williamherbert (1197) - Syracuse, New York, USA - JUN 29, 2010
3.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 16/20
The aroma is burnt rye malts, with a bitter, flowery hop. The toasted malts dominate.
Appears clear, glassy ruby red orange. Darkly colored. Thick creamy head.
The flavor is sweet and sugary with a bitter malty bite at the end. Nice combination of flavor. Nice little bite at the end.
The palate is thick and milky. Good for style. A nice, bittersweet English style pale ale.
yinzerbeernut (180) - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA - JUN 9, 2010
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Draft - Low lighting, hard to admire color but it looked copper to deep coper with no carbonation and a short lived head. The nose was made of a sweet sugar, flower petal, pollen type scent. Reminiscent of a women’s perfume. On mouth this is a light medium IPA that provides an upfront taste on the tongue with a touch of bitterness towards the middle and finish.
EithCubes (4574) - New Jersey, USA - MAY 31, 2010
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
Bottle via Todd. Beautiful coppery pour, light tan head. Hugely malty nose, big caramel, light spice (and, as is becoming more common for me, getting some faint notes that remind me of cookie dough). Taste is dark, very dry and bitter, light resin, light floral citrus notes in the back. Really strips everything of the tongue, a super-cleaner that would be good with greasy food. Lightish body, big juicy hop taste. Nice!
sloth (2382) - Ceciltucky, Co., Maryland, USA - MAY 29, 2010
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Bottle received in trade with cheapdark, Thin tan head thats short lived, little spotty lace. Ugly orange copper color, murky. Nose is mettallic, fruity with apple notes, sorta,,, off. Med/light body, watery. Flavor wise, i dunno, Some citrus notes backed up with tame malts, lightly grainy. Dry finish. Not much happening here. I think Dennis is trying to dump off a sad excuse for an IIPA to prove some kind of point. Hmmmm, guys not right. Thanks anyways bro. Ride it like ya stole it!
dolemike1 (1288) - Jeannette, Pennsylvania, USA - JAN 16, 2010
3.3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
Bottle: Nice floral/hoppy aroma with some notes of caramel malt. Poured a nice deep amber color with a nice white head. Flavors were prominent, good strong malts, caramel and bread, and hops, citrus and floral notes. Pretty good, for a regular IPA, but kick it up a bit more if you want to call it a double.
gsmitty80 (1736) - Washington DC, USA - NOV 30, 2009
3.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 14/20
This was a litle lighter than i would have expected from a double IPA. Smooth and left without too much of a lingering hoppy taste. The mix of hops was good but again there was no real bite.
JaBier (4415) - Capital City, Ohio, USA - NOV 15, 2009
3.7 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
Sample at CBW. Clear copper/amber pour with a medium beige head. Bitter orange aroma with some sweet malt. Piney and orangy flavor with a bitter grapefruit finish. Pretty tasty stuff.
shigadeyo (2959) - Harrison, Ohio, USA - SEP 12, 2009
3.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
8/25/2009: Church Brew Thunderhop Double IPA... Aroma: Super floral and herb-like, BASIL?!, pine/evergreen hops; more citrusy when warmer and less herbs. Appearance: Transparent reddish-amber color; clean appearance; frothy off-white head. Flavor: Also very floral and herby; light toffee maltiness underneath; lots of PINE hops. Palate: Medium to medium-full body; great mouthfeel. Overall: Very balanced, very drinkable!
Draught at Church Brew Works in Pittsburgh, PA. Rating #77 for this beer.
Acetobacter (816) - Pennsylvania, USA - AUG 3, 2009
3.3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 14/20
Enjoyed at the brewery/restaurant in a pub glass. The beer pours a medium to dark amber color. The aroma brings a noticable level of hops, but not to the extent that one would expect in a double IPA. The malt presence is also relatively weak, giving hints of greatness, but falling far short in the end. Mouthfeel was so-so, at best, and at its worst, was nearly insipid. Overall, one of the better beers offered at CBW, but certainly not better than average.
afireinside96 (923) - Mountville, Pennsylvania, USA - JUL 16, 2009
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Bottle shared by TheCaptain and BeerGestapo, thanks guys. I wasn’t too thrilled with this one when I thought it was a regular IPA and now that I know it is supposed to be a DIPA I am even less enthusiastic. Clear amber with a decent head. IPA? Where are the hops? Barely any perceptible hops aroma or flavor. Instead it was mostly bready, sweet malt and just a bit of citrus. Certainly not enough to venture into DIPA territory. Try again guys.