Bribieboy (11) - Bribie Island Queensland, - MAR 29, 2008
3.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 12/20
It’s not aged in the wood, it’s just packaged in a wooden cask rather than a metal one and sent out to the pub.
However there are several advantages over the regular keg version.
It’s not pasteurised at the brewery so has a slightly fresher flavour, and is served under gravity rather than being forced out by carbon dioxide. So whilst it isn’t a ’real ale’ in the British sense, it is slightly cleaner and less fizzy than the normal pub version. I like it and often stop in for one at the Brekkie Creek.
TedE (444) - Sydney, AUSTRALIA - JAN 1, 2015
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Fruity sweet nose. Little carbonation. Slightly sweet taste, dry bitter finish. A little biscuit. Being gravity fed means you’re not hammered into submission by bubbles. An interesting aside, nothing more. Try it if you are in Brisbane.
nate2g (1548) - Boomtown!, AUSTRALIA - MAY 30, 2009
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Cask at Breakfast Creek Hotel, Brisbane. Not much difference to the draught version. Perhaps slightly darker and somewhat fresher than the regular being unpasteurised. No wood aroma or flavour.
Nalu (217) - Washington, USA - OCT 6, 2008
3.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
Lagers are not much in the looks or aroma department, but I was very favourably impressed by a couple of pints off the wood at the Brekky Creek Hotel last week! Excellent palate and great flavour - quite a change after a week of XXXX Gold out of bottles and the tap.
dreamboat (186) - Brisbane, AUSTRALIA - FEB 2, 2005
2.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
I have to disagree with the past raters on this one.... Aroma was far cleaner and less fruity than the standard XXXX, good clarity and a nice tight head which lasted quite well. Flavour was without that common sugar flavour so prevalent in mainstream XXXX. maybe the brew I tried (at the Breakfast Creek) had spent some more tme on the wood... but it was a nice enough brew.
Sully (1377) - Potts Point, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA - JAN 6, 2004
1.3 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Couldn't taste the wood, couldn't get excited enough about it to get wood either. Didn't know God pioneered the ageing of beer in wood either. Tastes like XXXX, so it gets the same rating as the other one.
Linc (739) - Sydney, AUSTRALIA - DEC 21, 2003
0.6 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
I couldn't taste what the marketing people were telling me... "the difference", different to what? Urine with fermented cane sugar in it? My own bile? This stuff sucks donkeys.
Betty (235) - Walgett, NSW, AUSTRALIA - NOV 26, 2003
1.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
This was the reason I travelled all the way up to Qld. It just tasted like regular XXXX. What's the go?
motelpogo (7189) - Plzen, CZECH REPUBLIC - OCT 17, 2003
1.8 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 8/20
nfob03. the anticipation was half the fun with this eer. sure enough, came out of a small barrel. not bad as far as crisp, light, cold lagers go
winkle (477) - Brisbane, AUSTRALIA - SEP 26, 2003
1.7 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Standard XXXX bitter "aged" in a barrel. Some wood evident in the flavour and the POR presence is more subdued otherwise the same as the ordinary stuff.