I suspect my days of over-verbose nonsensical beer reviews are fading into the sunset -- I just don't have the motivation that I used to. Or maybe it's a matter of being so out of practice that I'm just not feeling it to get back in saddle, eh?
That having been said, this is probably not the best beer to break of me of my ennui-induced non-style of beer reviewing. This is not a bad beer, but, at the same time, the best I can muster is a "yup, what Phisch said" re: this beer.
As promised, I did a side-by with this and it's non-Anniversary cousin. The 10th is indeed a tad darker (Amber vice Golden). The aroma is a bit more "welcoming", if that makes any sense, in the 10th than the non-10th (the later is surprisingly neutral in the nose).
I disagree with Sir Phisch-meister on one big talking point, though. The 10th seemed a bit less hoppy, piney and crisp than the non-10th. The 10th was clearly the "elder statesman" of the two, almost as if it was meant to be sipped on a rainy night while reading a Glen Cook "Black Company" novel -- while the non-10th goes out in the rain with his drunken mates, bar-hopping, RedBull slamming, and late-night Vindaloo scarfing.
Even at the end of the bottle, when it was approaching the warmer side of the beer-drinking spectrum, the 10th held its own and didn't fall apart into some sort of malty quasi-Barleywiney mess -- the way so many DIPAs do on the last turn around the track and headed towards the finish line. So, for that at least, the 10th has the upper hand here: slow and steady wins the race.

san diego