Lambic, A topic of discussion…

Reads 15051 • Replies 101 • Started Monday, May 15, 2006 12:07:31 PM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen

Message ClarkVV P beers 13457 º places 111 º 19:38 Wed 5/17/2006 Regarding A) Lambic classification being too rigid, I don’t believe that we should be too rigid as to not allow for experimentation and evolution with lambic. That is why I consider Iris to be, more or less, lambic, same with American/canadian brewers who are as true to preserving as high level of quality as possible. I think this rigid/semi-rigid classification is necessary because, regarding your B) sweet alco-pop drinks with a very small portion of lambic are not and should not be called lambic, IMHO. They contain lambic, but that is about it. They are too sweet, they are not properly attenuated. They are not oak aged, they use artificial sweetners. They are pasteurized. In short, they possess nearly ZERO qualities of a lambic (other than the very small percentage of lambic in them, which is buried beneath all of the sweetner). Steve, if I decide to produce a new drink which has 5% traditional English cider and the rest cherry soda, you would fully embrace this as an English Cider??????
Message ClarkVV P beers 13457 º places 111 º 19:39 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by mullet Originally posted by ClarkVV Girardin is only "mostly traditional" because it does not use a 3 year old lambic in its blend of the gueuze. This makes the flavor much more round and approachable. Though I don’t know why Dan would be bothered by this, since a number of Cantillons are only "mostly traditional" (lou pepe line, cuvee des champions, etc). I recall Dan Shelton making the same claim about Girardin Gueuze when that whole shitfight at BA went on, so I went and flipped through LambicLand and it said that the black label gueuze now carries the appelation "oude gueuze," which I assume means that there is some three year-old lambic in it. But yesterday I received a bottle of this beer and the word "oude" does not appear. So does it meet the criteria for oude gueuze or not? Hmm, that is a good question. I shouldnt just spit out what I hear and take it as fact. Maybe someone could trying calling Girardin???
Message Oakes P admin beers 30680 º places 1135 º 21:25 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by Joeh Yes, I agree with nearly all of this. I believe the Lindemans fruit beers are so sweet and fruity that they lack anything that links them lambic and are more closely related to alcopops. Apparently though there is at least some lambic in there, the producer makes a gueuze and they have a considerable following even among members of this site. I would argue that there is more separating Budweiser and cask ales but it isn’t particularly important. I agree that the Chapeaus and Lindemans have no place calling their beers lambic, but the article seemed to be suggesting that the term lambic needed even protecting from the likes of Girardin, Hanssens and Boon. It’s when you start excluding these producers because they don’t fall into a narrow view of lambic that problems arise. Oh, and I think more people are put off lambic by the harsh dryness Cantillon than any of the commercial producers, no matter which we prefer. I am caught here between generally agreeing with Silktork’s position and my distain of sugary lambics. Well, I don’t necessarily agree with Dan Shelton on what the interpretation of traditional lambic should be either. There is a line somewhere in there. I’m not the one to draw it, that’s for sure. I agree with SilkTork when he says Chapeau Kriek should be allowed to call itself a kriek. That’s just a word indicating a cherry beer and has been used in non-lambic beers like Liefmans historically as well. Lambic, on the other hand, has specific characteristics. Who gets to draw the line? Good question. Should there be a line drawn? Definitely.

Message irishsnake beers 355 º places 1 º 23:33 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by Oakes Who gets to draw the line? Good question. Should there be a line drawn? Definitely. I would argue that Mr. Shelton’s clear bias makes him not the person to draw the line.
Message Oakes P admin beers 30680 º places 1135 º 23:36 Wed 5/17/2006 Originally posted by irishsnake Originally posted by Oakes Who gets to draw the line? Good question. Should there be a line drawn? Definitely. I would argue that Mr. Shelton’s clear bias makes him not the person to draw the line. The EU at best or the lambic makers themselves would be the only ones capable of actually drawing any lines. Right now, nobody is drawing any lines anywhere, just stating their opinions. Dan’s not allowed to have an opinion? This isn’t North Korea.
Message muzzlehatch beers 4975 º places 327 º 00:23 Thu 5/18/2006 Originally posted by Oakes Originally posted by irishsnake Originally posted by Oakes Who gets to draw the line? Good question. Should there be a line drawn? Definitely. I would argue that Mr. Shelton’s clear bias makes him not the person to draw the line. The EU at best or the lambic makers themselves would be the only ones capable of actually drawing any lines. Right now, nobody is drawing any lines anywhere, just stating their opinions. Dan’s not allowed to have an opinion? This isn’t North Korea. What he said. 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. The more information, the more eye-openings we get, the better. Hooray for Eric Asimov and the NY Times bringing a little bit of knowledge to the wealthy masses...hooray for Dan Shelton, and Clark and Joris and everyone else here bringing more knowledge to the less-ignorant fanatics. Thank you all.
Message mullet beers 849 º places 230 º 00:23 Thu 5/18/2006 Here is some elaboration from Dan Shelton stolen blatantly from BA: "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’m not sure that I can agree with his claim that "It’s just that their (Cantillon, Drie Fonteinen and De Cam’s) 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." Isn’t Drie Fonteinen’s cellar temperature-controlled? That seems like a big deviation from 50 years ago to me. And I was under the impression (can’t recall where I read it but will check) that Armand Debelder specifically tried to blend a "softer" gueuze, which is exactly what Shelton rails against. I know taste is a funny thing, but when he makes the "softer-drinkable/harder-traditional" distinction, my own tastes buds do not agree at all. I’d put Girardin, De Cam, Boon, Mort Subite, Oud Beersel and Drie Fonteinen’s oude gueuzes in the "softer" category and Cantillon, Hanssens and De Troch’s in the "harder" one.

Message muzzlehatch beers 4975 º places 327 º 00:35 Thu 5/18/2006 Originally posted by mullet I know taste is a funny thing, but when he makes the "softer-drinkable/harder-traditional" distinction, my own tastes buds do not agree at all. I’d put Girardin, De Cam, Boon, Mort Subite, Oud Beersel and Drie Fonteinen’s oude gueuzes in the "softer" category and Cantillon, Hanssens and De Troch’s in the "harder" one. The "softer/harder" thing is tricky...I’d tend to agree with you generally (though I’ve had only one De Cam, and only one De Troch and that years ago) and when put that way I guess I’m a "softy". I appreciate and love Cantillon...but it’s not often that I can drink one. If I’m craving lambic, I’m craving Girardin Black label thank you very much, not Cantillon Gueuze (sorry Clark). But "less traditional"? I think that only matters up to a point. If there are only two "fully traditional" lambic brewers/blenders out there, and the rest are just shit, I’m not sure how long we’re going to hold on to this wonderful tradition. I’m as uncompromising at heart and in thought as anyone, about an awful lot of aspects of culture...but down to the nitty gritty, I love Girardin and Hanssens as much as anything else out there and "soft" or no, we have to just accept that Cantillon is only for the very, very select few...let’s be at least a little accepting of those that aren’t perfect?
Message JorisPPattyn P admin beers 14328 º places 93 º 00:57 Thu 5/18/2006 and Joris and No offense meant or taken, B., but may I respectfully point out that I’ve WELL kept out of these shouting matches, on Ratebeer, on the Babble Belt and on BeerAdvocate? And if you really want to get an idea what might restrain me, I suggest you take a look on the Babble Belt now. Joris
Message irishsnake beers 355 º places 1 º 01:24 Thu 5/18/2006 Originally posted by Oakes Originally posted by irishsnake Originally posted by Oakes Who gets to draw the line? Good question. Should there be a line drawn? Definitely. I would argue that Mr. Shelton’s clear bias makes him not the person to draw the line. The EU at best or the lambic makers themselves would be the only ones capable of actually drawing any lines. Right now, nobody is drawing any lines anywhere, just stating their opinions. Dan’s not allowed to have an opinion? This isn’t North Korea. that’s a "straw man" argument at best. of course he’s "allowed" to have, express, advocate, etc, an opinion. "having an opinion" isn’t "drawing a line" that "North Korea" line is completely uncalled for.