UNCCTF (477) - Charlotte, North Carolina, USA - MAR 7, 2004
3.1 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
A typical run-of-the-mill amber ale. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but nothing really stuck out to me here. More malty than I'd like, but not bad.
SETANTA (582) - Bangor, Pennsylvania, USA - MAR 5, 2004
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Nothing very special, but definitely not a bad beer. Not too hoppy or malty, but still has a good bit of flavor to it. Readily available around here, so it's always a good choice.
SledgeJr (3577) - Omaha, Nebraska, USA - FEB 29, 2004
3.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
In the early 1990's, I thought that this was a great ale, but the flavor seems to have changed after it started being mass-produced for a huge audience. I used to think it tasted like an actual Belgian-style ale with even a subtile spice undertone. Today, it tastes like a pretty solid amber ale with acceptable hop and malt character, but no longer the "WOW" beer it once was. I think that Abbey Ale almost recaptures the spirit of the old Fat Tire these days.
donyboy (7) - Houston, Texas, USA - FEB 26, 2004 does not count
3.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
As an "average" lager, this one does beat out the Big boys (Coors,etc.) as it actually HAS flavor (some malt). It was my first decent beer outside Corona, Dos Equis, Coors, etc. Not New Belgium's best but rather geared to the lowest common denominator.
awaller05 (305) - Sharon, Wisconsin, USA - FEB 26, 2004
3.1 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Thought this one was something special seeing as I East of the Missisippi, and don't see it around here. Opened it and was not too impressed by the aroma. Head was okay but dissipated fast. I had no problem drinking but wasn't wowwed or anything. Later did a little research and found that this one is the big seller of the New Belgium line and was mass produced by thier scale.
aracauna (3039) - Georgia, USA - FEB 23, 2004
3.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
I can see why this is such a big seller. It's got enough malt to have a little flavor, but the caramel is light and not too sweet so it's a definite quaffer. Not very complex and not interesting, but not bad.
dannyboydwp (48) - San Antonio, Texas, USA - FEB 21, 2004
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
An ice tea color. Nothing really stands out as far as taste. just an average lager lager. Tastes almost american standardish.
supermikeyb (43) - Fort Worth, Texas, USA - FEB 19, 2004
2.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
This is such an average beer. Much better on tap, the bottle sucks. I'm not sure why everyone raves about this beer. As a certian rep and I have discussed, this is what beer drinkers drink when they think they are drinking good beer.
AlabastorJones (800) - San Francisco, California, USA - FEB 19, 2004
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Saul kept me away from this one, "oh, fat tire is what everybody drinks, its way over rated and is probably new belgiums worst beer". So, I tried about 6 or 7 of their other brews, so I wouldn't make assumptions about their other ales. Saul was right, this is weak, before i even tasted it, it just looks like a sad attempt, watery, ice tea appearance, no head, no aroma, no flavor, atleast I didn't go into this expecting anything.
drinkinfla (21) - Melbourne, Florida, USA - FEB 16, 2004
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Extraordinarily average amber, and extraordinarily overrated. I can't believe people drive many many hours to pick up a couple cases of this (and yes, they do). A nutty-sweet finish caps off a moderate-malt taste. Living in Colorado while this brew was up-and-coming, I never saw in it what other people did.