17thfloor (1511), Chicago, Illinois, USA
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 | Mar 12, 2008 Pours a nice clear reddish brown with a fine off-white head. As a doppelbock goes this is not great, however, I felt it tasted like a pretty decent barelywine. Smooth caramel, somewhat vinous, malts with that slight hop edge and a lot of fermentation. The alcohol was pretty apparent even before seeing it was 8.2%. Slight milk chocolate finish. Decent. ansermadide (526), Kyle, Texas, USA
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 15/20 | Mar 10, 2008 Updated: Mar 21, 2008My bottle clearly reads at the bottom, "DOPPELBOCK ALE". Is it just me or aren’t doppelbocks (and bocks in general) usually lagers? Maybe they changed out the yeast? Pours a thin, off-white head, which fizzles away pretty fast. Not much going for the nose, either. For a doppelbock, it doesn’t taste as strong as you’d expect; missing some of the great characteristics of other doppelbocks. Still, had a nice malty taste that hits the backsides of your tongue. The caramel and chocolate malts are just barely noticeable, but combined with the slightly bitter taste, it seems well balanced. All doppelbocks can’t be like Celebrator, I suppose. This one’s got the yum factor goin’ on. Has a bit of a soapy aftertaste, but not bad. This beer tastes even better after the first glass. To date, I haven’t found a doppelbock I didn’t like. colts9016 (198), Idaho, USA
| 2.7 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Mar 6, 2008 Pour: Dark brown hazy with hues of red
Nose: Caramel Malt, yeast, molasses, and floral.
Taste: Caramel malt, hints of chocolate, yeast, and molasses hops are on the end but only slightly
Body: Thin bit watery
Finish: Slightly acidic KUEric (632), Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA
| 2.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Mar 1, 2008 12 oz bottle. I think this beer describes what is wrong with this site. This a very below average doppelbock, yet is shows up as 67 percentile. Its a bad bock, which makes it a bad beer. A good lager is rated well below this, which is nonsense.
Anyways, I’m ranting. Caramel flavors, molasas, maple, doughy, etc. Looks standard. Is standard. Beershine (2754), Traipsing Around, Cambodia
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 5/10 | 2/5 | 10/20 | Feb 29, 2008 Slightly hazy red, thin looking is bad sign. Nose is soapy with a hint of cherries. Body is thin and watery. Unidimensional caramel flavor. Has none of the features i look for in a dopplebock such as complex liquid bread, full bodied, creamy rich goodness. This tastes more like a mediocre scotch ale from an american brewpub: sweet, thin, and fizzy. HonkeyBra (1379), Lemont, Illinois, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 | Feb 29, 2008 Nice amber pour with good head. Sweet aroma with caramel and maple. A bit of hops at the end. Good mouthfeel, and an excellent brew for the style. Very tasty. Wolfenstein (96), Sarasota, Florida, USA
| 4.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 8/10 | 4/5 | 9/10 | 5/5 | 17/20 | Feb 29, 2008 Sweet, malty aroma, with rather interesting hints of praline, cinnamon and brown sugar. Medium-dark amber color. Excellent lacing. Accents of milk chocolate and butterscotch. Finishes with a brief offset of hop and bitterness, along with some fading esters. Indeed, surprisingly tasty. webjedi (249), Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 9/20 | Feb 24, 2008 Dark brownish rust color with a lot of particulate floating around. Little to no head. A little sour on the nose, like sour apple. Very alcohol-y on the tongue along with the heavily malt chewiness. It’s a little "tinny" on the sides of the tongue. I may be getting a worse beer than intended since this was in the fridge for over a year... but the curiosity was the aging of it. I had had it before (as this was part of a mixed box of other Tommyknocker brews), and felt that the first try was to young of a beer (as were many in the beer selection in that box). It’s not bad, but not great either. (Bottle Pour 2/24/2008)
|