You really should read the whole thing, which means sticking around for this paragraph.
“I am none the wiser as to what I, the beer drinker, am expected to expect from the use of a Burton union. These beers are both lovely, but very much in the way Thornbridge already operates. With luck, one of England’s many fine beer writers will be able to explain what difference the equipment actually makes to the product, beyond the press releases and collaborations.”
Feel seen?
Ha! As an American, my only actual experience with beers brewed with a Burton Union system would be Firestone Walker’s DBA and some of their no-longer-brewed ales. And I guess maybe their fancy blends, but then there’s so much going on with barrel aging previously used for wine, bourbon, etc., who knows what influence the Burton Union system adds? So I guess I would concur with the Beer Nut’s bit about (paraphrasing) ” the beers are lovely, but in the way all Thornbridge’s beers are lovely” w/r/t my experience with FW — I don’t know if my experience with DBA and their late lamented pale gave me any insight on what the Burton Union process contributes, but I know I liked both beers.
I’m inclined to believe the claims that using the system changes the beer. You might even be able to run a study which compares otherwise identical beers fermented in stainless steel and in the union. Or wood versus the union. I might be wrong, but as I remember, the Trader Joe’s Pale (made by FW) was identical to the FW Pale, except the former was in stainless steel and the latter the FW “system.”
However, to your point, FW DBA is a lovely beer, and it sure seems like wood makes a difference.
I remember the Trader Joe’s pale that FW did, but by the time FW’s pale on the system made its way to where I live, the TJ version had moved to another brewery, and it was nowhere near the beer that it was under FW, so I couldn’t compare the two. I seem to recall the FW pale and the TJ pale trading golds back and forth at the GABF for a few years!
That’s a fact.