freekyp (1669) - Thomasville, North Carolina, USA - OCT 11, 2003
1.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
UPDATED: SEP 7, 2004 Bottled version: Pale golden with broken, thin head. Some slight lacing. Yeasty smell. Initial taste is sharply bitter, mellowing very quickly to a yeasty aftertaste. I did not like the malt character in this beer. It tasted like unleavened dough.
Vac (2445) - San Diego, California, USA - AUG 18, 2003
3.1 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Pours with a deep golden body with amber accents topped by a thick rocky lasting head with good lacing. Slightly sweet yet bitter hoppy aroma with grassy and slight fruity notes and a good malty balance. Watery hop flavor with grasy notes and a touch of maltiness. Not much as much flavor as expected. Light bodied and smooth with a touch of dryness.
MAP (1133) - Lakewood, Ohio, USA - AUG 13, 2003
2.7 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
Frankly, Im not too impressed here. There is a nice malt flavor to it, but it lacks any hop action, which leaves the mouthfeel a little boring.
raymow (1063) - Bensalem, Pennsylvania, USA - AUG 5, 2003
4.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 19/20
I really like this beer and I'll definitely buy it again. Great color/appearance and nice malty flavor. As the commercial description says, it has a slight sweetness and dry finish. This is one of my new favorites and I'm going to rate it slightly higher than I normally would to try to make up for some of the bad reviews that I just read through.
Admiral (524) - Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, USA - JUL 20, 2003
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Too light, all around. Slightly cloudy gold, white head, some lace. Hops present but not really enough. Fruit/toffee malt flavors.
guzzler67 (1569) - Hanover, Maryland, USA - MAY 16, 2003
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
Hazy, golden amber appearance (label says it's bottle conditioned). Malty nose. Small head disappeared quickly. Astringent taste. Thin body. Where's the hops? Disappointing.
dolemike1 (1288) - Jeannette, Pennsylvania, USA - MAY 12, 2003
2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 7/20
I wasnt drunk when i had this but i wasnt taking notes. Could it be that this beer was so unremarkable that i have completely blanked out the experience in my mind? ... Yes.
Jayb0 (1097) - Cherry Hill, New Jersey, USA - MAR 8, 2003
3.8 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
UPDATED: AUG 25, 2009 Amber in appearance with a decent off-white head. Faint citrus aroma. Fairly high carbonation. A bit thin in the mouth, somewhat unbalanced flavors of grain/oat?, malt, and slight cider bitterness. Still, not as bad as it sounds fnishing fairly clean. As echoed in other reviews, not the best effort from yard’s and not a session beer for me.
ReRate 10/1/2007 Draft: This beer has improved over time. The balance is better and the toasted, breadiness comes through without dominating. Upping palate and overall.
Rerate 2009. I think this beer has really come into its own with the new yards brewery. The earthy, bready quality really sets it apart from typical APAs and I find myself going back to it repeatedly. upping all over the place...
slimjim (106) - New Jersey, USA - MAR 4, 2003
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
A light pale ale, light in color, light in taste. Not to bad. A light hop flavor. Not bad, but not nearly the best yards has to offer. Try yards triple. yumm
monkeyman (57) - Alabama, USA - MAR 1, 2003
2.8 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
No case code (Philadelphia Pale Ale was part of the "Yards Mixed Case Sampler: Philadelphia Pale Ale, Saison, ESA, IPA); August 24, 2002 tasting notes: Whew. What went wrong? All malt in the flavor profile; yet still a watery consistency. Big disappointment for a best bitter.