Prostman (1077), Pennsylvania, USA
| 3.7 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 15/20 | Sep 26, 2002 Pretty good for the style but not much of a winter warmer. austinpowers (2828), New York, New York, USA
| 2.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 2/5 | 6/10 | 2/5 | 9/20 | Aug 21, 2002 What is it with Otter Creek and sourness!?#! First their Mud Bock and then their Copper Ale seem a tad sour, and now the coup de grace is sourness in the Winter’s Ale. Maybe it’s because this beer was 10 months old, but I don’t think so. It was also a fairly dark brew with gobs of malt and a fair punch of spice, to boot. HighlanderOne (546), Somewherein, New Jersey, USA
| 2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 3/10 | 2/5 | 4/10 | 3/5 | 8/20 | May 11, 2002 I suspect I got an old sample. Head had large bubbles, like dish detergent. Flavor was sour, and it had a sticky mouthfeel. This one goes in the DNF (did not finish) category. daboskabouter (1470), Fergus, Ontario, Canada
| 2.7 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Mar 16, 2002 Nife auburn color. Wicked aroma, something not right, old dirty hops, little sour citrus, some brown sugar. I think that this beer was fairly old, tartness, some fruit, organic hop taste. Maybe fresh this would be good
VA Homebrewer (525), Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
| 3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 2/5 | 12/20 | Mar 12, 2002 Sour and slightly malty on the nose. Thin bodied with not nearly enough malt, which is interesting because the deep auburn color suggests a fuller beer. Caramel up front turning to a slightly hoppy character and finishing with a fairly intense sourness. I can’t tell if it is intentionally sour or if it was infected. Either way this is a dissapointing brew with the exception of its appearance. Volgon (2490), Manchester, New Hampshire, USA
| 2.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 4/5 | 5/10 | 2/5 | 11/20 | Feb 23, 2002 2/23/02: Way too sweet. Thin. First rating: It is too thin and the sweetness is a bit much. There is some complexity buried in here, but it isn’t easy to find. boto (1345), Granby, Connecticut, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 | Feb 22, 2002 Updated: Mar 12, 2003Decent maltiness with a bit of a roastiness. Brown with a hint of red. Not as good as some of their other offerings. It's not bad, but I expected more. Found the 2002 version to be better than previous years. A bit more body to it. tbookman (618), Ephrata, Pennsylvania, USA
| 3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 2/5 | 13/20 | Feb 8, 2002 Not bad -not great. Thin for the style, moderatle malty sweetness. Does have a distinct hop character.
|