pnista (1008), Bloomington, Indiana, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 | Mar 23, 2006 Yellow copper with a decent enough head, however the trails of cloudy faint sediment were a bit offputting. The aroma is weak, peach and stone fruits with floral hops. The palate is thin, crisp and refreshing with just the right amount of CO2. The flavor is much better than expected. Fruity (peach/apricot), hops with a bit of not so malty sweetness. Simple and clean with a nice hoppy bitterness left lingering. Despite the nose, an alright beer. da845 (139), new york, New York, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Jul 3, 2006 Had this at the great lost bear on tap. Was pretty good. Was very refreshing, had no real strong kick or taste to it. Overall though it was a refreshing brew that is deff worth trying. holdenn (1454), Chicago, Illinois, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 | Jul 6, 2007 12 oz bottle pours orange with a white head. Malty nose, grainy, some floral notes. Similar flavors, muted hops, carmel, pears, and apple. Crisp finish. Nothing fantabulous, but not bad for what I was looking for. ROGUE (712), Newark, Delaware, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 | Aug 18, 2006 Another enjoyable beer from Magic Hat. Poured a amber-orange with a medium off-white head. Light pine and citrus aromas. Balanced flavor with a smooth finish. Almost as good as the other MH pale ales. RblWthACoz (963), Brooklyn, New York, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Sep 14, 2007 Pours a cloudy dark amber with minimal head. Nose is hoppy with a smokey edge to it. Fruit tones are there as well. Flavor is leafy with an almost twig like taste to it. Twig like? Yes. It tastes like tree bark. Hop influence is there, but seems to be almost watered down in a way. Something just doesn’t seem mixed right. Feel is tingly with bubbles. But the drinkability will stay low as I just don’t really dig it too much as it seems to lack balance or a cohesive recipe. Plus it has that metallic flavor which I just don’t like.
phllybeer29 (20), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Sep 20, 2007 Bottle. This beer was OK to try, but wouldn’t buy again. Wouldn’t receommend. guzzler67 (1289), Hanover, Maryland, USA
| 3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 2/5 | 14/20 | Oct 29, 2003 Light amber appearance with an small to avg head and lots of lacing. Could not pry much out of the aroma other than a little fruitiness. Taste was rather bland with hardly any hop bite. Finish was mild and inoffensive.(tap-lcs) DKlovesbeer (172), Sarasota, Florida, USA
| 3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Dec 6, 2004 Big foamy yeast colored head dissipates quickly leaving a lot of widely dispersed lacing in the top inch of the glass. Body is a clear, pale shade of amber that reminds me of scotch. Aroma is a bit peculiar, hints of old gym socks, burnt plastic, malt, cherry, and some odd floral hops. Aroma could have some yeast and alcohol in it as well. Honestly, this beer is a lesson in olfactory confusion. Smell it once and you get whiffs of malt and fruit. Smell it again and you get whiffs of sanitized hospital floors. Weird! Flavor is underwhelming. Palate seems flat, bland, and lifeless. Beer is fizzy and has a bubbly mouthfeel. Flavors of toasted rice, malt, alcohol, fruit, yeast, rubber, and tree bark all combine to make one odd beer. Strangely enough I think I’ll try this one again. It’s an oddity, but definitely not heaven sent.
|