Santa Cruz Mountain Amber Ale

Brewed by Santa Cruz Mountain Brewing
Style: Amber Ale
Santa Cruz, California USA

Pours a good-looking orange-amber with fluffy tan head. Interesting aroma--fruity pungence that is hard to pin down. Prune juice and pineapple and Hawaian punch. Flavor is similarly interesting and complex, hard to decipher. Juicy fruit burst on the finish. Perhaps juniper and raspberry sourness on finish. Rather distasteful.

Pours a brilliant copper color with big offwhite lasting head. Aroma has a sourness to it. There’s so much head in the way there’s not much to smell. Ewww. This beer is sour. Something is clearly wrong with it. Too bad.

13-Oct-07 (22 oz bottle, Bottling date of 23-Aug-07: Purchased 12-Oct-07 for $3.69 at BevMo in La Jolla, CA) Never let it be said I don’t give breweries every opportunity to prove to me they can resolve issues. Here is my fourth attempt with Santa Cruz Mountain’s Amber Ale, a bottle I know is from a recent batch, and finally, I have what seems to be a healthy, uninfected beer in my glass with no obvious signs of the sourness, phenolics, or acetaldehyde that have plagued previous bottlings. It’s very cloudy in the glass, dark amber in color, and topped by a half-inch, off-white head that slowly recedes to a wide ring. Lightly aromatic, tart grapefruit, but mostly projecting high levels of grain husks and cooked corn, so DMS is suspected, though this aroma seems to be far more common with organic beers. The husky grains and cooked corn absolutely jump in the flavor, giving it a rustic farm quality, which might be a good thing for organic beers, but isn’t my idea of an enjoyable beer. Minimally sweet and not caramely or toasty. Hops contributes a tart, lightly acidic, grapefruit quality to the flavor, and light to medium bitterness for balance. Medium-bodied and dry, but nearly lifeless on the palate because the carbonation is very low, bordering on still, despite the good sized head indicating otherwise. Overall, not all that enjoyable and after four attempts with this beer, I think I’ve had enough.

12-Mar-07 (22 oz bottle: $3.69 at BevMo in La Jolla, CA) While the first bottle I opened was sour and badly phenolic, the second was merely sour. Sour, yes, but only a little, so the beer was still drinkable. Grainy malt was evident, and the beer seemed mildly hoppy, but until I could taste a perfectly healthy bottle, it was tough to accurately evaluate the underlying beer. So here is the third and probably final bottle; how many chances should I give a brewery? Once again, there are sour elements at work here, though it’s light enough to only be a nuisance rather than an overpowering feature responsible for a drainpour. However, I do pick up obvious notes of apple skins, which for me IS a reason to dump a beer, so this is only minutes away from wetting my kitchen sink’s drain. There’s obviously a sanitation issue, something that apparently isn’t uncommon when a small brewery picks up a large account and has to seriously ramp up production before they are truly ready to do so (reference Island Brewing and Angel City Brewing as other examples). I won’t say definitively that Santa Cruz Mountain wasn’t ready for the challenge, but the flaws in each of these three bottles (and other bottled products) certainly indicates a problem exists. As for the beer itself, the malts seem grainy and a bit toasty, but not caramely. Hops are almost impossible for me to discern amid the flaws, but a moderate dustiness does come across, usually something I would attribute to hops, but here, who knows? The underlying malt body seems reasonably substantial without being sugary, always a good thing for an amber. The beer is drying on the palate, unnatural for an amber, so this is probably another clue about the beer’s health. There are probably a dozen distinct aromas intermingling, most of which are unpleasant and I cannot identify, but the beer does smell dusty and lightly sour with strong phenolic notes as well. Hazy amber in color, and the foamy head is off-white to light-tan, settling to a wide ring after a few minutes. If I ever see this beer on tap someplace, like at a festival, I’ll give it another go, but it’ll be quite awhile before I buy another bottle; hopefully by that time, the sanitation issues will be corrected. (3, 3, 4, 3, 7 = 2.0)

Bomber. Nice aroma of malt and ripe fruit. Amber color with a white head that ringed. A bit thin in body, with very mild carbonation. The flavor is caramel malt with a fruity accompaniment. The finish is relatively dry, and there is a decent amount of bitter. Could be a malty IPA.

Sampled on tap at the brew house. A nice beer poured dark amber with cloudy texture. Had a smooth texture and nice palate for a amber. Worth a try.

Bottle. Head is initially small, frothy, light brown, mostly diminishing. Body is medium to dark amber. Aroma is lightly to moderately malty (toasted grain, cookie), lightly hoppy (apricot), with notes of sour apple, autumn leaves, nutmeg, oak, cherry, light note of band-aid. Flavor is moderately sweet, lightly to moderately acidic, lightly bitter. Finish is lightly to moderately sweet, lightly to moderately acidic, lightly to moderately bitter. Medium to full body, creamy/velvety texture, lively carbonation. Nice mouthfeel and actually not too badly balanced, but the aroma is VERY odd for the style...definite sour and wild tones made me think it was infected prior to tasting. Not an unpleasant amount/type of tartness, though, but man...the aroma is definitely more in line with a rustic biere de garde than an American amber. A loony sample, perhaps. More alcohol evident than the 5.4% would suggest. So all in all...weird and difficult to rate, but admittedly not unpleasant. If this is what they were aiming for, I’d probably rate a bit higher, but somehow I don’t think that’s the case.

Bottle: Caramel color, light head and lacing. Nose of diacetyl and toffee, light hops, fresh milled caramel malt. The flavor is semisweet and metallic lingering with dull diacetyl and a nutty caramel not. Meh!

Bottle: Dark copper color with a small white head. Nose of fruit with a dry, wheaty kick. Tastes better than the nose with dry wheat, floral bitters, earth tones, and some fruity sweetness. Not too bad. Thanks Buckdich for sharing.