Has anyone seen this beer available? My local pub here in SoCal was able
to snag one case. It didn't last long.

It's a really nice, flavorful, malty, high alcohol stout -- not hopped as
aggressively as an Impy but balanced to enhance the sensation of malt
flavors.

I'd love to get my paws around another bottle.

--
Bill

reply to sirwill1 AT same domain as above

In article >,
Bill Benzel > wrote:
>Has anyone seen this beer available? My local pub here in SoCal was able
>to snag one case. It didn't last long.
>
I've got a couple of the 23% incarnation aging in the "cellar" as we
speak.

This year's model was released a couple of weeks ago. Ask, nay, demand
that your publican restock while he can.

--NPD
--
___________________________
Nicholas P. Dempsey
Department of Sociology
University of Chicago

(Bill Benzel) wrote in
:

> Has anyone seen this beer available? My local pub here in SoCal was
> able to snag one case. It didn't last long.
>
> It's a really nice, flavorful, malty, high alcohol stout -- not hopped
> as aggressively as an Impy but balanced to enhance the sensation of
> malt flavors.

It's call an imperial stout just because that's about as close as you
can get to a style. They should just invent a "Dogfish Head" general
style and put all their bizarre yummy stuff in together. Haven't had
this year's WWS yet, will soon. The 23% last year was good, the 18% was
one of the best beers I've ever had. --
************************************************** ***************
Dan Iwerks thinks that the beer you're drinking probably sucks.
The fundamental problem with Solipsism is it makes me
responsible for the fact that you're a complete idiot.
************************************************** ***************

Dan Iwerks (dan_iwerksatyahoodottcom) wrote:
:
: It's call an imperial stout just because that's about as close as you
: can get to a style. They should just invent a "Dogfish Head" general
: style and put all their bizarre yummy stuff in together. Haven't had
: this year's WWS yet, will soon. The 23% last year was good, the 18% was
: one of the best beers I've ever had. --

I didn't have any last year but this one is not an Imperial Stout -- it
doesn't have the kind of hop presence that I'd expect in an Imperial
Stout.

The label does not define it that way either. IIRC it said something like
A really dark beer made with a ridiculosly huge amount of grain or
something along those lines.

I just found an online source at liquidsolutions.biz. They define the
style as "dogfish" which, IMO, is absolutely appropriate.

--
Bill

reply to sirwill1 AT same domain as above

(Bill Benzel) wrote in
:

> Dan Iwerks (dan_iwerksatyahoodottcom) wrote:
>:
>: It's call an imperial stout just because that's about as close as you
>: can get to a style. They should just invent a "Dogfish Head" general
>: style and put all their bizarre yummy stuff in together. Haven't
>: had this year's WWS yet, will soon. The 23% last year was good, the
>: 18% was one of the best beers I've ever had. --
>
> I didn't have any last year but this one is not an Imperial Stout --
> it doesn't have the kind of hop presence that I'd expect in an
> Imperial Stout.
>
> The label does not define it that way either. IIRC it said something
> like A really dark beer made with a ridiculosly huge amount of grain
> or something along those lines.
>
> I just found an online source at liquidsolutions.biz. They define the
> style as "dogfish" which, IMO, is absolutely appropriate.

Makes me a bit nervous. I see something categorized as a "fruit" beer, I
assume fruit was used to brew it. If it's actually called a "dogfish"
beer, that means it was brewed with . . .
--
************************************************** ***************
Dan Iwerks thinks there's something fishy about his Raison D'Etre.
The fundamental problem with Solipsism is it makes me
responsible for the fact that you're a complete idiot.
************************************************** ***************

(nicholas peter dempsey) wrote:
> Bill Benzel > wrote:
> I've got a couple of the 23% incarnation aging in the "cellar" as we
> speak.

I think I've asked before, but how does one tell the difference between
the 18% and the 23%?

> This year's model was released a couple of weeks ago. Ask, nay, demand
> that your publican restock while he can.

Oo, there's more? How can we tell THIS one, and what % is it?
--
//*================================================= ===============++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 [NEW!] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================ ================*//

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:20:00 -0600, Russ Perry Jr >
wrote:

(nicholas peter dempsey) wrote:
>> Bill Benzel > wrote:
>> I've got a couple of the 23% incarnation aging in the "cellar" as we
>> speak.
>
>I think I've asked before, but how does one tell the difference between
>the 18% and the 23%?

It's on the label, no?

>> This year's model was released a couple of weeks ago. Ask, nay, demand
>> that your publican restock while he can.
>
>Oo, there's more? How can we tell THIS one, and what % is it?

I think it hit 26% or something crazy this year, but haven't seen the
new release yet.
--
Nobody You Know

< Snip>
> It's on the label, no?
>
> >> This year's model was released a couple of weeks ago. Ask, nay, demand
> >> that your publican restock while he can.
> >
> >Oo, there's more? How can we tell THIS one, and what % is it?
>
> I think it hit 26% or something crazy this year, but haven't seen the
> new release yet.
> --
It's not that easy following my info. Cornelia C. wrote this on Ratebeer
lately:
"I emailed DFH today and got this back from brewer John Gillooly:

"Here's the story on the World Wide Stout-we did 2 batches this year, one at
21%, most of which we sold in the UK, and the primary batch, which came in @
18.8%. Since we released some of the 21% batch domestically, there has been
some confusion about the abv. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to
tell which batch is which by looking at the bottle. Taste-wise, the 18.8% is
much less sweet."

As to the labels, someone noted elsewhere that the 2003 bottles do not have
"vim and vigor" visible or marked through. So, it seems at least there won't
be any confusion about 2003 versus all the previous years. I haven't seen it
myself, though."
Cheers, Joris

There was some misinformation about this year's being very high,
as a matter of fact, I was one of the people spreading it, on the
Burgundian Babble Belt. I had misunderstood a statement from a
Dogfish Head Sale rep at a NY homebrew meeting. But it turns
out that this years is only (!) 21%. It's also quite a bit better than
last year's.

Bill Coleman

================

"Oh, Guess" > wrote in message
...

>
> I think it hit 26% or something crazy this year, but haven't seen the
> new release yet.
> --
> Nobody You Know
>

Russ Perry Jr > wrote:

> (nicholas peter dempsey) wrote:
> > Bill Benzel > wrote:
> > I've got a couple of the 23% incarnation aging in the "cellar" as we
> > speak.
>
> I think I've asked before, but how does one tell the difference between
> the 18% and the 23%?
>
You can still pour the last of the 18% into your glass without spilling
any ;-)

> Russ Perry Jr > wrote:
>> I think I've asked before, but how does one tell the difference
>> between the 18% and the 23%?

(Tim Vanhoof) wrote:
> You can still pour the last of the 18% into your glass without
> spilling any ;-)

Heh... It's not THAT big a bottle, and I've had lots of practice.

(Oh, Guess) wrote:
> It's on the label, no?

I don't think it is, at least not directly.

"Joris Pattyn" > wrote:
> As to the labels, someone noted elsewhere that the 2003 bottles
> do not have "vim and vigor" visible or marked through.

Was that what it was? The ones marked out were the 23%, and the
ones with "vim and vigor" were 18%?

> So, it seems at least there won't be any confusion about 2003
> versus all the previous years.

Still gotta find it though...

On the other hand, I actually found a bottle of Raison D'Extra,
which I feared I wouldn't find, so I'm kind of happy now. :-)
--
//*================================================= ===============++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 [NEW!] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================ ================*//

Russ Perry Jr ) wrote:
:
: Still gotta find it though...
:

www.liquidsolutions.biz

--
Bill

reply to sirwill1 AT same domain as above

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Russ Perry Jr wrote:

> (nicholas peter dempsey) wrote:
> > Bill Benzel > wrote:
> > I've got a couple of the 23% incarnation aging in the "cellar" as we
> > speak.
>
> I think I've asked before, but how does one tell the difference between
> the 18% and the 23%?
>

The 23% is less good, less balanced, more alcohol presence?

> > This year's model was released a couple of weeks ago. Ask, nay, demand
> > that your publican restock while he can.
>
> Oo, there's more? How can we tell THIS one, and what % is it?
> --

Newest release is supposedely 18.8%.

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Russ Perry Jr wrote:

> > Russ Perry Jr > wrote:
> >> I think I've asked before, but how does one tell the difference
> >> between the 18% and the 23%?
>
> (Tim Vanhoof) wrote:
> > You can still pour the last of the 18% into your glass without
> > spilling any ;-)
>
> Heh... It's not THAT big a bottle, and I've had lots of practice.
>
> (Oh, Guess) wrote:
> > It's on the label, no?
>
> I don't think it is, at least not directly.
>
> "Joris Pattyn" > wrote:
> > As to the labels, someone noted elsewhere that the 2003 bottles
> > do not have "vim and vigor" visible or marked through.
>
> Was that what it was? The ones marked out were the 23%, and the
> ones with "vim and vigor" were 18%?
>

Apparently the 23% had Vim and Vigor crossed out in black marker. The 18%
had some with Vim and Vigor not crossed out, and some that *were* crossed
out. So that by itself is not a good means to tell the difference.
The newest 18.8% apparently doesn't mention vim and vigor at all, so
that's how to ID that one.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Expletive Deleted wrote:
> Apparently the 23% had Vim and Vigor crossed out in black marker. The 18%
> had some with Vim and Vigor not crossed out, and some that *were* crossed
> out. So that by itself is not a good means to tell the difference.
> The newest 18.8% apparently doesn't mention vim and vigor at all, so
> that's how to ID that one.
anybody know why they marked out "vim and vigor" in the previous
years?
Warren Place

"Warren Place" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Expletive Deleted wrote:
> > Apparently the 23% had Vim and Vigor crossed out in black marker. The
18%
> > had some with Vim and Vigor not crossed out, and some that *were*
crossed
> > out. So that by itself is not a good means to tell the difference.
> > The newest 18.8% apparently doesn't mention vim and vigor at all, so
> > that's how to ID that one.
> anybody know why they marked out "vim and vigor" in the previous
> years?
> Warren Place
>

Your Tax Dollars At Work.

As I understand it, the BATF required those words to be stricken, because
they don't like for beer labels to connote "strength". You *can* have the
alcohol percentage, but you can't say it's "strong".

"John" > wrote:
> "Warren Place" > wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Expletive Deleted wrote:
>>> Apparently the 23% had Vim and Vigor crossed out in black marker.

>> anybody know why they marked out "vim and vigor" in the previous
>> years?

> As I understand it, the BATF required those words to be stricken, because
> they don't like for beer labels to connote "strength". You *can* have the
> alcohol percentage, but you can't say it's "strong".

Actually, I'd heard that it was because the phrase "vim & vigor"
implies that alcohol (this beer at least) promotes good health,
and remember, the BATF won't even (unless they've changed their
minds recently) allow calorie counts to be given.
--
//*================================================= ===============++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 [NEW!] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================ ================*//

"Russ Perry Jr" > wrote in message
...

> Actually, I'd heard that it was because the phrase "vim & vigor"
> implies that alcohol (this beer at least) promotes good health,
> and remember, the BATF won't even (unless they've changed their
> minds recently) allow calorie counts to be given.

Calorie counts have been allowed for ages. Note the various light beer
advertising over the years.

What you're probably thinking of is that nutrition information, including
calories IIRC, is not allowed on the label.

-STeve

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, John wrote:

> "Warren Place" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Expletive Deleted wrote:
> > > Apparently the 23% had Vim and Vigor crossed out in black marker. The
> 18%
> > > had some with Vim and Vigor not crossed out, and some that *were*
> crossed
> > > out. So that by itself is not a good means to tell the difference.
> > > The newest 18.8% apparently doesn't mention vim and vigor at all, so
> > > that's how to ID that one.
> > anybody know why they marked out "vim and vigor" in the previous
> > years?
> > Warren Place
> >
>
> Your Tax Dollars At Work.
>
> As I understand it, the BATF required those words to be stricken, because
> they don't like for beer labels to connote "strength". You *can* have the
> alcohol percentage, but you can't say it's "strong".
>

Or perhaps more directly, the slogan may seem to suggest the beer imparts
vim and vigor to the drinker, and that comes much too close to advertising
a health benefit associated with beer, a huge no-no.

Joris Pattyn ) wrote:
: It's not that easy following my info. Cornelia C. wrote this on Ratebeer
: lately:
: "I emailed DFH today and got this back from brewer John Gillooly:
:
: "Here's the story on the World Wide Stout-we did 2 batches this year, one at
: 21%, most of which we sold in the UK, and the primary batch, which came in @
: 18.8%. Since we released some of the 21% batch domestically, there has been
: some confusion about the abv. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to
: tell which batch is which by looking at the bottle. Taste-wise, the 18.8% is
: much less sweet."
:
: As to the labels, someone noted elsewhere that the 2003 bottles do not have
: "vim and vigor" visible or marked through. So, it seems at least there won't
: be any confusion about 2003 versus all the previous years. I haven't seen it
: myself, though."

I've now acquired it from two different sources -- some from Oregon
(liquidsolutions.biz) and some from California (High Times in Costa Mesa).
There is a noticeable difference in the labels -- the Oregon beer shows
years beginning 2004 and is nicked slightly ahead of the 2004 -- the
California bottles show months 01 through 12 and they're nicked, as you
might expect, just past the 11.

So we have these different labels but I don't know for sure if they can be
associated to the different batches. I emailed John and asked -- will let
you know if he writes back.

My own palate did not distiguish a difference between the two examples --
but I had tasted some IPA earlier in the day so residual palate fatigue is
a possibility -- a short vertical with a rested mouth and a couple of
friends might tell a different story.


--
Bill

reply to sirwill1 AT same domain as above

"Steve Jackson" > wrote:
> "Russ Perry Jr" > wrote:
> > Actually, I'd heard that it was because the phrase "vim & vigor"
> > implies that alcohol (this beer at least) promotes good health,
> > and remember, the BATF won't even (unless they've changed their
> > minds recently) allow calorie counts to be given.

> Calorie counts have been allowed for ages. Note the various light beer
> advertising over the years.
>
> What you're probably thinking of is that nutrition information, including
> calories IIRC, is not allowed on the label.

Ah yes, that's it. Sorry about that!
--
//*================================================= ===============++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 [NEW!] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================ ================*//

"Russ Perry Jr" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Jackson" > wrote:

> > What you're probably thinking of is that nutrition information,
including
> > calories IIRC, is not allowed on the label.
>
> Ah yes, that's it. Sorry about that!

No problem.

I do have to say, not allowing nutritional information on beer labels is one
of the more asinine regs I've seen. What possible harm is there in letting
people know how many calories, carbs, etc. are present? I can understand not
allowing brewers to make any sorts of health claims, but simple nutritional
facts are not claims of health benefits in any fashion.

-Steve

(SNIP)

Does anyone know if this beer is available outside USA - especially if
it is here in Australia????

"The Alternative Guy" > wrote in message
om...
> (SNIP)
>
> Does anyone know if this beer is available outside USA - especially if
> it is here in Australia????

I'll trade some dogfish for some Little Creatures. I am back in the states
after 5 short years in the lucky country. My wife would love some LC pale
ale.
I can get any Dogfish beer as the brewerey is minutes from our beach house.
Cheers, Jack

Why regular-brewed beers don't have calorie and carb counts on them:
http://www.drinkbeergetthindiet.com/..._carb_info.htm

"Steve Jackson" > wrote in message
news:PGeub.10596$6G3.7631@fed1read06...
> "Russ Perry Jr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steve Jackson" > wrote:
>
> > > What you're probably thinking of is that nutrition information,
> including
> > > calories IIRC, is not allowed on the label.
> >
> > Ah yes, that's it. Sorry about that!
>
> No problem.
>
> I do have to say, not allowing nutritional information on beer labels is
one
> of the more asinine regs I've seen. What possible harm is there in letting
> people know how many calories, carbs, etc. are present? I can understand
not
> allowing brewers to make any sorts of health claims, but simple
nutritional
> facts are not claims of health benefits in any fashion.
>
> -Steve
>
>

(The Alternative Guy) wrote on 20 Nov
2003:

> (SNIP)
>
> Does anyone know if this beer is available outside USA -
> especially if it is here in Australia????

Sorry, internationally the WW Stout makes it to England (as a 21%
beer), but nowhere else. Maybe Canada, but that doesn't help you
either. Dogfish Head just doesn't make enough beer to expand to a
place like Australia and expect to recoup.

Witzel

Bob wrote:

> Why regular-brewed beers don't have calorie and carb counts on them:
> http://www.drinkbeergetthindiet.com/..._carb_info.htm
>

So, what's with "REPEAL" in the title of many of the beers on the
partial list? F'r'instance-

> Coors Repeal 11.79
> Coors 3.2 9.54
> Coors Export

And, if you guess it's got something to do with what the beer was after
Prohibition, this one'll disprove that-

Blue Moon Honey Blond Repeal


Also, from the site, this is incorrect-

"...Bert Grant, better known by some as the man who opened the Yakima
Brewing Company, the first microbrewery in the U.S.,..."

There were a number of micro's that came before Yakima. I think Grant's
sometimes credited with the first "brewpub", tho'...

It's Coors way of differentiating between 3.2 % for some western states and
their regular-strength beers. Their designation, not mine.

Bob

> wrote in message
. ..
> Bob wrote:
>
> > Why regular-brewed beers don't have calorie and carb counts on them:
> > http://www.drinkbeergetthindiet.com/..._carb_info.htm
> >
>
> So, what's with "REPEAL" in the title of many of the beers on the
> partial list? F'r'instance-
>
> > Coors Repeal
11.79
> > Coors 3.2
9.54
> > Coors Export
>
> And, if you guess it's got something to do with what the beer was after
> Prohibition, this one'll disprove that-
>
> Blue Moon Honey Blond Repeal
>
>
> Also, from the site, this is incorrect-
>
> "...Bert Grant, better known by some as the man who opened the Yakima
> Brewing Company, the first microbrewery in the U.S.,..."
>
> There were a number of micro's that came before Yakima. I think Grant's
> sometimes credited with the first "brewpub", tho'...
>
>
>

The microbrewery info comes from a Roger Protz story
http://celebrator.com/9408/Feds.html but you're right---it should read
brewpub.

Bob
> wrote in message
. ..
> Bob wrote:
>
> > Why regular-brewed beers don't have calorie and carb counts on them:
> > http://www.drinkbeergetthindiet.com/..._carb_info.htm
> >
>
> So, what's with "REPEAL" in the title of many of the beers on the
> partial list? F'r'instance-
>
> > Coors Repeal
11.79
> > Coors 3.2
9.54
> > Coors Export
>
> And, if you guess it's got something to do with what the beer was after
> Prohibition, this one'll disprove that-
>
> Blue Moon Honey Blond Repeal
>
>
> Also, from the site, this is incorrect-
>
> "...Bert Grant, better known by some as the man who opened the Yakima
> Brewing Company, the first microbrewery in the U.S.,..."
>
> There were a number of micro's that came before Yakima. I think Grant's
> sometimes credited with the first "brewpub", tho'...
>
>
>

"Baltimore Jack" > wrote in message >...
> "The Alternative Guy" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (SNIP)
> >
> > Does anyone know if this beer is available outside USA - especially if
> > it is here in Australia????
>
> I'll trade some dogfish for some Little Creatures. I am back in the states
> after 5 short years in the lucky country. My wife would love some LC pale
> ale.
> I can get any Dogfish beer as the brewerey is minutes from our beach house.
> Cheers, Jack

Jack...I'll see what can be done...they are in Fremantle, about 38
hours drive from me, in Melbourne, lol