 001 and 1056 are worlds different IMO.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: erockrph on October 27, 2020, 11:25:58 am


With new genetic information coming out about the parent of Chico; namely, Siebel BRY-96 (Tobias Fischborn let the cat out of the bag that Siebel BRY-97 is an isolate of BRY-96 with better flocculation characteristics), we can probably be assured that it is not Ballantine's ale culture, which is held by the NRRL as Y-7408.  That being said, I remember what a well-respected member of  BURP (the big DC brewing club) who brewed part-time at Old Dominion when it was in Virginia said about the culture back when I first started to brew.  She said that it was used by Narragansett to make Ballantine XXX after Falstaff shuttered the doors on the Ballantine brewery in Newark, NJ.  Even she assumed that the culture came from Ballantine.  However, now that genetic research has ruled out the Ballantine ale yeast culture being the parent of BRY-96, we have to look for a new source.  While someone has started brewing under the Narragansett label, Falstaff shuttered the original Narragansett brewery in 1981.  If what I was told in the early nineties is true, there is a high probability that somewhere in the Narragansett archives lies the source of BRY-96.  We have yet another yeast mystery on our hands.
Revival Brewing out in my area used to brew pilot batches for Narragansett when the new owners restarted the label. I doubt they had the old Narragansett yeast, especially since he wasn't brewing the lager. Still, if Revival ever reopens after COVID-19 and I run into Sean, I'll see if I can pick his brain about that.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Saccharomyces on October 27, 2020, 04:25:51 pm
Revival Brewing out in my area used to brew pilot batches for Narragansett when the new owners restarted the label. I doubt they had the old Narragansett yeast, especially since he wasn't brewing the lager. Still, if Revival ever reopens after COVID-19 and I run into Sean, I'll see if I can pick his brain about that.

Narragansett also brewed ale.  Production of Ballantine XXX was moved to Narragansett after Falstaff shuttered Ballantine.  Y-7408 and Y-7407 were deposited into the NRRL in 1972 by G.W. Lange from Ballantine.  Siebel lists a reception date for BRY-96 of 4/1/1967.  That date precedes the NRRL deposits by five years, which kind of complicates the Narragansett narrative, that is, unless Narragansett brewed ale before they took over production of Ballantine XXX.  Siebel also claims that the yeast culture came a brewery formerly operating on the East Coast. How many breweries on the East Coast were still brewing ale in the sixties?  Ballantine made its fortune in blue-collar tavern and ethnic drinkers. 
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: dmtaylor on October 27, 2020, 05:45:18 pm
Maybe some strains, but I can confidently say that the WL and WY scottish ale yeasts are very different, with WL being more malty, full bodied and complex, and wyeast being more neutral. WL is much slower to ferment at lower temps as well.

Truth.  Genetic testing proved that the two Scottish strains are completely unrelated to one another.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: dannyjed on October 28, 2020, 07:01:55 pm
I will say I prefer Wyeast over White Labs. I like 1056 over 001, 1728 over 028, 2206 over 830, and WL doesn’t have an equivalent to 1450. My LHBS carried WY for 15 years and I learned and got accustomed to many of the strains. About a year a half ago my LHBS switched over to WL and I tried many of their strains and I just don’t like them as much for the beers that I make. Now I order WY online or get it when I visit AIH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: reverseapachemaster on October 28, 2020, 08:36:44 pm
I'm also a WY user over WL. I never felt like I got as good of beer out of WL but I used their products so infrequently my sample size doesn't mean anything. I've just always liked the results I get from WY so don't see much reason to deviate. (I have used some other labs with success.) After WL was exposed for having infection problems a few years ago I just don't see a reason to keep trying them.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: coolman26 on October 29, 2020, 10:06:39 am
With the wy danish yeast now being a PC strain, I’ve tried a few other strains, one of them being S189. It’s pretty damn good for malty lagers I think. And wy San Francisco at colder temps is also really good.

Not sure why they do seasonal strains? As a business, why encourage people to try other businesses products?. I love the danish lager yeast from wyeast. The WLP one is similar but I prefer the wyeast one

Either way, for homebrewers now there are so many good yeast strains to choose from dry or liquid

The seasonals have lower demand. When the produce yeast in bulk, it goes out to the supply chain. Yearly production would result in a lot of product getting old on the shelf. Seasonsl strains concentrate the demand, so less product goes to waste.
This, plus not every seasonal strain is available from one of the other labs. WY3864 Canadian/Belgian (i.e., Unibroue), for example, is only available from Wyeast and only as a PC strain. I've also been told by the folks at Wyeast that they use how well a PC strain sells as one way of determining whether to move it to their permanent lineup.

On a self-serving note, 3864 is also one of my favorite yeast strains and is available now, so go buy some! Maybe one day I'll be able to get it year round without having to culture up from a bottle :)
I’ve had mine going for a couple of years. I just save from a starter. I learned to keep it going after it wasn’t offered. I just had some delivered on Tues this week!  Going to make an IPA with it this time.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Oiscout on October 29, 2020, 10:13:49 am
Thanks for the information everyone

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: Cliffs on October 29, 2020, 11:19:53 am
I will say I prefer Wyeast over White Labs. I like 1056 over 001, 1728 over 028, 2206 over 830, and WL doesn’t have an equivalent to 1450. My LHBS carried WY for 15 years and I learned and got accustomed to many of the strains. About a year a half ago my LHBS switched over to WL and I tried many of their strains and I just don’t like them as much for the beers that I make. Now I order WY online or get it when I visit AIH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
for me, these two strains are too different to really compare them. I strongly prefer WL, as it has more body and gives the beer a nice oaky and malty flavor, whereas WY is very neutral, almost like a slightly lower attenuating 1056 strain.
Title: Re: WY vs WL
Post by: erockrph on October 29, 2020, 11:27:54 am
With the wy danish yeast now being a PC strain, I’ve tried a few other strains, one of them being S189. It’s pretty damn good for malty lagers I think. And wy San Francisco at colder temps is also really good.

Not sure why they do seasonal strains? As a business, why encourage people to try other businesses products?. I love the danish lager yeast from wyeast. The WLP one is similar but I prefer the wyeast one

Either way, for homebrewers now there are so many good yeast strains to choose from dry or liquid

The seasonals have lower demand. When the produce yeast in bulk, it goes out to the supply chain. Yearly production would result in a lot of product getting old on the shelf. Seasonsl strains concentrate the demand, so less product goes to waste.
This, plus not every seasonal strain is available from one of the other labs. WY3864 Canadian/Belgian (i.e., Unibroue), for example, is only available from Wyeast and only as a PC strain. I've also been told by the folks at Wyeast that they use how well a PC strain sells as one way of determining whether to move it to their permanent lineup.

On a self-serving note, 3864 is also one of my favorite yeast strains and is available now, so go buy some! Maybe one day I'll be able to get it year round without having to culture up from a bottle :)
I’ve had mine going for a couple of years. I just save from a starter. I learned to keep it going after it wasn’t offered. I just had some delivered on Tues this week!  Going to make an IPA with it this time.
It works very well with hops for a Belgian strain. I went through a phase years ago where I brewed many beers that were essentially various styles crossed with an APA. Most were lackluster at best, but my 3864 "Belgian Dark Ale" (dubbel meets APA) remains one of my favorite recipes. I ordered an extra pack to leave lying around, and I might have to try some straight-up IPA's with it.