Aml42000 (622) - Washington, USA - MAY 19, 2012
3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 11/20
There is plenty of potential here, but this bottle was seriously undercarbonated. The flat mouthfeel doesn’t play well with the hippy character of this beer. It is full of hop character, but ultimately a disappointment.
KyotoLefty (8848) - Kyoto, JAPAN - APR 9, 2012
3.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
Bottle shared by Beerkat. Sweet malt flavor, very fruity, with grape, cherry, and grassy hops. Some citrus in there as well. Alcohol evident. Ok.
jonno (2419) - JAPAN - APR 8, 2012
3.3 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 13/20
Huge sticky hop nose. In the mouth it is MUCH lighter and well, tame. Solid drinking, but a thin body for 7%. Tropical fruit, pine, but nothing too outstanding. Enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable when comparing with what is available these days. Thanks Beerkat!.
sherm1016 (1271) - Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA - APR 5, 2012
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 16/20
22oz bottle from Belmont Station. Pours a dark amber color with an off white head and some lacing. Aroma is hoppy, pine and citrus, medium on the palate with average carbonation. Flavor is sweet, bready malt, pine hops, with a sharp, pine hop finish. Definitely hoppy. Past it’s prime though.
FoolishMortal (990) - San Diego, California, USA - MAR 11, 2012
3.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
Dark red-orange with a small white head. Candied citrus and piney undertones in the aroma. Pineapple, mango, citrus, and a resinous pine hop flavor gestalt dominates with some bready malt bracing. Evergreen resin hop bitterness slightly lingers in the finish, with some sweetness. Mouthfeel is medium light, slightly dry.
tbauer1134 (17) - - FEB 29, 2012
3.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
Revisted this beer from last year when I didn’t rate it. This one was much better. Great head and color with more hop presence and slightly less maltiness. The finish was a lot cleaner this time.
caseyjones27 (6) - USA - FEB 24, 2012 does not count
3.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
Bomber. I was all ready to not like this beer...I read "100 IBUs" and was skeptical as to whether they did anything more than go for triple-digit bitterness. Also, what is an "Imperial pale ale" anyway? OK, so it’s not too pale. Decent piney, spicy sort of aroma. I am actually really impressed. The mouthfeel is light, the aftertaste dry, bitter, but not overwhelming. This definitely reminds me of certain pale ales (an Imperial Drifter?), but of course much higher IBUs. Clean, and surprisingly smooth for 100 IBUs. A nice session IPA, though it would not rank among my all time favorite IPAs.
curtisb70 (7) - Bellevue, Washington, USA - FEB 20, 2012 does not count
1.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
At 100 IBU I found this very underwhelming. It’s light, almost reminiscent of a mass produced lager with some extra hops. My experience came from a bottle that is at least 4 months old, so that likely contributed to the uninspiring taste. Even still, the other characteristics (appearance mainly) don’t make me too interested in seeking a fresher bottle or a draft experience.
chris2431 (241) - Oregon, USA - JAN 26, 2012
3.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 16/20
bomber. strange that its 100 ibu and 6.9%. Based on the overall flavor I would have guessed 60 ibu and 10%. stronger alcohol taste then hop bitterness.....not sure how they pulled this off.
killjoy966 (677) - Washington, USA - DEC 24, 2011
3.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
Bomber @ Chuck’s. Smells a little funky. Probably not as good as LSD, but OK in its own right. Does not taste like the advertised 100 IBUs, but that doesn’t bother me much.