 Butters (1647), Virginia, USA
| 1.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 2/5 | 4/20 |
May 8, 2008 I’ve had 5 bottles of this over the past year and one thing is certain: It ain’t for aging! The first sampling I had was very fresh, within 2 weeks of bottling. Pretty tasty at that time, but I do recall not being overly impressed. Every subsequent tasting has brought out one consistent characteristic: INFECTION. The longer it sits, the more those Brett qualities shine. I’m a fan of WAW specialty beers, but this one took a turn for the worse. It makes a pretty decent lambic now though...
nuplastikk (1179), Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| 3.7 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 16/20 |
May 1, 2008 22oz bomber purchased at the brewery shop. Displays/suffers some of the undesirable qualities other raters have mentioned, such as oxidation, sourness, and little to no head. Relatively uncarbonated. Despite these flaws, I found the beer to be quite enjoyable. Rich porter-like toffee and chocolate notes. Some solid brown nutty malt flavors come through as well. Doesn’t say the ABV on the bottle. I’d really like to have this one on draft.
brentfeesh (1038), Gadsden, Alabama, USA
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 3/5 | 9/20 |
Apr 16, 2008 22 oz bottle via trade. Poured for a baby shower. Bombay mahogany color with no head. Cola aroma, wood and sharpness that is not appealing. The flavor is just not right. I have to assume that it is past it’s prime. Cola and some kind of cherry flavor and bitterness that is second only to the nasty foul sharpness that riddles the brew. Oxidized. Wet, thin mouth feel. A great disappointment considering how much I enjoyed the others from this brewery.
donrajin (233), Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, USA
| 2.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 12/20 |
Apr 7, 2008 I was not overly impressed. It needed something. Not sure exactly what, but it needed it. The flavors didn’t seem to meld well. I wouldn’t recommend this one.
blankboy (3204), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 3/10 | 3/5 | 9/20 |
Mar 25, 2008 Bottle (22oz) shared with HogTownHarry & garthicus -- courtesy of HogTownHarry. Pours a cloudy dark orange-brown with a spare diminishing tan head. Aroma’s slightly sour along with some caramel malt, nuts and chocolate. Flavour: Yuck, that’s not pleasant. Quite sour (not in a good way) -- infected maybe? Average bodied. A shame to release such a poor beer for an "Anniversary" edition.
garthicus (1274), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| 1.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 3/10 | 2/5 | 6/20 |
Mar 19, 2008 Thanks HogtownHarry for sharing: Rusty -hazy brown colour, small but determined head. Quite a sour aroma, some alcohol & malt in there too. Shocking sour flavour, overwhelming, some hint of dust (?) and wood too. Whoops.
HogTownHarry (4000), Toronto (Harbourfront), Ontario, Canada
| 2.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 3/5 | 10/20 |
Mar 19, 2008 Bottle (22oz). Shared with blankboy and garthicus, my bottle via trade with Immy. 2007 on bottle. Deep, near opaque red-brown, not much head. Mild coffee roast is almost completely overwhelmed by lemon sourness - a tad old? Taste - nutty mocha roast malt, but way, way too much sourness - long sour-bitter linger. Average, acidic body, sharp mouthfeel - kmweaver’s right, I think it’s infected and/or sour. Too bad.
kmweaver (2443), Sebastopol, California, USA
| 2.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 3/10 | 3/5 | 5/20 |
Mar 17, 2008 22oz bottle. Pours a dark, slightly hazy cola-brown color; light khaki head with solid, medium-bubbled retention at the perimeter. Solid pour, but downhill from there. A bit of citrusy tartness and dustiness and brown sugar in the aroma; not immediately obvious (at least to me) that this was an infected bottle: tart, dry, funky, and muddled. Definitely a bad bottle, though: tart, unpleasant citrus sourness, acidic and dusty; you can get a hint of a rather nice, roasted and toasty brown-ale-type beer underneath the infection, but the off tartness is impossible to overlook here. Williamsburg, get your bottling line fixed. Pretty much impossible to finish much of this.
|
Rate This
Statistics
Find This Beer (Want/Have)