uhorpheus (215) - houston, Texas, USA - JAN 11, 2003
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 14/20
Decent brew, but not really my taste. A little hoppy without much other flavor. Had it on tap at the brewery, so it was really fresh and that helped. Weak beer, but almost decent on tap rather than bottle.
mpbro (132) - Stanford, California, USA - NOV 28, 2002
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
UPDATED: JAN 24, 2003 (Update: Christmas 2002 -- draft at Gingerman)
From what I recall, Saint Arnold's standard Amber Ale is not bottle-conditioned.
This is basically a slightly more "interesting" variation of the standard Amber.
Unfortunately, I've been out of Houston too long to do a side-by-side comparison at the Gingerman.
I like what they've done with the Amber Ale in general.
They never caved into the hop craze. Are there aromatics in the nose? Yes.
Are there enough bittering hops to adequately balance the malt? yes!
austinpowers (2827) - New York, New York, USA - NOV 1, 2002
1.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
From the ratings, this appears to be a love it or hate it beer. Rather hoppy for an amber and the aftertaste sticks around for awhile. Like Andrew196 and aceofhearts, I find this brewery disappointing, but not as much as Yellow Rose Brewing. Frickin’ harsh.
ARMed (576) - Garnet Valley, Pennsylvania, USA - OCT 12, 2002
3.6 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
Clear amber color with a fine crisp flavor. Very drinkable and extemely tasty.
AceOfHearts (1374) - Mountain View, California, USA - OCT 4, 2002
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
I didn’t like this as much as expected; the cask conditioning made the mouthfeel and aroma a tad bit soapy. There were a lot of interesting hints in the flavor - lemon, grain, breadiness, which add up to an interesting malt profile. Not quite the intense flavor that one might expect from a cask conditioned ale though.
achtungpv (190) - Austin, Texas, USA - SEP 9, 2002
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
As Bootsy Collins would say, "This was funkified!"
nstal (237) - Houston, Texas, USA - SEP 4, 2002
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
Surprisingly good from Saint Arnold. Definitely not filtered as the appearance of this cloudy red ale stands out. Nice blend of malt and hops. Good overall.
Andrew196 (1091) - Katy, Texas, USA - SEP 2, 2002
4 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
UPDATED: MAR 27, 2003 I think that this is Saint Arnold's best offering. It is good to see a real ale coming out of Texas too. Very cloudy and thick for an amber. Med-full body mouthfeel, nice maltiness with notes of vegetable, rounded out nicely with hops. RERATE: Tasted hoppier than I remember, dont bother with this beer unless its on cask. It's decent on CO2, but it doesnt come close to the cask version.
prpplague (247) - Euless, Texas, USA - MAY 31, 2002
3.7 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
unique aroma that lasted the full glass. the appearance was not what i’d expect for an amber, too watery. the flavor was true to the aroma and was very unique. the finish was littly hoppy. this a brew that probablly qualifies as a ’love it or hate’
aracauna (2935) - Georgia, USA - APR 26, 2002
1.8 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 7/20
Saint Arnold is a very disapointing brewery. The brown was watery and lifeless and the Amber doesn’t even really qualify as an amber in color. It’s more like a golden with a reddish tint. The flavor is also really weak and lack the complexity of a good amber.