gustytke (8), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
does not count  | 3.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 8/10 | 5/5 | 6/10 | 4/5 | 15/20 |
Nov 14, 2004 2004 vintage. Great red ale look, deep red. Head quickly fades. Entry is quite malty, which finishes slightly sweet. Nothing complex going on here. Malt like German beer. Descent beer, especially for the 7.5% content. I wish the taste would stay a little longer.
 jimmack (1221), Nutley, New Jersey, USA
| 3.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 15/20 |
Nov 11, 2004 10/03/2000. Clear, dark orange with a
good size white head that quickly dissipated. Aroma was slightly sweet malt with citrus background. Flavor was much drier than expected. Biscuit malt,
fruity, but again very dry. A bit thin.
Extremely carbonated, especially for a 4
year old bottle.
Dorwart (1821), Robbinsville, New Jersey, USA
| 3.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 |
Nov 8, 2004 (Batch # 4-Oct-2002) Large offwhite head. Nice and creamy on top. Settles slowly with great carbonation. Poured this one incorrectly. Tons of big whispy floaters in there. Slightly fruity aroma with a decent amount of malt. Not very complex. Color is a slightly cloudy dark amber. Flavor has a slight peach note to it with a noticiable alcohol presence. Finish is dry and pretty clean. A decnent ale but lacks complexity and some body. Nothing special.
argo0 (6948), Washington DC, USA
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 14/20 |
Oct 30, 2004 (Batch No.4, Oct. 2002) Hazy peach-amber body with dead yeast everywhere, medium beige head. Aroma is moderately sweet, fruity (melon, berry), light peat. Taste is medium sweet, fruity (peach, melon), finishing with some peat and alcohol. Creamy medium-full body.
Saarlander (1579), Rancho Cucamonga, California, USA
| 2.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 3/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 9/20 |
Oct 28, 2004 I was really dissappointed in this brew, I really thought the flavor would be better. I had a 2002 bottle last week, It tasted like alot of beers I’ve had, and paid much less for. I will try it again sometime.
sloth (1678), Ceciltucky, Co., Maryland, USA
| 2.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 |
Oct 23, 2004 10/02 vintage : Thanks to kawa for a shot at this one : Small tan head, short lived with little lace to speak of. Murky amber color. Very faint malt, fruty nose. Medium/thin body. Lightly malty, bready. Faint hoppiness with some yeasty notes. Fairly dry finish. Not alot going on here, fairly dissappointing. Extra Strong tilte needs to be removed from this label. I,m surprised this has held up this long. A surprisingly very over rated brew.
Walt (2289), Chicago, Illinois, USA
| 3.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 14/20 |
Oct 21, 2004 2002: Poured cloudy amber with thin tan head...smelled malty sweet, melons, apricots, a little vanilla...taste is very sweet and lightly citric...caramel, melon, apricots...nice mouthfeel...clean sweet finish...good beer, I’ll age maybe 2 more bottles...
MAP (1089), Lakewood, Ohio, USA
| 3.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 15/20 |
Oct 13, 2004 4-OCT/2002 bottle. Brown amber haze with some lighter flecks floating around in it. Not much head on it either. The aroma is a sweet grassy smell; bananna, coriander and melon. Mouthfeel is somewhat thin and has a smokey bite towards the end. The flavor is a decently hopped to give it a similar sweetness as in the nose. However this isnt something amazing for being a year old, but respectable.
|
Statistics
Find This Beer (Want/Have)