barleyPops (1079), Quad-Cities, Illinois, USA
| 2.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Jan 6, 2005 bottle. Who thinks up these names? because it is not all that dark! this is really a very simple brew, but that being said, it’s not as bad as the overall rating implies. even though this is not anything great, it’s underrated in my book. cigarsnbeer (146), Valley City, North Dakota, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Dec 28, 2004 a light brown, not what i’d call a "dark" beer, more of an amber. Although it has some nice malty flavor with some hints of fruit, it is not the best brew from Schell. If you are wanting to venture out into the dark beer field, this one is not bad to start with. DrnkMcDermott (1852), Downers Grove, Illinois, USA
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 9/20 | Dec 15, 2004 Bottled. Opens with a malty, earth smell. Pours a nice amber with a fluffy. Taste has a malty richness and is nice and bubbly, but there were some distracting off-flavors. A bit of oxidation and a medicinal phenol character overwhelms the light hop profile. I think if I had another sample, it should turn out pretty good. irishsnake (353), Oakland, California, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 4/5 | 11/20 | Dec 7, 2004 pours a nice brown/orange, with a thin but nice white head. nose is very lager-y, with a lightly sulfury yeast charecter mixed with light malts. flavor is very crisp, with some light roasted notes. not the most exciting beer, and less flavorful than the color implies, but easy to drink in quantity, with just enough going on to make it a little interesting. esagz (6), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA does not count | 4.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 8/10 | 5/5 | 8/10 | 4/5 | 18/20 | Oct 11, 2004 Very decent American dark lager. Good roasted flavor, but not overpowering. Decent color, not too heavy, and very drinkable. If you’re in south Minneapolis, check it out on tap at the Chatterbox Pub where it’s the house specialty known as the Chatterbox Lager... Syd (903), Waconia, Minnesota, USA
| 2.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 2/5 | 12/20 | Sep 25, 2004 Bottle pours a brownish amber with a short lasting head and no lace. The aroma is malt and somewhat of a roasted charater. The flavor is just malt, very slightly roasted. The palate is thin and fizzy. Overall, not bad, but not good. Gmku (254), Asheville, North Carolina, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 5/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Sep 19, 2004 On tap, Liberty’s in Red Wing, Minn. A pretty decent dark lager, if you ask me. A little roastiness coupled with some sweet malt flavor. Just a bit of hop bitterness. bbrock81 (221), Le Mars, Iowa, USA
| 1.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 2/5 | 3/10 | 2/5 | 8/20 | Sep 8, 2004 The whole point of a craft beer is to experience the flavor and body that macros don’t see fit to brew into their beers, right? So why does Schell make this thing? Who knows. What we do know is that it is NOT dark. It’s very medium in color, but light in every other aspect: flavor, aroma, palate. This is a macro-brew masquerading as a specialty beer. A crummy marketing gimmick that I had assumed the otherwise laudable people at Schell were above. The other Schell products I’ve had have all been, if not necessarily superlative, at least solid entries into their respective styles. This beer is an abomination and should be discontinued immediately. It can only appeal to wanna-be beer snobs who think it looks cool to drink a craft brew but can’t handly any more flavor than Bud carries. Avoid it.
|