Nuffield (3626) - Roseville, Minnesota, USA - AUG 25, 2002
3.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
Interesting beer. The aroma I got was very standard--not bad, but just rather plain, like a strong ale. Much more of interest in the flavor. Some alcohol, malt, hint of roasted notes/smoke, some hidden fruitiness, but not at all on the sweet side of things. Chewy at moments, but also somewhat watery.
Allseeingeye (223) - Vero Beach, Florida, USA - AUG 24, 2002
4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 17/20
It’s not a porter or a stout. Reminds me of a shwartzbeer. Black ruby color. Toasted maltiness. Caramel flavor? Drinkable.
senjiro (35) - Wheat Ridge, Colorado, USA - AUG 22, 2002
3.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 17/20
dark and malty. nice toffee overtone, but kind of a weak finish. very nice head.
erway (1004) - Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA - AUG 17, 2002
3.1 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
Ok, maybe it’s not a porter, a stout, or a dark lager, but I have to compare it to something. Has the look of many American porters and the head retains nicely. Aroma of burnt caramel and a very light alcohol smell. Tastes very similar to Saranacs Black Forest except with a better palate and a less obtrusive after-taste.
foduck (328) - Denton, Texas, USA - JUL 27, 2002
3.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
UPDATED: AUG 22, 2003 I found this a bit lacking for a Belgian-style. Looks great, nice head. It simply lacks any depth which I have come to expect from Belgian styles. This seems to be filtered, and I think it should not be.
Re-rate: 8/22/03: I decided to give this another try. Maybe I got a bad bottle before, but it seems much better now. Chocolatey, roasty, without any sharp coffee flavors. A little on the sweet side, low on bitterness. Better than before.
nstal (237) - Houston, Texas, USA - JUL 22, 2002
3.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
I bought a six of the New Belgium Trippel, and someone had switched one of these out with a Trippel. Very attractive beer with a nice dark head. Combination of roasted and sweet flavors, blends well.
k2 (146) - USA - JUL 20, 2002
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
Very full bodied beer.
MaxPower (961) - St. Louis, Missouri, USA - JUN 22, 2002
3.3 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 14/20
It does remind me af a schwarzbier, roasted toffee flavor, sweet dark and drinkable.
HighGravity (926) - Baltimore, Maryland, USA - JUN 19, 2002
3.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
UPDATED: MAY 10, 2003 Accordind to NB's website this beer is bottom fermented at relatively high temperatures using a European lager yeast. Could this beer be more akin to a dark version of a California Common? The beer does seem too dark to be of the Munich type, but on the other hand it is too light to be a schwarzbier. The beer is well balanced and very drinkable. Not too hoppy, but perhaps a little sweet. I get many complex flavors in this brew. How can this beer be a lager, when the recipe is from the pre-lager era? Thanks Hennes.
Schroppfy (2360) - Łódż, Warsaw, Poland; Michigan, Ohio, USA - JUN 16, 2002
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 15/20
This is VERY interesting. The comparison to a schwarzbier is a fair one: thin body and roasted notes are all over. The aroma is really nice; toasted bread is one key component. A little sweet (Yeah, Hennes, I agree with the raison), pretty clean finish, a tiny hint of pepper in the mouth.