keanex (1452) - Atco, New Jersey, USA - MAY 8, 2013
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 10/20
Brewed in 2009.
Appearance: The body is a dark rose in color with a slight haze and a lot of sediment not only at the bottom of the glass, but in suspension. The head is thin and light tan with poor retention, quickly settling into a foamy ring.
Aroma: The aroma is fruity of port wine, which is great. There’s also this very perfume heavy aroma that reminds me of artificial air scents.
Taste: Deep intense fruity notes are immediately on the intro, what a wonderful intro, but quickly the air fresher taste appears and throws me off. The finish is very fruity, lots of port wine, it’s a shame there’s this very odd flavor in it.
Palate: Thick and moderately syrupy.
Overall: This starts and ends good, but something that the brewery uses in this beer is a complete turn off for me. I’m not buying any more variations.
mikedR (1214) - Gilbert, Arizona, USA - APR 7, 2013
4.3 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 18/20
Nice. Malty sweet; the port casking really imparts a nice touch. A somewhat dry finish surprisingly and completely unexpected.
Glouglouburp (6022) - Montreal, Quebec, CANADA - APR 2, 2013
3.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
Common rating for all four Lees Harvest barrel variations. Fun side-by-side comparison I did with all four Lees Harvest barrel variants as well as regular base beer. Separate rating for regular version because just too different from the barrel variations.
How: Bottle 275ml, side-by-side comparison of Lees Harvest and all 4 barrel variants. All bottle aged a couple of years.
The look: Mostly clear dark amber body topped by a small beige head. All four variants had sediments. Calvados version had a little more head. Lagavulin version was a little darker.
In long: Nose has plenty of wood barrels (old wet wood sensation) and fruity esters. Taste is very rich, plenty of caramel, sweet apple pie, pastry, wood barrels, light nutty notes. All barrel variants were very sweet but less sticky-syrupy than the regular base beer. The alcohol was a bit apparent in all four barrel version while it has plenty of places to hide in the uber-thick body of the base beer. Carbonation was on the soft side in all barrel variations. All four beers proposed a very sweet attack leading to a somewhat astringent woody finish.
Calvados barrel (8-4-8-4-16 = 4.0): Somehow the most richly caramelized of the bunch. Rich maltiness more prominent but still some refreshing fruity notes. Wood barrels better integrated. Less astringent finish. My favourite of the bunch.
Lagavulin barrel (6-3-6-4-13 = 3.2): More woody and therefore a bit more astringent. More earthy/peaty, borderline smoky. Presence of phenols phenolic I didn’t get from other barrel variations and alcohol a bit more apparent than in other variations. Might be something wrong with this particular bottle but it was my least favorite bar far.
Port barrel (7-3-8-4-14 = 3.6): More of a fruity dessert character. Somewhat similar to Sherry variant but with fruity flavors less of the “refreshing” kind.
Sherry barrel (8-3-8-4-15 = 3.8): More refreshing fruity flavors (light color tropical fruits and others..) and a mild tartness. Somewhat very similar to Port version except with more refreshing fruitiness.
Bottom line: I was surprised at how similar all four barrel variants were, there are obviously some differences but less than I expected. The Lagavulin had a few off flavors but I a bottle in poor shape. Also I just couldn’t recognize the regular Lees Harvest in any of them, all four barrel variations were totally different from the regular Lees Harvest but similar to each other. A comparison between the four barrel variations is a fun thing to do but adding the base beer to this experience is useless and will just get you more drunk, like I did. Doing this side-by-side comparison was a fun scientific experiment, and my only real regret in donating my body to science is I won’t be there to see the doctor exclaims “what the fuck is that?!?” when he sees my liver.
beerbaaron (1245) - Arizona, USA - MAR 20, 2013
4.4 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 17/20
UPDATED: AUG 25, 2014 2005 Vintage. Rated 3/20/2013. Appearance is muddy ruby brown - viscous. Virtually no head. Aroma is very boozy, over-ripe dark fruity, malty, caramel. Medium to full body, Full mouthfeel, syrupy. Very sweet, malty, caramel, overripe fruit, plum, raisin, mild alcohol. Flavor not nearly as boozy as aroma. Smooth and complex. Very nice. - re-rate - 2005 vintage. Rated 8/25/14. Almost clear dark ruby amber. Aroma shows no booze. Rich port. Dark fruit. Toffee. Bread crust. Flavor follows. Warming but no booze. Sweet. Slick. Syrupy. No carbonation. Fat medium body. Improved with even more age in my opinion.
MarinEvelyn (552) - Wisconsin, USA - MAR 20, 2013
4.1 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 18/20
2005 vintage. Barely any head. A ruby, at times almost deep purple color. Strong alcohol, wine, sweet scent. Malty and caramel. very smooth. Leaves A warm feeling in your mouth. Very sugary, wine/alcohol. caramel and a sweet dried, dark plum.
Westchesterco (951) - mclean, Virginia, USA - MAR 10, 2013
3.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 19/20
Strong sPort aromaamber, red, clear, medium sweetness, full body, creamy, long finish,
Iphonephan (3260) - McLean, Virginia, USA - MAR 10, 2013
4 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
From a 275 ml bottle shared in Avon NC. Vintage 2005. Pours a hazy amber with a feint off white head that quickly disappears. Sweet port aroma. Flavors of port, oak and candy sugar. Very sweet but a fabulous dessert beer. Smooth mouthfeel. Well concealed alcohol, but present in the finish.
jonno (2325) - JAPAN - FEB 28, 2013
3.8 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 16/20
2004 version. Perhaps my least favourite Harvest version due to the sweetness being turned up to Care Bear level. Still a thing of rich, viscous beauty. The sherry is less pronounced than the other barrels, but as I said, it’s a bit cloying. Still, as always, the base beer is superb.
robinvboyer (3108) - Sturgeon Falls, Ontario, CANADA - FEB 26, 2013
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
2009 vintage. Murky brown pour, tiny brown head. Huge aroma of sweet bready, brown sugar/port soaked bread. Soft mouthfeel, low carb. Huge burnt sugar boozy finish. Loads of dark super ripe fruits. Low bitterness, a nice sipper.
sailracer (401) - Massachusetts, USA - JAN 19, 2013
3.3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
UPDATED: JAN 20, 2013 Bottle, 2011 Vintage. Pours a murky reddish brown with small head. The aroma is strongly reminiscent of currants with hints of wine. The taste is very sweet with honey flavors to go with the currants. There is a strong port component in the body of this ale with a sour, grape-like aftertaste. Very unique flavors. Ok overall- I got tired of the flavor before I finished the bottle.