Dogfish Head World Wide Stout

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.
Reply to
Bill Benzel
In article ,
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
Reply to
nicholas peter dempsey
in news:kZ8qb.135$ snipped-for-privacy@newshog.newsread.com:
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. *****************************************************************
Reply to
Dan Iwerks
: : 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.
Reply to
Bill Benzel
in news:Jgcqb.162$ snipped-for-privacy@newshog.newsread.com:
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 . . .
Reply to
Dan Iwerks
I think I've asked before, but how does one tell the difference between the 18% and the 23%?
Oo, there's more? How can we tell THIS one, and what % is it?
Reply to
Russ Perry Jr
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:20:00 -0600, Russ Perry Jr wrote:
It's on the label, no?
I think it hit 26% or something crazy this year, but haven't seen the new release yet.
Reply to
Oh, Guess
< Snip>
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
Reply to
Joris Pattyn
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
===============
Reply to
Bill Coleman
Heh... It's not THAT big a bottle, and I've had lots of practice.
I don't think it is, at least not directly.
Was that what it was? The ones marked out were the 23%, and the ones with "vim and vigor" were 18%?
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. :-)
Reply to
Russ Perry Jr
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.
Reply to
Expletive Deleted
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".
Reply to
John
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.
Reply to
Russ Perry Jr
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
Reply to
Steve Jackson
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.
Reply to
Expletive Deleted
: 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.
Reply to
Bill Benzel

Site Timeline Threads

  • Now on. As there's 30, not 50 ales I might get to see more than half this time.
  • last updated in

    Beer

  • Now on. As there's 30, not 50 ales I might get to see more than half this time.
  • last posted in

    Beer

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.