overall
99
95
style
RATINGS: 524   WEIGHTED AVG: 3.84/5   IBU: 15   EST. CALORIES: 240   ABV: 8%
COMMERCIAL DESCRIPTION
Fermented with wild yeasts and aged in cabernet barrels with blackberries, Juliet is a tart, fruity, complex ale. Notes of wood, tannin, dark fruit and spice make Juliet an ideal beer to suggest to Pinot Noir enthusiasts and beer drinkers who are fond of Belgian sour ales.

Tick this beer for your profile
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


3.9
hombrepalo (1971) - Chicago, Illinois, USA - DEC 14, 2009
Poured amber with a too much head, extra carbonated. Aroma was barnyard funk, rye and wood. Taste was vinegar, small berry flavor and rye with a decent finish. Very easy to drink but lack a bit more of a kick.

4
jstraw (1967) - Chicago, Illinois, USA - JUL 16, 2011
Dark rose with fair white head / Sour nose of blackberries and orchard fruit, oak, and brett / Light to medium body, tart and woody, with good balance and dry finish / Clean, mostly straight-forward flavors of fermented blackberries, apple, pear, cedar, straw, and a decent dose of barnyard funk / As always, I would prefer less new oak, and while it lacks the complexity of the best (Jolly Pumpkin), it is a fine brew.

4.1
Pwn3d (1962) - Manhattan, New York, USA - FEB 6, 2010
bottle shared with gallagher. pour is a sunkissed hazy amber with fluffy white bubbly head atop. the aroma is a delicious soft belgian spice with cornacopia of gallant aromatics... wild yeast, berries. taste is epic.. blackberries, tart citrus, sour, some vanilla. carbonation is ultra bubbly, like champagne. awesome! expensive as all hell but worth it!!

3.4
zdk (1917) - New York, New York, USA - JAN 5, 2010
Sampled at Paulís tasting. Pours reddish pink and bubbly. Arouma is grapefruit. Taste is tart and acetic. Sweet fruits like fruit punch with extra acids added. A bit woody. Not bad.

3.5
katrinaez (1894) - norristown, Pennsylvania, USA - MAR 4, 2017
Very sour and tart, not vinegar but wow on the tongue. Grapes, raspberries, grass, and yeast. Pale yellow color. Had 2013 Bottle in 2017.

3.9
yobdoog (1888) - Kingston, New York, USA - JUN 11, 2009
Nice light pink color with a bubbly head that fades fast. Aroma is light and tart with soem cherry sourness. Taste is light again with some sour cherry. A bit bland but not bad. Drinkable, clean and crisp.

4.1
MacBoost (1884) - Victor, New York, USA - OCT 17, 2014
2012 bottle, 22oz. Murky dark pink pour, little head. Aromas of wood and fruit. Taste is very tart and dry. Flavors of tart blackberry jam with some woody pie crusts. Nice. Wonder if it dried out in the bottle a bit or if it was brewed this dry. Very lactic, slightly funky. Very tart. I like this a lot.

3.5
kathouse (1874) - LAS VEGAS, Nevada, USA - OCT 20, 2013
This beer had a very tasty blueberry flavor along with the tartness of a sour. Flavor was still bright and well balanced. Nice clear color, good carbonation, and a tasty sweet finish.

3.4
tjthresh (1871) - Greenfield, Indiana, USA - DEC 12, 2008
Murky amber. No head. Sour Fruit nose. One note sour and oak. I guess that is two notes. Medium body. High carbonation. Abrasive dry finish.

2.8
DavoleBomb (1867) - Pennsylvania, USA - JAN 17, 2011
Poured into a snifter. Thanks to someone (I forget who) for this. 2009 vintage bottled on August 14th. Looks like GI carbonated the pooch on this one. Strong gusher (though nowhere near the worst Iíve experienced) was handled with care over a sink and I only lost a small portion of the beer. 3.0 A: The appearance resulting from the gushing is a mess. All of the yeast and blackberry slurry mixed well throughout the whole bottle. Opaque amber brownish color. Frothy white head, which retains fairly well, had plenty of blackberry and yeast particulates throughout and especially on top, giving the appearance of a cappucino with a healthy dose of cinnamon sprinkles on top. The beer, like the head, has particulates throughout. 3.5 S: The nose is rather boring for a beer put through what this one has been. Equal parts brett funk and sourness, but neither are very strong. Lightly acetic, a bit more lactic acid, and a light berry component. If I hadnít known about the wine barrels, I probably would have attributed the light grape vinous component to the berries, but it sticks out with the a priori knowledge. Light woodiness with a touch of astringency. Overall, itís a good aroma, but it doesnít have any balls to it. Far too subdued. 3.5 T: The taste suffers from the anemia of the nose. Itís tasty just like the nose is pleasant, but no power at all. Thereís a light tartness, but the acetic sourness is all but gone. Compared to the sourness, thereís a decent amount of funk featuring a basement muskiness, leather, and wild apple. The tartness of the berries shows that they are there, but there isnít a lot of berry flavor. Woodiness and astringency are there again and in good proportions. 3.5 M: Lighter medium body. Aggressive not-quite-spritzy carbonation. Could be smoother, but thatís mainly due to the overcarbonation. 3.5 D: Itís an okay brew if thereís nothing better around, but a bomber of this is a rather boring experience. The aromas and flavors are okay, just too weak to make this a truly enjoyable experience. The overcarbonation and the price didnít add anything positive either. Serving type: bottle Reviewed on: 01-18-2011 05:42:44


We Want To Hear From You



Join us! RateBeer is made by beer enthusiasts for the craft beer community. Your basic membership is free and allows you to read all beer ratings. Click here to create your account... and give your opinion!

Join Us »



Page  1 « 29 30 31  32  33 34 35 » 53
Tick this beer for your profile
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5