search

Author Topic: 1987 Liefmans Goudenband and a 1984 Rodenbach  (Read 796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mr. furley

  • Female
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Geuze
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,406
  • Location: the armpit of the Midwest
  • signed life away on the internet totally worth it
Quote from: urbanhack
my head was buried in shuke's tits.
TITS help you hit home runs.

Offline emerge

  • VIP Member
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Russian Imperial Stout
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,063
  • Location: Chibeeria
    • Research page @ Lambic.info
Re: 1987 Liefmans Goudenband and a 1984 Rodenbach
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2013, 01:03:32 PM »
I drank a pretty old Goudenband once. It had a brown Liefmans print on white paper, unsure of the vintage. Anyway it was dead flat and raisiny, like port. The best vintage I had was a 2001 that was from a 375ml. There was mold growing on the outside of the bottle (in the store). It was really sour but with a nice vinous feel to it. After that I think they started back-sweetening unfortunately. Haven't had it lately.

Offline emerge

  • VIP Member
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Russian Imperial Stout
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,063
  • Location: Chibeeria
    • Research page @ Lambic.info
Re: 1987 Liefmans Goudenband and a 1984 Rodenbach
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2019, 04:15:34 PM »
Had a 2012 Goudenband at Kulminator. That was the oldest they had, it was ok but still pretty sweet. Confirmed my suspicions that it's back sweetened, wonder if it's pasteurized too... :(

Offline beastiefan2k

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Pale Ale
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Location: Bmore
Re: 1987 Liefmans Goudenband and a 1984 Rodenbach
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2019, 10:45:37 AM »
Had a 2012 Goudenband at Kulminator. That was the oldest they had, it was ok but still pretty sweet. Confirmed my suspicions that it's back sweetened, wonder if it's pasteurized too... :(
There used to be a lot of talk about this issue; pasteurization. It is likely that depending on the time it was and wasn't. Here is a worthwhile review of an 80s and early 2000s versions on Ratebeer
https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/beer_name/4663/5792/

I would guess that everything from 2000 an on was indeed pasteurized. I would guess that the 80s definitely were not. When they starter, I don't know.

Offline emerge

  • VIP Member
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Russian Imperial Stout
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,063
  • Location: Chibeeria
    • Research page @ Lambic.info
Re: 1987 Liefmans Goudenband and a 1984 Rodenbach
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2019, 12:21:20 PM »
Had a 2012 Goudenband at Kulminator. That was the oldest they had, it was ok but still pretty sweet. Confirmed my suspicions that it's back sweetened, wonder if it's pasteurized too... :(
There used to be a lot of talk about this issue; pasteurization. It is likely that depending on the time it was and wasn't. Here is a worthwhile review of an 80s and early 2000s versions on Ratebeer
https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/beer_name/4663/5792/

I would guess that everything from 2000 an on was indeed pasteurized. I would guess that the 80s definitely were not. When they starter, I don't know.
Cool, thanks for sharing that review! :thumbup:
I had a sour 2001 bottle that was similar to the one described in that review.
Some years ago I ran into the rep for Wetten Imports, who handled Liefmans. He confirmed that they started pasteurizing/sweetening sometime after 2002.

Years ago I did a similar comparison with a 2001 bottle and an undated "1990's" bottle. It had a paper wrapper with 'Liefmans' printed in brown, and repeated like wallpaper. The bottle had an old style label with the cartoon guy standing by barrels. The cork was small and mushroom shaped.



Here are my random notes on different vintages:
Quote
2017: Tried the 2016 vintage and wasn't disappointed. Lightly tart, vinous with a little sweetness, background barrel presence. Didn't seem to be as heavily backsweetened as in recent years past. Great classic Flemish Oud Bruin.

Fresh bottle review 2006: Vintage reviews follow below.

Served in a Liefmans .3L wide fluted glass. Pours a ruddy brown with garnet highlights. Ample foam and lacing around the rim.

Smells of oak, cherry, and dark malt. Sort of cidery.

Taste is pretty unique, tartness comes out at first, followed by a sweeter balsamic note. Earthy yeast is in there, which makes a brief cameo. Sweet cherry or grape note. Have to take it down .5 here, since this tastes like sugar was added, compared to an older bottle from 2001 (see later review). Slightly dry, tart finish persuades another sip. One 750, or 2 drafts would probably be equivalent for a session. Get it while you can!

>>>2001 vintage...and the love affair with Goudenband continues.

Pours pretty nasty, deep mahogany brown with suspended yeast chunks. Every vintage bottle of this I try turns out different. 2001 was a good year apparently.The fat, spongy cork may have something to do with its sustained freshness. A brief sizzle of carbonation happens once poured, but settles to nothing soon enough.

Aroma of horse stalls, vinegar, and sweet mustard. The yeast fans out in all manner of funky directions. Sweet and sour like a Gueuze, but walking the line on the dark side. It has a mustiness that feels ancient, like it had been stored since the Middle Ages.

Sour upfront, finally. This is the Goudenband i've heard about. Forget the 2000 batch and some prior, the corks don't seem to age as well to this present date. This is conclusive evidence after sampling several flat '00 vintage bottles and a 750mL from the early '90's. Look for a larger cork and you'll do well.

Residual lemon citrus sourness, and a mellow blanket of oaky woodiness. Balanced and mellow with age. Mild cherry skin here, but more akin to a Gueuze.

Perfect Oud Bruin. Liefmans, what happened to the recipe?

>>>3rd review: early 1990's vintage

Brown Liefmans logo pattern on outer paper wrapper. Served at cellar temperature.

Pours a dark reddish-chestnut brown, with alot of clarity. Large bubbles result from a "higher-altitude" pour, but don't stick around. The ale soon looks like flat cola in the glass.

Smell is strong, a touch phenolic and berry-like. Musty basement notes lurk at the edges, but don't overpower it.

Taste still packs a punch. Almond nuttiness in the malt moves to a dark berry/plum with muted spice and a cola finish. Aftertaste is almost like fruit juice, too sweet to be wine, but not really dry at all. Nearly none of the signature tartness of a fresh bottle.

Mouthfeel is a bit thin without the usual carbonation, and the ABV becomes somewhat more apparent, which hinders the drinkability.

Notes: I was eager to try this vintage bottle, since the recipe reportedly changed post 2002. Age has mellowed it quite a bit, there was minimal to no carbonation, but still a very unique ale. Although the current version is a touch sweeter, I prefer it to this older vintage. The 10 yr. shelf-life is probably a good guideline to follow when cellaring, drink it before it gets too old...