[Cellar Review] New Holland Dragon's Milk (2011 Vintage vs 2013 Vintage)

Brewed By: New Holland Brewing Company in Holland, Michigan

Purchased: Single 12oz bottle from a 4-pack purchased at Binny's in IL; 2011/2013

Style/ABV: Stout/Strong Ale, 10%

Reported IBUs: 31

Back in 2011, I reviewed New Holland's Dragon's Milk. At the time, I thought the beer was too hot, and one-dimensional. I was so wrong. I've been meaning to re-review this beer for a while now, so I thought I would pull out a bottle of the 2011 Vintage I have been cellaring and see how it compares to a fresh bottle.

Like many things, I found myself strangely attracted to the Dragon's Milk. After throwing some bottles into the cellar, I had a random craving for this beer, and went out and bought another 4-pack. It wasn't long before I found myself buying this beer on a fairly regular basis to get my Bourbon fix.

Sweaters: the temporary boner slayer

Like a curvy girl that mostly wears baggy sweaters, this beer grew on me with each new revealing outing. If I had to describe this beer in one sentence it would be: "A poor man's Bourbon County Stout." This beer reminds me of the Bourbon County Stout, minus the malt backing, huge brownie backdrop, and the giant complexity. With that said...let's get on with the comparison.

Appearance

Both beers pour about the same. They both pour into thin, dark, black bodies, and kick up a finger of Stout-like brown/tan head. 

2011 Vintage - Swirling the beer results in some lacing and glossy alcohol legs. Agitating the beer by swirling kicks up some carbonation on the sides of the glass, but I can't really get a head going.

2013 Vintage - Swirling the beer results in lots of lacing and big, persistent, glossy legs. The legs have a longer duration here. Also, I'm kicking up more head on this as I swirl the beer. This beer is more heady in general.

2011 Vintage on the left. The 2013 was definitely a bit more "heady"

Both beers have a ruby-red tinted body when held to a bright light. The 2013 vintage seems a bit more marble black, where the 2011 vintage seems a bit cloudy.

Aroma

2011 Vintage - Brownie, wood, faded Bourbon...big raisins, molasses, port wine, light oxidation, dark fruits...and wet oak.

2013 Vintage - Huge Bourbon, vanilla, oak, chocolate, brownie, wood...aggressive tannin punch. 

Taste

2011 Vintage - Surprisingly balanced with fruit and port wine complexity, raisins, figs...there's some light oak and Bourbon, and wood. The finish is full of wood tannins, and faded alcohol. The 10% is still griping on the finish with pleasant booze.

2013 Vintage - Rich oak, Bourbon, booze; there are hints of brownie and chocolate, with some wood and roast in the mix. Maybe a hint of coffee? I'm probably reaching.

After tasting the 2013 (I tasted the 2011 first), going back to the 2011 really brings out the HUGE raisin, dark  fruits, and port wine complexity. The 2013 lays that rich oak/wood/Bourbon.

Drinkability/Mouthfeel/Palate Depth/Complexity

At 10%, this was never supposed to be a balanced beer. And I increasingly appreciate a fresh vintage of this beer for its HUGE Bourbon blast. Sometimes you just want Bourbon.

On the left: 2011 Vintage. Caps: "I toast."

2011 Vintage - Medium-full to lightly full-bodied. This has fruity, port wine notes, raisins...it's very complex stuff, with good palate depth. Age has -- surprisingly -- done this beer well. It's almost Doppelbock-esque, or remniscent of a fruity Dubbel. It has good drinkability for 10.0%. You get a hit of oak/chocolate up front; then raisins, dark fruits, oak; the back end is tannins, oak, wood, trailing fruits...the oak definitely builds as you drink it. Boozy on the finish, but in a pleasant way. The raisins/port wine rise to the top.

2013 Vintage - This is a lightly full-bodied beer, with some moments of fleeting thinness for whatever reason. This beer is aggressive and has tons of oak/wood tannins, big Bourbon flavors, and lots of barrel. While chocolate and brownie show up, this is still aggresively Bourbon-forward. It's one dimension to a fault, which hinders complexity. Palate depth is good, nevertheless. At 10.0%, drinkability is low but you want to sip on something like this anyway. Oak, Bourbon, wood, tannins up front; chocolate, brownie, wood, more tannins in the middle; lingering oak, vanilla, Bourbon, chocolate, wood on the back...finishes sticky and boozy.

These are heavy beers that both take a toll on your palate.

Rating[s]/Final Thoughts

2011 Vintage - Above-Average (4.5/5.0 Untappd) - A Strong Above-Average in fact, almost approaching a divine brew. Two years of age has done wonders to this beer, revealing a layer of port wine/raisin/dark fruit complexity. You still get that Bourbon/wood/oak/tannin punch, with just a hint of oak/brownie up front. Amazing complex. Nice.

2013 Vintage - Above-Average (4.0/5.0 Untappd) - A Light Above-Average here. I shit all over this beer in my original review, but I was wrong. I owe this beer an apology, but I've made up for it by spending tons of money on this stuff. Okay, maybe not a ton...this beer is priced reasonably. The fresh vintages feature tons of aggressive Bourbon/oak, lots of wood, lots of tannins...there's a layer of chocolate/brownie, and some Stout-like richness that just can't sustain for some reason. The beer is a bit flawed, sure, but it's also a hell of a Bourbon barrel-aged beer.

I don't have much else to add...this beer is available in 4-packs for around 15 dollars. That makes this one of the better year-round Bourbon barrel-aged beers. It's missing a lot of the Stout complexity you would find in something like the barrel-aged Old Rasputin or Bourbon County Stout, but it makes up for it with excellent Bourbon kick. It's one-dimensional, but if you throw this beer in the cellar, you can pull it out in two years and pick up some nice dark fruit complexity to boot. I think I may see how a few vintages hold up after three or four years in the cellar, but this is very nice right now at the two year mark. Have fun with this one.

Random Thought: When in doubt, cellar ALL things.