Fuller's ESB

Last Friday, Ted Sobel of Brewers Union brought a firkin of cask mild to Belmont Station. Not coincidentally, I visited Belmont Station that same evening, and shared two pints of the mild ("Jaws of Barrowdale") with Ted. If you'll allow me a slight digression, I'll mention that since I've had precious few milds--since there are precious few milds to have--I can't really judge it. One can read about milds and compare the descriptions with on-the-hoof examples, but it's not quite the same. It matched up nicely based on the descriptions, and was furthermore a very moreish beer--lightly sweet with a touch of roastiness and a bit of mineral. At 3.7%, a behemoth, but I muscled through a couple pints.

(Hell, since we're digressing I'll mention that the Brewers Union "Au Naturel" offered the next day at the Firkin Fest was exceptional. The name comes from the ingredients: few. Just Maris Otter and US Challengers. If I'm recalling correctly, there were twice the hops in Naturel as Jaws, and the beer was even tinier--3.2%. But au, was it good!--golden in color and delightfully zesty and peppery. I think I offended Ted when I told him it was my fave ever Brewers Union, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.)

Inspired by our conversation of British Ales, I decided to grab a beer to take home and settled on Fuller's ESB. This venerable, family-owned brewery has long been among my very favorite in the world, and ESB my favorite in their line. Unfortunately, thanks to this damned blog, I am generally off tasting new beers and rarely returning to my old faves. It's been at least five years since I've had an ESB, and I was ever so slightly worried that it wouldn't stand up to my memory.

No worries. It's a spectacular beer. For those who think of English beer as small and malty, Fuller's ESB might come as a surprise. It's a hearty 5.9% and has quite a few hops (though modest bitterness--35 EBU, which is more or less like IBU). But it's not the details that impress--it's the overall presentation. The malt bill is simple--pale and crystal--but produce a deep, satisfying base that has large measures of caramel and marmalade. The hops ( Target, Challenger, Northdown and Goldings) are mainly zesty and spicy, but have a hint of something that bridges over to the marmalade. I think one of the reasons the hops seem more assertive is because of the minerals, which help harmonize all the elements. And all of this comes from a bottle shipped all the way from London.

If you've been neglectful like I have, do yourself a favor and pick up a bottle. You won't regret it.

The Riddle of Dick's

I don't ever recalling having back-to-back beers as divergent as my first two Dick's. My introduction came in our winter ale tasting, when two tasters (me included) identified Dick's as the tastiest. Then came one of the least impressive IPAs I've had from a NW brewer. So, a good brewery with an off beer or a bad brewery with a lucky recipe? This is the riddle I went to solve last week when I went and got three more from the brewery: the flagship Dick Danger, a bitter, and a seasonal tripel. A worthy troika that would test the brewery's mettle and solve the riddle.

Dick Danger
A brewery can't necessarily choose a flagship--sometimes the flagship chooses a brewery (ask the Widmer's). But, when that flagship includes the word "danger" in the title, it raises the ante. Unfortunately, there's nothing whatever dangerous about this beer. It has a pleasing nut brown color, and a mild sweet hazelnut nose. If the nose and appearance are mild, the palate is ever more so. Everything is mild--malt, hops, body. It has almost no character. It isn't a bad beer, but there's nothing whatever to distinguish it. Danger? More like Safety Beer. Rating: Average.

Best Bitter
With Best Bitter, I begin to conclude that Dick's has naming issues. That style is more than a mild session, but hop character should be subdued. Not so here--this is a hop-forward beer that's bitter enough to be an ESB, though at 4.5%, too light. More like a pale ale. Not to belabor the point, but it's the old grammar thing--fine to break the rules if you know 'em. This seems like a brewery that doesn't know the difference between a best bitter, a pale ale and an ESB.

So, the beer: it pours a dull amber, and has a mild hop hop aroma. Much nicer than Dick Danger. The hops here are pointed, but not overwhelming. A sharp, resinous hopping. More body and some added malt character would push it to the next category. Rating: Good.

Tripel
The pick of this litter is the Tripel, which is also the most traditional. It is golden-orange, cloudy, and features a poor, snowy-white head, all authentic-looking. The aroma is sugary-sour, also akin to the classic Trappist models. These early indicators don't quite hold out through the flavor, but this is still a good effort. The elements are all there--alcohol, yeast character, sweetness, and a touch of funk. They aren't quite as assertive as the originals and fail to cohere into beers like those that hail from Belgium. Not surprising--those breweries have literally centuries of collective experience. Give Dick's another decade, and maybe this will have matured into a more exceptional beer. Still, you could do a whole lot worse. Rating: Good.

In the final analysis, Dick's seems like a young brewery learning its craft. (It's not: they've been around since '94.) Some of the beers are great, others are mistakes. None of the beers I tried had off-flavors; the failures are in sophistication of recipes. I won't turn down a Dick's in the future, but I probably won't go out of my way to find their beer, either.