kwoeltje (1326), Manchester, Missouri, USA
| 3.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Apr 3, 2004 (12 oz bottle) light-medium amber with small white head. Aroma of hops and wet hay. Nicely balance flavor. Not too hoppy. ross (1709), weddington, South Carolina, USA
| 3.2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 2/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 13/20 | Mar 15, 2004 ??? 2.99? this is a pretty good beer and it should be a 3. something... anyway- amber color, hoppy smelling nose. good flavor, with a weird aftertaste that is not unpleasent but i cant figure out what it is. different beer, but good none the less. BückDich (4857), McCall, Idaho, USA
| 3.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 8/10 | 4/5 | 8/10 | 4/5 | 14/20 | Jan 12, 2004 Lightly hazy amber color with sticky head and lacing. The aroma is moderately hoppy with lots of caramel malt nose. The hops are musky and the malts sweet. The flavor is well balanced and this is actually a pretty tasty amber. Finishes wet and quenching, slightly dry as well, medium-bodied. I don't know how you can tell from organic or not, but I know this is a good beer. Ringo (959), Loveland, Colorado, USA
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 | Jan 8, 2004 I like it. It tastes and smells very organic, like a farmyard. Different and pleasant. Shag (1923), Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
| 3.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 15/20 | Dec 2, 2003 Not a bad beer. Amber color with nice lacing. Flavor is bitter with a nice hop bite but it's a little one dimensional. Some citrus fruit is present. A nice little beer just nothing outstanding. Reid (1092), Salem, Oregon, USA
| 3.2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 | Nov 4, 2003 Bought this beer in the 22 oz. bottle ..nice enough "folksy" Label.
Pours pretty well very nice rich brown color ( almost glows!), nice head.
Smells also nice , spciy and aromatic..which is odd given the taste.
Taste after the initial "hit" is pretty awful..did not enjoy it at all. Really strange..very chemical hard to explain in an Organic ale.
Felt average in the mouth, nothing special.
With the taste after the first few mouthfulswas hard to drink the whole bottle ( I did because it was pretty spendy).
All in all a dissapointment, hope this was a one off bad batch.
OK re-review as of tonight 9/7/2003..a friend gave me a 12 oz so i decided to try this agin..hoping my original bottle was a bad one..and it appears it was..unless they changed the recipe.Taste in particular was much better less acrid and chemical..more smooth and malty..wth some nice understated hopping.
Much better drinkability.
haddon90 (1036), Alexandria, Virginia, USA
| 3.2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Sep 26, 2003 Overall pretty good. Golden pour with a little white head. Very smooth with some hops/malt balance. I'd have this again! JPDIPSO (4932), Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USA
| 1.2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 1/10 | 2/5 | 1/20 | Sep 20, 2003 Very light amber. Smallish off white head. Slightly earthy malt with a hint of citrus and mint. No date on tyhis bottle, but this had beter be ancient. I do not remember tasting a worse beer. Sour acrid grain, I just watch "Strange Brew" the other day and it reminds ne to check the bottle for a mouse. No, no mouse. This one does not age well. One last sip for analysis. A mixture of pickle juice, malt vinager, and rotten mouse. I don't know how to check for freshness on this one, but unless I pick it up at the brewery I will never touch this again. This would be only the third beer that I have not finished in my life! All three believed to be freshness related.
|