crajun (938) - , Texas, USA - MAR 20, 2011
2.6 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 6/20
bottle thanks to Bertram; had been saving this for my 200th rating!!!
Unique is an understatement for this beer; cherries/fruit and carbonation were in the aroma (if that is possible) Ruby pour with slight pink white head.
Did I mention unique?? Didnít see others mention it, but to me this was champagne (not wine as bottle states) mixed with beer - then there was a bunch of sweet sticky cloying cherry sweetness (sweet more than cherry). As much as I wanted to like this (my 200th rating!) I didnít...
Not sure it is even a beer in the end; not sure I can finish the bottle; kudos to the effort (I still want to try much more NEw Glarus) but the result doesnít work for me...
MartinKubert (862) - Copenhagen, DENMARK - NOV 23, 2005
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Marzi-pain-in-the-ass. This is like marzipan nose-spray. The aroma is covered, the flavour is sharp and citric. A little like sour-mix. Murky reddish colour. Rather sweet finish. Longlasting citric fruitiness.
Gazza (726) - Worcester, Worcestershire, ENGLAND - DEC 6, 2007
2.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Bottle at Glasgow tasting. Well, how much hype does this have, and how much does it taste like Lindemans Kriek? A lovely cherry aroma but thatís the best bit as the taste is overly sweet, cloying and has hints of that red sauce you had on ice creams as a kid. Not enough lacticity, too much sweetness, and Lindemans is a lot, lot cheaper (and easier to get).
cranesareflying (50) - Evanston, Illinois, USA - MAR 7, 2002
2.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Jeeesus Christ, itís syruppy, almost like medicine. Why do they put beer in those big wine bottles, because if youíre not crazy about the beer, there sure is an awful lot left? In my case, it took me 3 days to drink ONE bottle of this stuff, so I wasnít too crazy about it.
Engelsmann (651) - Copenhagen, DENMARK - DEC 5, 2005
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Bottled. Pours a hazy red with a reddish tan head. Aroma is sweet, very candy like, cherries. Taste is sweet, very sweet, candy, cherries. I donít really like beers this sweet.
boomer0813 (100) - denton, Texas, USA - JUN 18, 2009
2.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 7/20
Bottle thanks to thirdeye11. It had a dark red cherry color w/ very little head. Aroma was of cinnamon, black cherry, and grenadine. Flavor was tart with black cherry, grenadine, and cinnamon. Not a fan of this beer!
Vir4030 (496) - Chicago, Illinois, USA - JUL 20, 2011
2.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Pours a clearish brown with a hint of red. They donít lie with the cherry aroma. The foam is an off brown. The taste is cherry. Cherry cherry. Ooo cherry cherry. My cherryís so fine sheís cherry baby. Did I mention cherries? Itís all Iím thinking about now.
diabel (1606) - Aarschot, BELGIUM - NOV 19, 2006
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Tasted 2 vintages side by side, the 2006 one and the 1996 one. - Points for the 2006 one.
2006 Vintage Hazy red body, off-white head (small and mostly diminishing). Aroma of red candy, marzipan, ... Very sweet flavour, very artificial - candy-like. Lacks a lot of complexity which is to be found in the 1996 version. (5/3/5/2/8=2.3)
1996 Vintage Hazy, brown body, creamy lightly brown head. Sweet aroma of jam, applesauce, ... Lightly sweet, moderately sour flavour. This is very intense and really attacks your tastebuds. (4/4/8/4/16=3.6)
Itís amazing thereís so much difference between these two vintages. Off course some effects will be due to aging, but the 1996 version still attacks your tastebuds (after 10 years), but the 2006 version doesnít even have the guts to try to attack them.
Anker (723) - HillerÝd, DENMARK - JUL 17, 2010
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Bottle kindly shared by plovmand, thanks body its very appreciated even tough I dont like it!
Pours redish with a off white head.
Aroma is cherry winegums and children vitamins.
Flavour is sweet cherry children vitamins like, not good.. Long unpleasant after taste.
satan165 (1019) - River Grove, Illinois, USA - AUG 24, 2008
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
this smells like cherries. it looks like cherry juice. guess what? it tastes like carbonated cherry juice. hops? hmmm....cant find em. malt? uh, no. what exactly makes this a beer? maybe if it had more alcohol i could at least be reminded that i was drinking something ’beer-like’. but thats not there either. according to this website, which i practically live by, this is one of the best beers IN THE WORLD. this doesnt taste bad, but this doesnt satisfy my palate. this is not challenging. this is not nuanced. this is so far from actual beer i wonder should it get a .5? maybe there should be an option to rate ’n/a’. i have drank fruit beers that were very strongly flavored but they at least looked like beer, and there was always something in there that reminded me of yeast/hops/malt. there are a pound of cherries in this bottle. i am not trying to go against the grain or rebel. i am not trying to be a punk rock beer rater. i want to like this beer. i do like other new glarus beers and it seems they do know what they are doing. this stuff however seems to be only enjoyable by people that dont like beer. the difference between this and premium cherry juice is very small. this is not overly sweet to be honest, but i dont find that it is very balanced by much sourness either. what exactly makes this belgian? i dont detect any belgian spice, belgian yeast or belgian funkiness. maybe my palate is retarded, if those things are in fact present for someone else they are at best very subtle. this is one dimensional. most of all, this is disappointing.