Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - milehimark

Pages: [1]
1
General Homebrew Discussion / Goose Island Christmas Ale pre 2009
« on: October 20, 2013, 11:40:34 AM »
Hey guys,

I am looking for recipe insight on brewing a Goose Island Christmas Ale Clone, but I want the beer to taste like it did pre-2009. The pre 2009 the Christmas Ale was darker, maltier, and smoother. There was another big change, they stopped selling the beer in 6 packs (now only 4 packs and bombers). The label design also changed.

Does anyone remember this?

Well back in '08, I e-mailed e-mailed Goose Island and John Hall replied with the below.

"While I can't give you our exact recipe (Ratios / hopping rates) I do think I can give you a shopping list of ingrediants to get you started.

Malt bill. (All Briess malt) Pale malt as base. Caramel-120, Briess Extra Special, and a small amount of Dark Chocolate malt. Color target is approx. 30 (or a nice Garnett)

Hop Bill (2009) Columbus for bittering. Columbus and Mt. Hood in the whirlpool. Target BU's around 55. Last year hopping was a mix of Glacier (bittering) Willamette and Tettnang(Whirlpool)

We use our standard Goose Island House ale strain for fermentation and hold its temp at 67"

So what do you guys/gals think in terms of percentages for the malt bill?

Base- 80%
Cr 120- 12%
Ex Sp Rst- 6%
Chocolate- 2%

Then use 002/1968

OG: 1.063
FG: 1.014

The beer was somewhere around 6% ABV.

My biggest question is percentage of Crystal 120. Most sweet brown ales have crystal malt are 10%+, but shooting for 1.060+ beer put me at 1.75 lbs for a 6 gallon batch, which seems really high.

Is 12% crystal too high for a 1.060+ beer, or should I pull the trigger on what I posted? I've also never used Ex Sp Roast, but having tasted just the grain at my LHBS, I don't think I want to go too high with either since it's pretty intense.

2
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: These guys need to clean up their act
« on: November 09, 2012, 12:10:40 PM »
Tinfoil hat alert! One of the big brewers is behind this:

This really reminds of the whole Monster vs. Vermonster debacle.  This current issue reeks of big corporate money. In my humble opinion, besides Northern Brewer, Morebeer, and Midwest Supplies, I don't think that any other homebrew store has enough money to pay a $500/hour attorney to litigate something where there are no damages and only a small chance at getting attorney's fees. I think a bigger player is behind this. I say Strange Brewing Co. let the suit happen, go to discovery, and see who's footing the bill.

3
General Homebrew Discussion / These guys need to clean up their act
« on: November 09, 2012, 11:17:28 AM »
I find this extremely disheartening and maddening. Not only is this a total D-head move, but it makes it worse that it's totally hypocritical. This homebrew shop did not originate the phrase/name "Strange Brew" (see article below):

http://blogs.westword.com/cafesociety/2012/11/strange_brewing_trademark_threat.php

Here's my post to their FB page:
Take a hint from some true world-class brewers. Collaboration, Not Litigation.

I can't believe there's infighting in a market where you only make up 5% of the market share and face mounting attacks and pressure by the Macro brewers and their lobbyists. You should have known that this dickheadedness is going to spread through beer forums like wildfire and lose you business. It's also insult to injury that the phrase "Strange Brew" was not even originated by you, AND your exploitation of the dancing bear. For shame!

Pages: [1]