yemntftb (106) - USA - JUN 23, 2006
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Bottle/Draft. Amber with alittle yellowish color. Not much of a head, and tastes way too sweet for me. Apricots and peaches are very evident, and I don’t like this combination at all.
dmradus (227) - Ithaca, New York, USA - SEP 18, 2006
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Pours a golden-orange with a significant off-white head. I pick up a bit of sweet malt in the nose, as well as a significant smattering of - what else - apricots. This falls apart for me in tasting: I really can’t enjoy this brew. It is watered-down and seems to straddle the line between a full-blown fruit and a poorly conceived pale, rendering the flavors muddled and indistinct. Overly sweet apricot tones, sweet malt, and not enough hop bitterness to offset it all.
gputty (456) - Virgina Beach, Virginia, USA - SEP 30, 2006
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
From bottle. Pours clear dull orange with white head. Nose is perfumey apricot. Flavor is weak candy apricot, a cheap version though. Body is thin with not much of a finish. Too much fake apricot and not much else.
gwpom (297) - Akron, New York, USA - DEC 18, 2006
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Bottle. Cloudy orange color, white head that goes very quickly, I concur with most of the stated reviews. I like having a Magic Hat variety pack around once in a while, and this is one of their average brews. I tend to like there darker offerings a bit better (I like Jinx despite some of the negative reviews about it). Still, a nice change of pace.
amx1970390 (480) - Southampton, Pennsylvania, USA - OCT 2, 2003
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
I did not know that this was classified as a fruit beer, If i knew that from the start, I might have had a better opinion of it. Aroma was fruity and floral, definately apricot. Taste was an odd mix of a pale all with artifical flavoring. I think this beer is riding on a marketing fad and will not stand the test of time.
JohnC (3004) - Mission Viejo, California, USA - JUL 21, 2004
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
not much of an aroma, the flavor is slightly sour, there’s nothing special with this beer
MrBeer (276) - Erie, Pennsylvania, USA - NOV 30, 2004
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Not too impressed with this beer. There really wasn’t much here. Very little aroma and flavorwise it just was not there. This might be a tad overrated here.
wnhay (722) - Princeton, New Jersey, USA - JAN 30, 2005
2.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
UPDATED: FEB 26, 2005 Fruit beers are not my thing, so I will say that I tried to like it an failed. The pour was kind of weak because there was no head. In the flavor I picked up a fig newton flavor which was kind of interesting. The mouthfeel was fine. This beer was just not my style.
paul9639 (116) - New Hampshire, USA - APR 24, 2005
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Aroma is fruity. The appearance is light amber, with a thin head. The flavor is cmildly hoppy, with hints of apricot. It is pretty good, but the appearance and flavor seem fake and forced. I used to love this beer, before I knew good beer.
hellomynameis (876) - Mayer, Minnesota, USA - APR 11, 2006
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
What the hell was this? It was easy to realize it was a fruit beer, but everythign beyond that was a toss-up. The body was almost amber with a generoues and rocky head that faded quickly. There was a fruity sweet aroma that reminded me a little of cherries. Odd sweet flavour with more cherries or tart something. I think the appeal of this beer is the fact that it is wildly different, not because it is good.