sandygoonie (27), Seattle, Washington, USA
| 4.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 9/10 | 4/5 | 9/10 | 5/5 | 19/20 |
Feb 16, 2006 This beer pours an amber gold with a frothy white head that dissipates in to a thick film that lasts and laces the whole way down the beer. The smell hits you initially with the aroma of the hops. First of all the distict floral and citrus flavors that are so common. There is also a hint of some lightly toasted pale malts. The taste is also fantastic. The hops are obviously the focus of the beer but this does not prevent the beer from preventing some delightful sweet and toasted malts. Again the normal floral/citrus hops are most prevalent but once the beer is tasted the citrus flavor seems to dominate. The mouthfeel is carbonated well with some nice thickness. There is also a welcome dimension of bitterness associated with this beer. Overall I really enjoy this one. This is one I will come back to again and again.
 mnurda (434), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| 4.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 9/10 | 5/5 | 18/20 |
Feb 14, 2006 I can not believe this is rated so low. I loved this one. Light with a gentle sweetness (like Piscator as a child - LOL). Nice dry finish. Perfect end to a Saturday afternoon.
elektrogeist (158), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
| 4.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 8/10 | 5/5 | 9/10 | 3/5 | 16/20 |
Feb 8, 2006 This is a beautiful pale ale.. as a rater I can’t judge much between tastes more than others have here, but this is definitely a potent and tasty pale ale-and if you happen to be able to get some go for it. Alesmith has better brews.. but this is definitely worth tasting.
badgerben (3605), Blaine, Minnesota, USA
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 14/20 |
Feb 4, 2006 MN Winter Get Together, 2006: Gold color with no head. Slight ctirus hop aroma. Dry hoppy taste with a little honey on the finish. Not much malt and not nearly as bombastic as I figured it would be, but a nice and simple Pale Ale.
hellomynameis (794), Mayer, Minnesota, USA
| 3.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 8/10 | 3/5 | 15/20 |
Feb 1, 2006 Alesmith is great at making beers. This one has an underlying sweetness that is outdone by some great tasting citrus hops and a finishing dryness. one of the better examples of the style I think, and only aides inmy longing for Alesmith distribution to MN.
JK (2961), Richfield, Minnesota, USA
| 3.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 |
Feb 1, 2006 A straightforward, hoppy beer. Medium body and very drinkable. Great for a pale ale but doesn’t stand up to its ipa brother.
footbalm (1218), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| 3.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 16/20 |
Jan 31, 2006 Bottle courtesy of ElGaucho.Nose is citrusy hops right out of the gate but as weird as it sounds,Lima beans is the undertone here for this one.Whaaa ?? Luckily the lima beans presented themsevles as a grassy taste with lots of citrus from the hops.A very refreshing brew.
patrick767 (2033), fort wayne, Indiana, USA
| 3.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 16/20 |
Jan 30, 2006 bottle - Pours a bit cloudy with a moderate, long lasting head. Nice hop aroma, surprisingly sweet taste with a bit of citrus and hops. Light and finely carbonated with a mild hops finish, it would indeed make an excellent session beer. I will echo the only complaint of some other raters, I could do with a little more hops, but this is a good beer.
|
Statistics
Find This Beer (Want/Have)