belgianhomebrew (646), Acworth, Georgia, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 | May 8, 2003 Subtle malt aroma. Slightly sweet honey taste in the body. Not too much too this beer. Definitely a session brew. Steib (581), Queen Creek, Arizona, USA
| 2.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 4/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 | May 5, 2003 Honey hue color in the glass. Faint honey taste. Hops are in the aftertaste, not bitter, but clean. No bells and whistles, a well made beer. Ernest (4515), Boulder, Colorado, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 | Apr 19, 2003 Head is initially small, fizzy, off-white, fully diminishing. Body is
hazy dark yellow, dense tiny particles, bottle conditioned. Aroma is
moderately malty (grain, light bread), lightly hoppy (flowers), lightly
yeasty (dough), with light notes of honey and DMS. Flavor is moderately
sweet, lightly acidic, moderately bitter. Finish is moderately bitter,
lightly acidic, slightly husky. Medium body, watery texture, lively
carbonation. The aftertaste is a bit like chewing on straw, but the
balance is very good. ¾ (5012), Boulder, Colorado, USA
| 2.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 5/10 | 2/5 | 12/20 | Mar 22, 2003 Murky golden brown. Peaches and apples aroma. Interesting sour flavor, a little bland and lacking body. Caramel, yeast, but not really picking up any cream. Sour aftertaste, bland. Once again Rogue proves my theory that they excel at dark ales but have trouble with light ones. Shag (1923), Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 15/20 | Mar 14, 2003 Updated: Jan 28, 2004If this is the worst Rogue has to offer (its the lowest rated), then good job! I dont taste the cream or honey? Which I dont like anyway but its false advertising. Very hoppy for what appears to be a sweet beer. Still a complex beer and I look forward to more Rogue beers in the future ToadMan (554), Washington, Washington DC, USA
| 2.2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 2/5 | 3/10 | 3/5 | 10/20 | Mar 7, 2003 Honey-golden appearance with very light lace. Looks only slighlyt more apealing than Bud. Aroma of metalic hops, taste is mostly hops, not by any means overly hoppy, but they just have a powerful metalic tinge that it just isnt good. Slight hint of sweet honey in the palate, but its overwhelmed by poor hops. I am not at all a fan of this one and was somewhat surprised to see its modest ratings. Hopistotle420 (1178), Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
| 3.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 8/10 | 3/5 | 8/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Mar 6, 2003 Updated: Apr 4, 2003Clear golden-light amber hue. White head offering up some nice lace. A nose of honey, malts, lightly floral hops. Light-footed, nice honey backdrop, medium bodied, pleasant herbal hop charactor in the velvety smooth finish. The best part about this Rogue is that the honey is by no means overpowering, yet it is most manipulative on the palate lurking in the background. Very nice and terribly drinkable. Andrew196 (1091), Katy, Texas, USA
| 2.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 10/20 | Feb 17, 2003 Every brewery has their chick beer I guess. This is Rogue's version. A very watery and slimey taste accompanied this boring beer. I got very little hop taste for all that they advertise it having.
|