Braudog (5463) - Hampton, Virginia, USA - MAY 4, 2006
4.4 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 17/20
UPDATED: APR 1, 2012 Rerated from draft, Apr 2012: Deep amber with a wicked viscous character. Disregard my 5-year rating -- this absolutely fits the label, a robust hoppy kick. <<Original: Bottle: Shiny orange with little for a head. Couldn’t get much of an aroma into my possibly challenged olfactory senses, but this did have a nice little citric hoppiness to the flavor. Not quite worthy of the hop-squeezing label, but quite enjoyable, nonetheless.>>
barleyPops (1141) - Quad-Cities, Illinois, USA - MAY 3, 2006
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
bottle thanks to RLB from a trade at DLD ’06. pours a bright orangey gold with a small white head. aroma is citrus: peach, grapefruit and orange. flavor is a mix of the aforementioned citrus and some, but not as much as I expected caramel malt. I must be becoming a hophead, ’cause I thought it could have had more. thanks Rich, this was a nice IPA
Sham (1845) - Seattle, Washington, USA - MAY 2, 2006
2.8 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Amber with a frothy head and spotty lace. Herbal hops in the nose. Slightly soapy with pine and a little alcohol. I thought the flavor was soapy and malty. That’s it. The soapiness mars the finish.
TAR (2401) - Lafayette, Colorado, USA - MAY 1, 2006
3.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
UPDATED: AUG 12, 2007 Clear rufous. Thick white lather produces dense sheets of lace after each sip. Mandarin oranges, pine sap, dried apricots, and aspirin comprise the bright aroma. Airy and toasty to a degree. Wonderfully fresh and pungent. Fluffy pillow of carbonation, but it has a touch of hardness, as well. Very soft and slippery upfront, with a deeply quenching juicy hop burst supported by a crisply toasty malt backbone. Unpleasantly metallic and borderline brash, however, with subtle aspirin textures depositing a gritty dryness upon the palate. Gooey, yes, but oppressively sappy. Poignant spiciness comes and goes in a flash, as it’s blanketed by vividly defined toasted malts. Deceptively bitter due to how succulently flavorsome the hop character is, but the metallic notes and raspy aspirin textures wind up tainting some of the brightness. Texture turns to gooey, late in the stage, and exhibits a honey-drizzled apricot sweetness. Finishes fluffily dry with a delayed arrival of grassy bitterness which amplifies the juicy hop oils which deliver a gentle sting to the tip of the tongue. An array of citric hop flavors ensue with each burp. While the metallic notes are somewhat of a detriment, there’s still plenty of cleanly extracted malt flavors to match the refined hop profile which is just bursting with freshness. Tröegs knows how to extract hop flavor like no other. Great stuff. Thanks, richlikebeer.
heemer77 (5079) - Urbandale, Iowa, USA - MAY 1, 2006
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
The body was orange with a slightly off white head. The aroma was oranges and caramel with some bread. The taste had some dry grapefruit and pecans. The body was medium and this is a nicely balanced IPA. However, nothing stood out at me while drinking this one.
droopy49 (97) - Lancaster, California, USA - APR 29, 2006
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
12 oz bottle from Illinismitty! Poured a nice cooper color with a moderate white head. Good lacing down the sides of my PBR goblet. Yeah! Just got the glass today! Aroma is hoppy some slight citrus and pine notes. Flavor is similiar to the aroma. Medium mouthfeel and a lingering bitter finish. Balanced towards the hoppy side just the way I like it!
notalush (4587) - Denver, Colorado, USA - APR 29, 2006
3.8 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
There’s nothing much to be said here - they certainly haven’t done anything original, but they sure have made a damn fine standard - truly juicy, as the name suggests - not really citrusy, but certainly fruity - lasting hop impression on the palate - nice.
tbookman (618) - Ephrata, Pennsylvania, USA - APR 27, 2006
4.2 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 17/20
UPDATED: FEB 9, 2007 Amber color with a slight reddish haze. Very good IPA - lots of hop flavor to chew on. Hops are all over the place but are balanced by a sweet malt backbone.
Emil (6067) - Copenhagen, DENMARK - APR 27, 2006
3.3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
Bottle. Orange colour with a big off-white head. Malty, grassy, pine, hop aroma and taste. Medium body with a dry finish.
DarkElf (3014) - La Jolla, California, USA - APR 25, 2006
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
(12 oz bottle: Obtained 21-Mar-06 in trade with Lou18, thanks Lou!) Given the attention and high accolades this beer has been getting, I was expecting to be mightily impressed by this, but frankly, I’m mightily under whelmed. Right off the bat, the hops-dominated nose has a strong vegetal quality that’s completely turned me off. Mild citrus, mild "classic" hops aroma, but mostly just vegetal. The flavor shows a bit more true hoppiness, moderate bitterness, some citrus, but the plant-like nature still has some presence here too. Grainy maltiness, sweet orange-citrus, some tea, man, this just isn’t doing a damn thing for me. And to call this an Imperial Amber is really pushing it; there’s not nearly enough malt body and presence to make that claim. Medium-bodied, a bit dry, somewhat crisp on the palate, average carbonation. The color is a gorgeous coppery-amber, fully clear in appearance, but topped by a small, quickly-receding, off-white head. The filmy layer and thin halo leave a wide ring of lacing on the glass. I don’t know, maybe this is a sub-par bottle? I have one more bottle that I will be trying later on, so hopefully that one will be better, and it better be, given the hoopla over this beer. But at least based on this bottle, I find this to be a pretty mediocre and severely overrated offering.
And here it is, later the same day and I’ve decided to crack the second one open while the first bottle is still fresh in my mind. Perhaps slightly less vegetal as with the previous bottle, but still one of the primary flavors, and it continues to dominate the nose. Better looking, displaying solid retention. So two different bottles from two different trades, but with essentially the same result. So no, this is simply how the beer is, and it’s just not that great. They need to hire better workers, more discriminating workers who will actually remove the hop cones off the plant, not throw in the entire plant -- roots and all.