muzzlehatch (4424) - Burlington, Vermont, USA - JUL 20, 2002
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
8/29/01 This is more like it! I had the brewer’s Pear cider first, and was not impressed. This bottle was a bit stronger, not nauseatingly sweet, a little kick to it and a nice sweet apple nose. Not going to replace any of my favorite beers, but I could see having one occasionally under the right circumstances. 7/02 Having had a few more ’wine-like’ ciders in the past year, and developing the palate generally, has proved detrimental to this poor beast. I find it way too sweet and simple; no bite, no tartness to speak of.. better than the Pear I guess, and I still want to try the Granny Smith, but please people hunt out some of the smaller cideries like Flag Hill Farm. You’ll be glad you did.
swamptours (28) - Romulus, Michigan, USA - JUL 16, 2002
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Not bad. I like the Dark, Granny Smith and Colonial better though. Very smooth taste.
gws57 (1275) - Saint Charles, Illinois, USA - JUL 14, 2002
2.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
I myself am not really into apples or cider stuff. If I was, I think this would be really good. It’s a little too sweet to be truly drinkable.
beermania99 (9) - USA - JUL 5, 2002 does not count
2.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Too sweet for me.
aracauna (3179) - Georgia, USA - JUL 2, 2002
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
This is the best of the Woodchuck line and I’ve tried them all. Granny Smith is too tart, Dry is too dry and Pear is Pear. Amber has got a good level of sweetness and that’s how it should be. Ciders aren’t beers despite the fact they’re made in a similar way, and they should have some sweetness.
DEbeer (192) - West Virginia, USA - JUL 1, 2002
3.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
This isn’t bad. I was drinking it with Sam Adams Cherry Wheat and Newcastle, so it was the tastiest of the lot. Kind of sweet, but pretty good.
SudsMaster (68) - Denville, New Jersey, USA - JUN 29, 2002
4.2 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
barflybetty99 (14) - Kentucky, USA - JUN 25, 2002
4.2 AROMA 10/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 16/20
JPDIPSO (4956) - Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USA - JUN 18, 2002
3.2 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Clear straw color with minimal head. Aroma of apple, vinegar, and chablis wine. Finish has a slight metallic flavor that lingers and takes away some of the pleasent sweetness. Some champagne characteristics that make me believe they may use a wine or champagne yeast stain. Not beer, but not bad. Wouldn’t mind trying to mull this one some time.
Ernest (6514) - Boulder, Colorado, USA - JUN 14, 2002
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Head is initially tiny, fizzy, white, fully diminishing. Body is clear medium yellow. Light to moderate aroma of apple. Flavor is moderately sweet, moderately acidic. Finish is lightly sweet, moderately acidic. Light to medium body, watery texture, lively carbonation.