 jehoey (766), Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, USA
| 3.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 8/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 16/20 |
Jan 12, 2006 My first doppelbock. I really liked the sweetness of the aroma, the amber appearence, the flavor was very malty, and the beer had a nice full felling in the mouth
Lubiere (4491), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| 3.7 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 8/10 | 4/5 | 8/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 |
Jan 9, 2006 Dark amber ale with a moka head. Sweet caramle and vanilla in aroma. Sweet malt with notes of caramel, and restrained nuttyness, a big beer bonbon. Rich and warming. Mondial 2005.
bfeldmann (1042), Wilmington, Delaware, USA
| 3.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 14/20 |
Jan 5, 2006 "Poured a nice red/amber color. Not much of a head, which left very quickly. Sweet malty flavor, very sweet. Weak carbonation. Overall not bad, average,"
rajendra82 (701), Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
| 3.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 |
Jan 2, 2006 From BA Riggsy as part of Secret Santa 2005, this 12 oz. bottle yielded a beer that was clear and deep orange in color, and possessed a rather large three finger head that prevented emptying the entire contents into a flute glass (also courtesy of Riggsy). The color was a little light for a Dopplebock, but the overall presentation was very good.
The aroma was quite uncharacteristic of a Dopplebock, with floral, citric, hoppy smell that was a little too light on malts. The taste was rather citric, hoppy, and dry, none of which should not be the primary flavors of a Dopplebock. The mouthfeel was thin and crisp, which was another puzzling deviation from the style. Aftertaste was a little bitter and spicy, rather than smooth and creamy.
None of these characteristics made Troegenator a bad beer, but it was much too far off the mark from the style they were aiming for. If you like it for what it is, then good for you, but don’t look at this as a prototypical example of the style.
BillKismet (1921), Seattle, Washington, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 4/5 | 12/20 |
Dec 28, 2005 Medium orange-bronze color with a full, creamy head. Could not successfully coax out much aroma. Mild malt flavor deftly masks the potent alcohol.
Frank (1066), Chicago, Illinois, USA
| 3.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 |
Dec 27, 2005 Sampled from a fresh growler: I’m not sure this quite fits the style but is a nice strong lager nonetheless. Pours a nice dark brown amber w/ a nice head. Mostly malty w/ a nice edge of hops but an unfortunate slight metallic off note in the finish brings it down a notch.
alobar (1016), Harleysville, Pennsylvania, USA
| 3.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 4/5 | 8/10 | 4/5 | 15/20 |
Dec 17, 2005 Nice solid dark copper color with a clear white head. Slight malty aroma. Tastes of malts, yeast, and caramel. This is a wonderful beer that I enjoyed quite a bit.
WISEGUY572 (1245), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| 2.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 |
Dec 7, 2005 Updated: Sep 23, 2008What a sorry excuse for a doppel. Not more than a single. OK ... maybe a 1.25. Light brown and clear with a small head ... a see through version of a Celebrator. Thin in the mouth ... too thin for a doppel. Taste is OK for a beer ... a little coffee, a little dark roasted malt ... but a doppel? A beer you can eat? Liquid bread for Lent? I don’t think so! An ok beer, but not even a parody of a doppel. // OK ... tried it again. Not a parody, merely a poor, thin copy. Sort of a 1.4 bock.
|
Rate This
Statistics
Find This Beer (Want/Have)