tiggmtl (4311), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| 2.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 8/20 | Feb 18, 2005 Very strong caramel aroma with some light floral tones. Clear copper coloured body is topped with fizzy white head that recedes to a lasting cover. Strong caramel malt flavour with some butterscotch and a light floral hop flavour and gentle bitterness. Mild effervescent carbonation and medium body. Butterscotch diacetyl becomes cloying after a while. Bottle. Cornfield (4966), Oak Forest, Illinois, USA
| 2.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 4/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Feb 16, 2005 From a widgeted can - The problem with these things is that they turn out to be way too smooth in palate and taste. The "unique rich, deep flavor" from the commercial description is washed away by the overly silky mouthfeel. Likewise, the aroma seems to suffer from the heavy, creamy head’s smothering. I’d like to try this from the cask some time. It seems to have possibilities. Dorqui (1361), Brescia, Italy
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 15/20 | Feb 8, 2005 Creamy foam of medium persistence. Shining red/orange dark color. Discreet fizz. Alcoholic and bitter scent. Discreetly fizzy with a determined taste and refreshing. Optimal persistence. Hoppiness. kumite56 (461), Cordova, Tennessee, USA
| 2.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 5/10 | 2/5 | 9/20 | Feb 2, 2005 I am unimpressed. Weak appearance with a weak off white head on a ruby clear body. Aroma is malty, dried fruit and not bad but a little on the weak side as well. Palate weak and flavor is malty, sl sweet initially and a bitter but unbalanced aftertaste in my opinion. Think I will pass on another one of these beers. Not bad but definately not worth the calories. wnhay (722), Princeton, New Jersey, USA
| 2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 3/10 | 2/5 | 8/20 | Feb 1, 2005 Updated: Feb 24, 2005 This beer was barely even drinkable. It just tasted nasty to me. After the first sip which had malts and raisins, it just tasted disgusting. Not good and not worth the effort. hobgoblin (163), St-Épiphane, Quebec, Canada
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 | Jan 28, 2005 Canned. Look like the Guiness but with a golden brown color and big cream white head. Smells of malt and wheat. Taste of malt, wheat and fruity and bitterness. Nice beer for this category (pub ale).
Lorsque qu’on la verse, elle ressemble beaucoup a la Guiness sauf que sa couleur est d’un brun dore avec un epais collet cremeux. Odeur de malt et de ble. Au gout, elle est malte, gout de ble et fruite avec une legere amertume. Bonne biere pour cette categorie (pub ale). Stew41 (1054), Caulfield, Australia
| 3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 | Jan 16, 2005 Crystal clear dark amber / toffee. Small fine head shows good retention. Malty nose with sweet notes; very pleasant and and quite broad in feel. Palate backs up well with more caramel malty notes. There’s a bit of fizz here which detracts a little and the finish has some bitterness but not as much as I would have trought The upside of course (re the fizz)ist that it makes for a good summer session type. EricTheRed (81), Plainfield, Illinois, USA
| 3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Jan 8, 2005 orange color, creamy body, malty nose and drinks very smoothly. somewhat bitter on a delayed aftertaste. cloying on the palate. Certainly not as good as the best in class. Not a bad beer at all....without the widget, a can wouldn’t come out right, but I’d rather try this on a proper cask draft.
there were some floaties .
|