Beer Forum

The challenge of cloning specific commercial brews has never really interested me, so I wasn't expecting to like the Jamil Show 2.0 very much. But I was wrong. Even though I still don't plan to brew any of the show's recipes, the brewer interviews and the discussion about recipe design has made this version even better than the first Jamil Show. The styles shows helped me become a more competent brewer; the new shows are helping me become a more creative brewer.

I do have a pair of suggestions, though, about the "calling it cloned" (or not) part of the show. First, for many of the beers you've featured, there's a common challenge of comparing a relatively young homebrewed version to a more mature commercial example. Since I actually enjoy the discussion about the ways in which beer changes as it ages, I'm not sure I'd like you to let the homebrews sit longer before reviewing them. But I would like you to revisit examples that aren't clones as is, that you think might become clones if given more time in the keg/bottle--just as you did for the recent Dark Dawn episode. Rather than speculate that the homebrew will taste just like the commercial brew several weeks/months down the line--Jamil, I'm talking to you!--why not put it to the test?

My second suggestion is to use a triangle-tasting methodology. I have no problems with the relatively loose definition of "cloned" you are using, and I don't think a homebrew needs to be so identical that it is truly indistinguishable from the commercial beer to be called a clone. After all, the commercial beers themselves aren't always identical batch to batch, bottle to bottle. Nonetheless, since these Interwebs still don't allow we listeners to taste the beers for ourselves, I'm curious as to just how cloned these beers are. Cloned enough to pass a triangle test, or just enough to seem very much like the commercial beer when drunk on its own? I wouldn't expect many (any?) of your beers to pass the triangle test, but the process of doing it might nonetheless be interesting.

Those are just a couple thoughts I have. You guys are doing a great job. Thank you!

I gotta ask... what's the triangle test?

The triangle test, at least as I understand it, consists of pouring three samples: two of one beer, one of another. The test is for the taster to pick which one of the three is the odd one out. This is a primary way in which large breweries test their batch-to-batch consistency.

If nothing else, the triangle test would change the psychology of the tasting done on CYBI. Currently, JZ and company know that their two samples are different beers, and they're left to speculate whether they'd be able to tell the difference if they didn't already know one existed. With the triangle test, they'd first need to determine which one is the different beer, and then they could reflect on what the differences are and whether they're significant enough to call it, "not cloned".

I'm not sure it would really alter their verdicts, but it might be an interesting experiment to try at least once.

calpete wrote:The triangle test, at least as I understand it, consists of pouring three samples: two of one beer, one of another. The test is for the taster to pick which one of the three is the odd one out. This is a primary way in which large breweries test their batch-to-batch consistency.

If nothing else, the triangle test would change the psychology of the tasting done on CYBI. Currently, JZ and company know that their two samples are different beers, and they're left to speculate whether they'd be able to tell the difference if they didn't already know one existed. With the triangle test, they'd first need to determine which one is the different beer, and then they could reflect on what the differences are and whether they're significant enough to call it, "not cloned".

I'm not sure it would really alter their verdicts, but it might be an interesting experiment to try at least once.

While I can see how that could work, I just wonder if they would have enough time during the course of the show.

Dirk McLargeHuge wrote:While I can see how that could work, I just wonder if they would have enough time during the course of the show.

Effectively they could do it before the show even starts. We don't hear the tastings, so what's the difference if they taste it while the brewer interview is playing vs. before the show officially starts? Hell, they didn't even have an interview for the DF120 show, and still were able to do the tasting during the break. How much longer would it really take, we're only talking about 3 samples vs. 2.

I don't think they'll bring on triangle testing though, it would probably highlight the differences even more and lead to more 'not cloned' conclusions, or at least more hand waving to explain away the differences. TT is also inconsistent with the current standard, which is more of a 'close enough' as long as the beers aren't side by side. For example, recently nobody has had trouble picking out which beer is the hombrew. From a practical perspective, I'm happy with the current standard of you wouldn't change the recipe, as long as you are honest about it (and as long as you don't try to change the standard on the fly, Jamil!).

Nyakavt wrote:For example, recently nobody has had trouble picking out which beer is the hombrew. From a practical perspective, I'm happy with the current standard of you wouldn't change the recipe, as long as you are honest about it (and as long as you don't try to change the standard on the fly, Jamil!).

+1

The triangle test might be a fun experiment if somebody nails the clone, but it seems to me that they never have a problem distinguishing between the two.