Lambic, A topic of discussion…

Originally posted by muzzlehatch
This is a VERY small world we’re talking about (lambic connoisseurs); I’ve had mixed feelings about Dan’s article, and they’ve become ever-more confused reading all of these (mostly very intelligent) responses...but honestly, if there are just a handful of traditional lambic producers, and just an equal handful of "professional" writers that are really interested in what’s going on, why shouldn’t Dan Shelton, even if he is an importer with some admitted professional/business bias, have a say? I’m pretty well convinced from all I’ve read that the reasons he’s championing the beers he mentions are legit, and have little or nothing to do with feathering his pocketbook. How much money is there in Cantillon or Girardin in the USA? Can’t be that much.

Originally posted by irishsnake
(his opinion of what constitutes "taditional").

I don’t want to be negative here, but maybe I have a different perspective, but the whole thing just rubs me wrong.

"Finally, to the question at hand: Girardin Oude Geuze was left off my list of ‘benchmark’ lambic beers – not ‘traditional’ lambics. Go back and read that sentence again. What I meant to convey was that the three I mentioned are generally reckoned to be the most verifiably traditional lambic producers. I didn’t mean to suggest that they’re the only traditional producers, or even that they’re traditional, and others are not. It’s just that their methods are, clearly, the closest to the methods of lambic producers, say, 50 years ago – before all sorts of new science and technology were introduced into brewing. For this discussion, these three are the benchmarks against which the others are judged. These are the ones that people who remember what it was like 50 years ago say are the real thing.

What’s wrong with Girardin? I know that a lot of people rate the black-labeled Geuze from Girardin as the best. (No one who’s serious rates their regular Geuze or their Kriek, and I presume I don’t have to mention why that is. Taste them.) There are political reasons why some elevate Girardin over the others, but I’d better to leave those aside. The main reason, I think, is that the Girardin is notably softer than the others. And the reason for that softness is also the reason why Girardin has to be considered less traditional than the others: the Girardin family doesn’t think that it’s necessary to use any three-year-old lambic in their Geuze. It’s a blend of one and two-year-olds only. The others use one, two, and three-year olds. The absence of the three-year-old lambics is pretty significant; three-year-old lambics are considerably harder than younger lambic – more acidic, more complex, and generally much stronger-flavored. What’s interesting is that Drie Fonteinen is still primarily a Geuze blender, and normally uses a lot of good Girardin lambic in their blended Geuze. But Drie Fonteinen ages Girardin lambic longer than Girardin does, and gets a very different Oude Geuze as a result. The milder Geuze at Girardin is preferred by some people, obviously. They usually say that it’s more ‘drinkable.’ But the harder stuff is more traditional. And, believe it or not, there are some people, like me, who far prefer Drie Fonteinen to Girardin. I don’t find I have a ‘drinkability’ problem with any real Geuze, thank you, but that’s another issue . . .

There may be some other small deviations from more ‘traditional’ methods at Girardin, but the Girardin family is very guarded and won’t allow visits to the brewery, so one can only speculate. I just want to be clear that I’m not about to say that Girardin Oude Geuze isn’t ‘traditional,’ however you might define the word, or argue that it isn’t reasonably tasty, either. It just isn’t the most ‘traditional’ around, and isn’t a benchmark for discussion in my view."

Originally posted by irishsnake

Originally posted by muzzlehatch
This is a VERY small world we’re talking about (lambic connoisseurs); I’ve had mixed feelings about Dan’s article, and they’ve become ever-more confused reading all of these (mostly very intelligent) responses...but honestly, if there are just a handful of traditional lambic producers, and just an equal handful of "professional" writers that are really interested in what’s going on, why shouldn’t Dan Shelton, even if he is an importer with some admitted professional/business bias, have a say? I’m pretty well convinced from all I’ve read that the reasons he’s championing the beers he mentions are legit, and have little or nothing to do with feathering his pocketbook. How much money is there in Cantillon or Girardin in the USA? Can’t be that much.

I certainly don’t object to Mr.Shelton’s expressing his opinion. I do question its place on this site. as someone in the industry, I take it as a responsibility not to post bias as fact. Mr. Shelton has posted bias as fact (his opinion of what constitutes "taditional"). I am sure he believes what he says. however, he makes statements of objective fact that are informed by his personal bias. I really feel like his article is completely against the spirit of pros not judging their own beers. maybe its just me, but I find his article half informative and half "press release" for Shelton Bros. Lambic. I don’t want to be negative here, but maybe I have a different perspective, but the whole thing just rubs me wrong.

Originally posted by Joeh

"Finally, to the question at hand: Girardin Oude Geuze was left off my list of ‘benchmark’ lambic beers – not ‘traditional’ lambics. Go back and read that sentence again. What I meant to convey was that the three I mentioned are generally reckoned to be the most verifiably traditional lambic producers. I didn’t mean to suggest that they’re the only traditional producers, or even that they’re traditional, and others are not. It’s just that their methods are, clearly, the closest to the methods of lambic producers, say, 50 years ago – before all sorts of new science and technology were introduced into brewing. For this discussion, these three are the benchmarks against which the others are judged. These are the ones that people who remember what it was like 50 years ago say are the real thing.

What’s wrong with Girardin? I know that a lot of people rate the black-labeled Geuze from Girardin as the best. (No one who’s serious rates their regular Geuze or their Kriek, and I presume I don’t have to mention why that is. Taste them.) There are political reasons why some elevate Girardin over the others, but I’d better to leave those aside. The main reason, I think, is that the Girardin is notably softer than the others. And the reason for that softness is also the reason why Girardin has to be considered less traditional than the others: the Girardin family doesn’t think that it’s necessary to use any three-year-old lambic in their Geuze. It’s a blend of one and two-year-olds only. The others use one, two, and three-year olds. The absence of the three-year-old lambics is pretty significant; three-year-old lambics are considerably harder than younger lambic – more acidic, more complex, and generally much stronger-flavored. What’s interesting is that Drie Fonteinen is still primarily a Geuze blender, and normally uses a lot of good Girardin lambic in their blended Geuze. But Drie Fonteinen ages Girardin lambic longer than Girardin does, and gets a very different Oude Geuze as a result. The milder Geuze at Girardin is preferred by some people, obviously. They usually say that it’s more ‘drinkable.’ But the harder stuff is more traditional. And, believe it or not, there are some people, like me, who far prefer Drie Fonteinen to Girardin. I don’t find I have a ‘drinkability’ problem with any real Geuze, thank you, but that’s another issue . . .

There may be some other small deviations from more ‘traditional’ methods at Girardin, but the Girardin family is very guarded and won’t allow visits to the brewery, so one can only speculate. I just want to be clear that I’m not about to say that Girardin Oude Geuze isn’t ‘traditional,’ however you might define the word, or argue that it isn’t reasonably tasty, either. It just isn’t the most ‘traditional’ around, and isn’t a benchmark for discussion in my view."

I feel I could be wrong here, but I really get the feeling that the arrogant attitude Shelton displays here would put him at odds even with the lambic producers he is so keen to praise. I think most people in business are reluctant to have nasty scraps with each other, because it lowers the product in general. I should imagine that the last thing they would want is an outsider stirring up the pot like this.

I might have taken his writings somewhat seriously before, but anyone who promotes a foul pasteurised bottled bitter as a ’cask ale’ (see his website) clearly has not even the slightest idea.

Originally posted by matt_dinges

Originally posted by Joeh

"Finally, to the question at hand: Girardin Oude Geuze was left off my list of ‘benchmark’ lambic beers – not ‘traditional’ lambics. Go back and read that sentence again. What I meant to convey was that the three I mentioned are generally reckoned to be the most verifiably traditional lambic producers. I didn’t mean to suggest that they’re the only traditional producers, or even that they’re traditional, and others are not. It’s just that their methods are, clearly, the closest to the methods of lambic producers, say, 50 years ago – before all sorts of new science and technology were introduced into brewing. For this discussion, these three are the benchmarks against which the others are judged. These are the ones that people who remember what it was like 50 years ago say are the real thing.

What’s wrong with Girardin? I know that a lot of people rate the black-labeled Geuze from Girardin as the best. (No one who’s serious rates their regular Geuze or their Kriek, and I presume I don’t have to mention why that is. Taste them.) There are political reasons why some elevate Girardin over the others, but I’d better to leave those aside. The main reason, I think, is that the Girardin is notably softer than the others. And the reason for that softness is also the reason why Girardin has to be considered less traditional than the others: the Girardin family doesn’t think that it’s necessary to use any three-year-old lambic in their Geuze. It’s a blend of one and two-year-olds only. The others use one, two, and three-year olds. The absence of the three-year-old lambics is pretty significant; three-year-old lambics are considerably harder than younger lambic – more acidic, more complex, and generally much stronger-flavored. What’s interesting is that Drie Fonteinen is still primarily a Geuze blender, and normally uses a lot of good Girardin lambic in their blended Geuze. But Drie Fonteinen ages Girardin lambic longer than Girardin does, and gets a very different Oude Geuze as a result. The milder Geuze at Girardin is preferred by some people, obviously. They usually say that it’s more ‘drinkable.’ But the harder stuff is more traditional. And, believe it or not, there are some people, like me, who far prefer Drie Fonteinen to Girardin. I don’t find I have a ‘drinkability’ problem with any real Geuze, thank you, but that’s another issue . . .

There may be some other small deviations from more ‘traditional’ methods at Girardin, but the Girardin family is very guarded and won’t allow visits to the brewery, so one can only speculate. I just want to be clear that I’m not about to say that Girardin Oude Geuze isn’t ‘traditional,’ however you might define the word, or argue that it isn’t reasonably tasty, either. It just isn’t the most ‘traditional’ around, and isn’t a benchmark for discussion in my view."

I feel I could be wrong here, but I really get the feeling that the arrogant attitude Shelton displays here would put him at odds even with the lambic producers he is so keen to praise. I think most people in business are reluctant to have nasty scraps with each other, because it lowers the product in general. I should imagine that the last thing they would want is an outsider stirring up the pot like this.

I might have taken his writings somewhat seriously before, but anyone who promotes a foul pasteurised bottled bitter as a ’cask ale’ (see his website) clearly has not even the slightest idea.

I’d guess you are wrong. Its pretty well known what the people at Cantillon think.

Cheers
matt

Originally posted by matt_dinges

Originally posted by irishsnake

Originally posted by muzzlehatch
This is a VERY small world we’re talking about (lambic connoisseurs); I’ve had mixed feelings about Dan’s article, and they’ve become ever-more confused reading all of these (mostly very intelligent) responses...but honestly, if there are just a handful of traditional lambic producers, and just an equal handful of "professional" writers that are really interested in what’s going on, why shouldn’t Dan Shelton, even if he is an importer with some admitted professional/business bias, have a say? I’m pretty well convinced from all I’ve read that the reasons he’s championing the beers he mentions are legit, and have little or nothing to do with feathering his pocketbook. How much money is there in Cantillon or Girardin in the USA? Can’t be that much.

I certainly don’t object to Mr.Shelton’s expressing his opinion. I do question its place on this site. as someone in the industry, I take it as a responsibility not to post bias as fact. Mr. Shelton has posted bias as fact (his opinion of what constitutes "taditional"). I am sure he believes what he says. however, he makes statements of objective fact that are informed by his personal bias. I really feel like his article is completely against the spirit of pros not judging their own beers. maybe its just me, but I find his article half informative and half "press release" for Shelton Bros. Lambic. I don’t want to be negative here, but maybe I have a different perspective, but the whole thing just rubs me wrong.

You’ve said that a lot...but it ends up as meaningless unless you can actually come up with some "facts" that add something to this discussion. Have you found an objective definition of traditional lambic? Do you have facts that have been ignored? What is your perspective, other than that Dan Shelton is trying to sell beer?

Cheers
matt

Originally posted by Joeh

I might have taken his writings somewhat seriously before, but anyone who promotes a foul pasteurised bottled bitter as a ’cask ale’ (see his website) clearly has not even the slightest idea.

Originally posted by ClarkVV
IrishSnake, I definitely see where you’re coming from, at face value, it does seem highly questionable that Dan both touts publicly and sells his products. But believe me, it has nothing to do with money. It is because he believes what he says and believes in the superiority of the product he sells.
I don’t think he’s ever said (rather, I know he’s never said), "Girardin, Hanssens, Cuvee Rene" are inferior, poorly made, poor tasting products.
He just simply says his products are more to tradition.
He leaves that to be taken however it may.