bridge (659) - Sydney, AUSTRALIA - JUN 23, 2006
This ’classic’ pour clear orange with a minimalist head and no much carbonation. It had a sweet dusty metallic aroma, with also a bit of a mango/banana mix. There was a metallic hop tang and a little disruptive bitterness. The slightest hint of crystal malt, but only very slight. Slick and syrupy mouthfeel. This seems to be promising to begin with, but the need to produce a crappy lager takes over and leaves us with a rather unimpressive product. highlandlad (1480) - Blue Mountains, AUSTRALIA - MAR 27, 2006
Catfight: Tiger Lager vs Tiger Special Classic Edition rated head to head in an unsensational winner-takes-bugger-all contest. This one-off all-Singaporean bout comes courtesy of Bridge (Classic Edition) and Nice Houseguest With Poor Taste In Beer (Tiger Lager). Does Tiger Lager have the claws to see off the Classic Edition? Or will the CE’s vaunted addition of crystal malt turn the contest? Does anyone care? Let’s find out... Appearance (both poured simultaneously into identical chalices): a clear win for Classic Edition. TL arrives with a watery gold body and skinny head that vanishes immediately. CE is brighter, deeper and has a head that not only lasts but also laces. TL 2/5, CE 4/5. Aroma: TL is sugary sweet, with cardboardy malt. Uninspiring. Can it get worse? Surprisingly, yes. CE smells stale, despite being well within its ’consume-by’ date. It’s fruity, with some wet dog. TL 3, CE 2. Palate: TL is surprisingly oily, with a dry finish. CE is fizzier. TL 3/5, CE 3/5. Flavour: TL is all sugary cornwater, with faint banana and a dry, mildly grainy finish. CE benefits from the crystal malt, but marginally. It has Juicy Fruit chewing gum and canned pear notes. It’s much maltier and just as sweet. TL 3/10, CE 4/10. Overall: I expected the Lager to win this hands down, but there was no contest. The CE is no classic, despite the name, but it’s superior in most aspects. Total Scores: Tiger Lager 1.6, Classic Edition 2.0. (Tiger Lager: 330ml bottle, bb Dec 2006; Classic Edition: 330ml can, brewed Dec 30, 2005) motelpogo (7704) - Plzen, CZECH REPUBLIC - MAY 4, 2004
not all that bad, tasted of sugared pears and sub-tropical humidity. a bit too sweet, i think i’d prefer regular tiger. thanks to sully for bringing this along Spiesy (2338) - Sydney, Greater London, AUSTRALIA - MAY 3, 2004
Canned. Credits to sully for this rare rate. Didn’t manage to note anything more then ‘thin’ but to quote ecz’ on the night ‘it tastes like tiger with crystal malt’. duff (5484) - Copenhagen, DENMARK - MAY 2, 2004
The gathering: duff, eczematic, motelpogo, Spiesy, Sully and late arrival Linc.
Not good. Sweet and sticky malts. Little hops or bitterness to speak of, pretty bad, i haven’t had regular Tiger in a while, but it would probably be better than this.
eczematic (1325) - Adelaide, AUSTRALIA - APR 27, 2004
wow a singaporean märzen. take a bland sweet lager and make it sweeter, what a concept. toffee smells, taste is sweet, grainy and then tangy and metallic in finish. not sure whether it's an improvement on ordinary tiger, at least you can swill tiger with a curry and not notice it. thanks neil for the opportunity to try this rare brew. Sully (1380) - Potts Point, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA - FEB 24, 2004
Hmmm, this tastes like a Tiger beer with a tiny bit of crystal malt. I don't know how special this CM is but it must be bloody expensive as it it just discerniuble. You can detect it in the intial aroma and combined with the hops this is not too bad. For this to be touted as a unique beer is a bit of a rich statement. Thankfully I didn't have to be too rich myself as I bought a 3 pack duty free in Singapore for SGD6.60. Two cans to go.