Chimay Bleue (Blue) / Grande Réserve

Brewed by Chimay
Style: Belgian Strong Ale
Baileux, Belgium

Serve in Trappist glass, Tulip, Tumbler

send corrections   |   shelftag   |   edit barcodes   |   add pic

UPDATED: NOV 15, 2003 (Worst case scenario, a fresh 33cl bottle)...Minty basil perfumes mingle with a subtle creamy effluvium...Thin tinny yeast and vagabond sugar splash the palate and remain, dead leaves with overripe berries on the lifeless autumn floor...An appallingly average rendition which does not live up to the megahype it is still getting...Don't get me wrong, it is still a good beer...Just a far cry from others in its field...(Best case scenario : A properly aged 1998 magnum drunk in 2002)...Juniper berries in a chalice...Crushed, their juice reveals fresh clover leaves and port wine...Luscious dark chocolate undertow...Dreamy dark chocolate undertow...Pepper and tobacco float around you as angels raise a glass to soulful pleasure...9/4/9/4 18/20...4.4/5...The points of the worst case prevail, since this is the bottle everybody buys at the local store...

Color is a deep dark opaquely russet ruby color with a very tall off-white fluffy head, almost laughable and too big, took three separate times to pour it from the 11.2 oz. bottle into my Delirium Tremens goblet glass as the head just kept getting in the way, ridiculous head, let me get at it already. Nose is dull and kinda light, not much going on besides some light lemon peel citrus and yeast, a touch smokey and meaty upon bigger wiffs. Taste is short lived and a bit boring, complexity is not very forthcoming from this offering. Very dull citrus of melon husk and majorly dulled lemon and peels, lightly sweet malts and subdued spicy yeast with some strange uneven texture that I didn't care for all that much. Feel is medium bodied with a weird texture I just couldn't get past. Where's the smooth? Where's the creamy? Blah, boring, yuk. Not impressed. The Chimay Red was much better. I'm not sure if I have a bad bottle or what, but I've been saving this bottle, plus a few others for nearly 4 months hoping a bit of aging would make for an interesting session, but nope. I guess I'll be letting those sit alot longer.

This beer is rated very very highly, but i’ll tell you I don’t like it as much as the rest. Don’t get me wrong if you gave this to me as a gift i’d be happy but it’s just too expensive and not what I would call a 99th percentile beer. The high alcohol content gives it a huge kick, which was too much for my liking.

Pours a cloudy brown, nice white head. Don’t know why this is rated so high, rather land. Dominant flavors are alcohol and slight sweet dark fruits, really watered down and just not that impressive.

Jan 07 bottle, 3 months old. Two years rating beers and this is the first time I’ve had this one. Rather dissappointing, this. Aroma is wet, vegetal, macaroni and cheese. Pours with a disturbingly fizzy head. Taste is dry, nutty, but also alarmingly thin. Definitely better than the classless aroma, but it’s hard to be excited at all by this beer. I don’t understand at all how this has been elevated to such a high level. While Chimay’s Tripel was outstanding, this is almost worthless IMO. Perhaps I’ve just got a bad bottle.

A good belgain beer but don’t think it as good as made out to be. Flavors are not that exciting, missing that complexity.

500 mL, pours fizzy with little to no head retention. Murky, dirty appearance. Pleaant aroma of chocolate, spice, figs. Waaaay too much carbonation, most I’ve ever seen, like fresh seltzer. A little metallic, some alcohol, some bananas, roasty toasty nutty. Overall, mild flavor, not offending, unremarkable, highly overrated. Was decent after I got rid of most of the carbonation.

UPDATED: NOV 3, 2007 I’m re-rating this beer as I had it a long time ago, and had it again alongside the other two varieties of Chimay commonly available in the US (white and red) yesterday. And I have to say that with the benefit of quite a bit more beer experience since my last rating, that I significantly over-rated this beer in my previous rating. Yesterday, I found this beer is extremely mild, and while certainly not unpleasant or bad, I found it to be a bit boring. Of the three varieties I had yesterday, this was definitely my least favorite. Appearance was a dark brown/almost black color with a decently-formed whitish head with limited staying power. Aroma was very mild and faint. I got roasted malt and a bit of alcohol, but not much else. Flavor was the highlight of this beer, but even that I found mild-mannered and rather unremarkable compared to other dark Belgian (or Belgian-style) beers I’ve had. A bit of roastiness and some alcohol, but not much else that you might expect like spiciness or fruit. Mouthfeel was not bad, but unremarkable. So I’m left to explain why so many think so much of this beer while I’m the odd-duck who’s unimpressed. And my hypothesis is this - that many folks (me among them) try this beer when first expanding their beer horizons, are wildly impressed by the difference, but haven’t yet revisited (as I’m now doing) to compare against the craft/import beer adventures they’ve had since breaking out with Chimay Blue. Sound plausible?

Finally entering all my "Blind, Better Know a Style: Belgian Strong Ale" tasting 07 results. Nice white head on amber body. Aroma is light malty, with that nice belgium yeast aroma. Moderate sweetness hits you at first and sticks through the finsh, in my notes also noted salty, I don’t know why, I want to rerate simply for that reason. Palate was medium and dry, very enjoyable. Not bad.

A very good Belgian ale. Complex, the yeast is more floral than ester. Very pretty to pour.