4.6 AROMA 10/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 18/20
This is for a 5 y.o. vintage (bottled in 1996). Strangely, despite being from Switzerland, it was my first Samichlaus. The colour is a nice deep and transparent brown. Few foam. Its aroma is really impressive and powerful with chocolate and mocha notes. Very dense, quite sweet and nutty. A long, well-balanced finish. Definitely not a common beer !
3.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
good good good.didnt like it at first,but when i started drinking it like it was hard alc.then it was all dandy.
3.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 16/20
3.2 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Given some time for us to get to know each other, I think that this beer and I could become great friends. Its a strong dark beer that ferments in the bottle, so dont Americanize and keep it at 33 next to your coors lite. Something about this beers taste and aftertaste are keeping it from perfection and im not sure just what. Ill have to keep drinking it to find out, and Ill be accepting donations if anyone wants to help with my experiment.
3.5 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
an extremely strong beverage(14%ABV)
rather woody taste, very strong malt flavors too.
nice but I too overwhelming for me.
3.1 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
Excellent aroma and initial appearance quickly fades. Nice flavor but thin and cloying and really left a burning sensation in my gut afterwards. Nice flavor, which makes you want more, but in the end it just seemed like it wasn’t quite there.
1.6 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Ok, this is something I’ll try again some time later in life. It smelled like pine needles, very strong. I’ll rate it based on how I feel about it now.
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
Strong heavy dark fruit aroma and flavor. Unbalanced toward the malt, hard to drink - even aged (I sampled the 1996 bottling in 2001). Malt flavor comparable to Thomas Hardy’s Ale. Overwhelming on the palate. Maybe I should just get another ’96 bottling and store it for 5-10 years. That might do the trick.
3.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
UPDATED: JAN 30, 2008 1995 bottle at Pittsburgh gathering 1/27/08, courtesy of yinzer. A murky brown colored liquid, foam is not an option. Aroma exhibits some nice oxidation notes and a blast of alcohol. Flavor is a punch in the face of rum coated licorice soaked raisins, but in a good way. Very creamy mouthfeel. Would be very interested to see how 20+ year old bottles hold up, this beer seems to have a indefinite cellar life.
1.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 3/20
Terrible. Just awful. Simple revolting. Cloying, and lacking any semblance of balance. 30 IBUs just doesn’t cut it for a beer of this gravity. It wouldn’t be so bad if the mash was done with the world’s best malts, and by brewers who know how to extract those malts with style. But Hurlimann is not Andechs, Ayinger, Sillamae or ’t IJ. Hurlimann can’t mash their way out of a paper bag. Beer should not taste like soy sauce. Thank god the new Samiclaus is going to be made at Eggenberg, where they know how to make big beer.
|
