2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20 brianjames1 (539) - Northridge, California, USA - SEP 15, 2007
This beer does not have much to offer. Light appearance, faint aroma, and lackluster in the flavor dept. Its a shame the Los Angeles area does not have more breweries that can provide superior brews.
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20 hoppyho (56) - Los Angeles, California, USA - APR 14, 2011
Bottom line is not inspiring and probably last time I would drink this beer. The beer is a hazy orange-amber coloring with a thin film of head. Aroma is flowery, with caramel notes in the background. Overall, the nose was a bit muted, and the flavors seemed a bit watery. Very light bodied beer. There were slightly sour malt flavors with flowery and citrus sweet highlights. Slightly sour, again, on the aftertaste, and a mid-lingering finish. A little weak for the style in terms of body and flavor.
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20 riversideAK (4553) - Shoreline, Washington, USA - MAR 2, 2007
This beer has an earthy malty aroma. It smells very sweet. It looks unfiltered, and to me it looks more like an IPA, than what you would usually think of an amber. The flavor is some caramel malt, some earthy hops, and then some sourness. It was highly carbonated and had a medium body. I know that this brewer won California homebrewer of the year twice, and this is exactly what this beer is. A homebrew.
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20 DarkElf (2961) - La Jolla, California, USA - APR 19, 2006
(22 oz bottle: $2.99 at BevMo in La Jolla, CA) This exemplifies the type of amber I really don’t like. Sugary sweet, caramely, and very floral. The caramely malt is mostly just sweet, lacking any real quality or depth. Mild bitterness from the hops, but the floral character is bordering on unpleasant for my tastes. However, the aftertaste is indeed unpleasant to me, especially after drinking several ounces; that floral hoppiness just camps out on my tongue, blah! The nose is also sweet and floral, but both characteristics show less fortitude. Instead, the semi-dry caramel maltiness is able to assert itself and balance the nose out some. Body is light-medium, edging toward medium, but still seems a bit thin for an amber. Standard amber colored body shows near-perfect clarity. The off-white head rises to about a quarter inch before fading rapidly to a thin sheen. No lacing. So far, my least favorite of the Angel City brews, and that includes the infected Dunkel I had a few days ago. I simply don’t enjoy the sugary caramel maltiness or the choice of super-floral hops. I’m sure this amber will appeal to many, but I’m sorry, I just hate it.
1.5 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20 Soonah (1120) - Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA - MAR 31, 2010
Poured copper and clear with a decent white head and average lacing. The aroma smelled of infection as did the taste. Thin, harsh mouthfeel. Bad bottle. Need to try again.
1.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 2/20 filmgirl4 (1) - California, USA - APR 4, 2008 does not count
I found this beer to be nothing special and if anything down right bad. My reason for buying was to support a local brew. I like amber style beers but i think that it was a little to bitter for this gal’s taste.
|