David Brockington's Tasting Notebook

Snow Goose Winter Ale

Initial Impressions:

The bottle was the same as the other two Wild Goose beers that I have tasted -- 12-ounce green longneck. This beer is apparently their winter seasonal offering, which generally implies a stronger, warming beer that makes one slowly relax following the rough and tumble day spent battling the nefarious winter elements. Since we tasted this one in May, the atmosphere wasn't as one would expect. (No snow, no rough/tumble, no elements at all, really.) However, I figured that it would be better to try it in May than to wait until next Winter. :)

When it was finally released from its incarceration in the bottle, the beer cast a mid-to-deep Amber hue in the relative freedom of the glass. It wasn't terribly proud, as it threw off a light amount of chill- haze. My guess is that Wild Goose neither pasteurizes nor filters, which I applaud. However, if a brewer is not going to filter their product, it is a tricky balancing act to secure the requisite proteins for head retention yet not have too many that will combine with tannins to create haze at certain temperature bands. Wild Goose seems unable to do either, as all three of their beers were at least slightly hazy (Snow Goose) to quite cloudy (the Sam Middleton's Pale), yet the latter two that I have reviewed (the Snow Goose and the Amber) have poor head retention. To that, the head on the Snow Goose, while pleasantly tan, collapsed rather quickly, and left little lacework on the glass. (The head retention on the SM Pale was actually very good, but that was also the haziest of the three beers).

Nose:

A hint of fruitiness came out in the nose, with little hops or malt to compliment the fruitiness. The esters creating the fruitiness seemed to be the same esters that we encountered in both previous Wild Goose products we sampled, leading me to speculate that they use the same yeast in all three beers (which isn't at all uncommon or necessarily bad). The problem is that the esters that it throws off range from the pleasantly annoying in Snow Goose (I wish that there was some malt/hop nose to balance the esters) to the downright distracting in the Amber.

Flavor:

The flavor was very reminiscent of the Amber -- overall, this beer seems to be a stronger version of the Amber. The body was a bit fuller in the Snow Goose, although that may be a function of a higher starting gravity rather than a higher mashing temperature. A bit more maltiness comes out in the Snow Goose than in the Amber, although it is still a stretch to find it. A nice cloying sweetness dances around in the background of the flavor profile, which is possibly due to an addition of a highly-kilned crystal malt. However, the finish is quite rough, with the same acidic note slicing through the palate as in the previously-reviewed Amber. The consensus at the table was that the affliction which hurt the Amber was also present in the Snow Goose, although the more complex Snow Goose was better able to hide it.

Final Analysis:

I have seen a couple complimentary pieces on r.f.d.b regarding the Wild Goose beers (in addition to a couple claiming that they are mediocre) so there is a possibility that the three beers I tried are the result of an atypical period in the brewer's luck. However, that being said, all three were consistently poor, which leads me to conclude that the beers are either always bad, or the brewery has consistency problems. If I get the opportunity to try them in their own turf (the Mid Atlantic) I certainly will; perhaps the draught version comes across better than the bottled variety.

Rating (Based on 5 stars):

*1/2

Next Up:

Harpoon Stout by Mass Bay Brewing

Postscript

I had the pleasure of visiting the D.C. area in December of 1994, and made a point of giving the Snow Goose a second chance. Good beer is best when consumed in its home region. Hence, one evening at Bardo Rodeo in Arlington, Virginia I ordered a pint of the 1994 Snow Goose. While my notes on the pint are thin, I did not detect the acidic note which was present in three of the Wild Goose products that I reviewed in the Spring of 1994. The body was fuller, the maltiness more evident, and a healthy (but not overwhelming) dose of diacetyl rounded out the beer. The pint I had in Arlington was much better than the pint I had the prior Spring.

Revised Rating:

***

I plan on retaining both the original and the revised rating. While the Snow Goose is a decent beer when it is on, there is still some question regarding consistency. I would appreciate feedback from anybody more familiar with the recent track-record of the Wild Goose product; perhaps they have solved whatever alleged consistency problems that I (and others) believe they experienced.

Copyright 1994, 1995 by David Brockington, all rights reserved

David Brockington, Seattle, USA
bronyaur@u.washington.edu