So does it live up to the hype?

Sure, its tasty. A nice nuttiness to it. A highly drinkable brown.

But at $2.19/bottle? Not really worth it. Nothing too remarkable going on here.

5/10

The photo below doesn’t do the head justice, as it poured with a nice one, but that quickly dissipated.

It smells like a German lager. Malty, but lighter than a standard bock.

The mouthfeel is pretty lightweight, and modestly bitter for the style. Again, lighter than your standard bock, but tastey.

A decent session beer, if you want something a bit different than you standard english pale or ESB.

All in all, 5/10. And a fair price to boot.

I poured it, expecting exactly what I got, a clear effervescent belgian styled ale with very thick, but quickly dissipating head.  The smell was that of a belgian golden ale.  As it stands, all is well with this ale.

So we move on to the first sip.  The mouthfeel is very light and effervescent.  Very close to what I’d expect from a Saison, and very standard belgian.

The taste:  I was expecting to be blown away by sourness here, assuming they would’ve taken the Saison sentiment literally.  Well, it turns out, it’s very plain.  It’s actually quite the golden ale.  It’s very standard golden ale, with a lot of similarities to Duvel.  With regard to Duvel however, this is much better.  There are some interesting characteristics.  There are some flavors that aren’t necessarily striking… more understated…  Turns out, the aftertaste on this is actually very similar to sweet tarts.

So, why do I say this has turned me off of the Avery anniversary series?  Well, I’d be interested to try them.  It would be really fun, but my devout belief is that it wouldn’t be worth the money.  This beer, for 8 bucks, is totally not worth it at all.  If I bought this for 2 dollars, I’d be satisfied.

It’s all I can do to not fail this beer, but really… it’s not a great beer.  It’s not worth the 8 dollar price tag for 22 oz.  It’s a 5/10.

Then again…  if it was free, it’d be much more appealing.

Aroma: Sweet, light estery. A cloud of bananas and rotting fruit.

I’m not sure that sounds as delicious as this smells, but its not too far off.

Brian: As for the tasticles: light and fluffy, a bit sweet. Very bubbly. This, my friends, is the Champaign of beers. It is the quintessential toasting ale. As the bottle says, “This belgian favorite is best enjoyed chilled (40-50 deg f) with discerning friends or good looking strangers.” Thankfully, I sat on my hand before typing that so I fit both categories wonderfully.

No, I have not had anything else to drink yet.

As for the Belgian Golden as a style, it’s not really my favorite. It lacks most of the things I consider crucial to the delightfulness of a beer, such as: Hops, beefiness, and hops. What it lacks in those areas though, it certainly makes up for in subtle complexity and girlishness. If someone were to seduce a non-beer loving individual.

Ian: I don’t mind this style, but if I’m going for a Belgian, I’m usually more likely to go for a tripel, or (lately) a saison. What Brian said is pretty much right though: its nice, light, somewhat sweet, and drinkable.

Unlike Brian, I don’t ONLY look for hops, beefiness, and hops in beer, although sometimes that’s exactly what I want. If you’re looking for something pleasant, easy to drink, friendly to a lot of people, but with some alcohol weight, this beer isn’t a bad choice.

Brian rates this an 8.5/10 for a Belgian Golden, but all in all, we give it a

5/10

HopDevil is to IPA’s what killian’s is to amber. A complete understatement as to the power of the genre. At a glance it would appear to be normal in every way, but it starts losing points in the smell. Nothing great here. Mild hops, no malt, nothing impressive.

Tastewise, were in a similar boat. The only hops you really taste are the bittering. While I’m generally a huuuuuge fan of bittering hops, there just weren’t enough here, and there was nothing to support them. No flavor, little aroma, and no malt to hold them up. This is a session beer, through and through. Probably won’t be the last time I have it, but there are far greater beers out there.

5/10

-brian

Ian reviews them all. Which is the best? Stay tuned to find out.

At last! The first Marzen of the bunch. Its also the last macro-brewed beer of the bunch, if I’m not mistaken.

As is appropriate to the style it poured with a nice foamy head. It also has a nice, darker color than the Lager-toberfests (does that make sense?)

It absolutely has a malty aroma; it smells and drinks like a dark German beer.

There’s a nice body in the mouthfeel, with almost no carbonation after half the glass.

There is something I can’t quite place in the flavor. Not sour, but there is a sweetness that is tempered with citrusy notes.

The aftertaste leaves a nice maltiness in your mouth, and a touch of nuttiness.

I will drink this again next fall.

5/10

3 October, 2008

I’ve been very excited to try this since we got it in at the store. I enjoy a good cider now and again, but Woodchuck isn’t usually what I consider a good cider. I generally prefer something a little dryer, more akin to Strongbow.

My hope was that Woodchuck’s Limited Release would, at least, provide something a bit more interesting, and it looks like it has.

It is surprisingly good. While regular Woodchuck is often too sweet, the oak aging has toned that down a bit. I’m not sure if oaky is a description I would use, but there is definitely a unique flavor that you don’t find in a cider often.

All said, considering that this maintains the same price point as the rest of Woodchuck’s line, I can see myself picking up some more of it.

5/10

Tonight I’m trying the Turbodog.

To start off, it poured way darker than I initially expected, but with a description on the bottle like this one, I probably shouldn’t be too surprised.

“Abita’s Turbodog is a dark brown ale brewed with a combination of pale, crystal and chocolate malts, dry-hopped with the finest Willamette hops, and fermented using a unique German ale yeast.”

The go on to mention toffee, and chocolate again.

It poured with very little head, which is not what their website photo would have you believe. It is, however, as dark as it looks in the pictures.

Not much but malt aromas, sweet, and sure, let’s call that toffee. Pretty accurate.

The flavor is not nearly as big as I expected looking at it. There is a chocolate to the maltiness, but its quickly lost to the lively carbonation that picks up in your mouth, but not in the glass. And the hops aren’t there too much, just some bittering.

Really, this is not at all as good as I had hoped. It feels like it needs MORE of something – more hops, more malt, more alcohol; something.

Is this beer bad? No, not at all. Its not great by any stretch, though. Were I offered one, would I turn it down? No. Will I buy it again? Probably not, even at $1.89 a bottle.

5/10

7/10.  Well worth the purchase, but not something i need to have repeatedly.  A good benchmark for the style.

Bormen, on the other hand, was a bit disappointing.  It was a day late and a dollar short.  While Urthel is by no means the best tripel ever, this just came up shy in every area, except color and mouthfeel.  It was a fine beer, just not impressive.  A bit more of everything would have benefited this beer incredibly.

5/10