0o9i (438) - Reno, Nevada, USA - MAR 30, 2004
3.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
Appearance entails little to no lacing(it's crumby lacing) and very cloudy, deep honey colored. Aroma is pretty weak and hard to pick up but sweet malts like honey and some mild hops. Flavor is VERY malty, almost sloppily so like a honey-sweet blast of thick stuff and then a fairly balanced finish of bitter hops. A bit heavy on the malts, but very drinkable and nice.
jeffc666 (1984) - Fairfax, Virginia, USA - MAR 30, 2004
2.9 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Light copper, clear body. The head is a pillowy off-white mass that collapses at an average rate while leaving a weeping lattice-work of lace. The aroma is sweet and fruity with notes of caramel. The flavor is rather plain. There is not a whole lot of anything going on. The body is watery. No real hop presence to speak of. Overall a bit of a dissapointment from a usually solid brewery.
calivania (62) - USA - MAR 27, 2004
3.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
This is an interesting beer, not easy to classify and filled with contridictions. The aroma is at once hard to detect, then stings strongly of mal vinigar. It pours a gorgous a gorgeus deep amber, but the head disappears much too quickly. Can a beer's body be both thin and wooly at the same time. Even the maltiness is deceptive -- strong but without the sweetness one normally attributes to aggressively malty beers. The overall effect is mildly pleasing, like a movie you enjoyed but you know if you sat their and analized it, you would end up hating it.
frankR (145) - Davis, California, USA - MAR 27, 2004
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
UPDATED: JUN 14, 2004 Pours a light brown/red color. Nose is malty, some fruit and hops. Pours with a rather large head. Mine was slightly skunked. Perhaps try it again, unskunked.
Rerate: Yep, the first one I had must of been bad, 'cause this stuff isn't as bad as I remember, it's actually quite good.
mkobes (2140) - paramus, New Jersey, USA - MAR 26, 2004
4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
Very hoppy. Really good beer. Nice clear orange color. Fruity aroma. Malty and full bodied. Good.
MaiBockAddict (1497) - Good Beer Bar Deprived, New Jersey, USA - MAR 26, 2004
3.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 13/20
Nice clear yellow-orange with a white head. Lightly fruity aroma with malt. Flavor is malty and full-bodied. Finishes malty with a strong hop-bitterness. Tastes like a sticke-bier.
Lumpy (1802) - Carrollton, Texas, USA - MAR 24, 2004
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Too damn sweet and fruity. A good attempt, but maybe "Ale" is not the best way to label this beer...
ontario102 (794) - Boise, Idaho, USA - MAR 24, 2004
3.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 17/20
Bock? Ale? Damn Good! Lightly malty, slightly floral nose; rich, malty sweet, yet hoppy, and quickly bitter aftertaste- phenominal balance; MUCH better on tap than bottled. (tap rating)
jde123 (764) - Washington, Washington DC, USA - MAR 22, 2004
2.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
I don't know, I was really disappointed with this particular Rogue selection. Not very good at all... Taste really let me down, slightly citrus-y with a sprinkle of mediocrity.
snoot (286) - Anaheim, California, USA - MAR 21, 2004
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Pours copper, head quickly recedes. Aroma is malty and nutty, slight hint of citrus hops. Nothing overly exciting in the flavor department, I don't like is as much as I used to.