Subsidiaries
7/10
—
Appearance 8
Aroma 7
Flavor 7
Texture 6
Overall 7
Deep garnet color with medium head and good lacing. Sweet aroma with notes of caramel and coffee. Flavor is balanced with mild roasted and sweet notes. Definitely tastes like it has traits of multiple beers - my idea of what traditional porter must have tasted like. Not great integration though. A bit sharp in flavor and aroma.
Tried
on 18 Feb 2002
at 14:49
6.8/10
—
Appearance 6
Aroma 9
Flavor 6
Texture 4
Overall 7
Not labelled as a steam beer but I was certain thats what it was, both from aroma/flavor and hints on the label. (iceless fermentation, 1894 style, Gold Rush style beer, etc.). Anyway: light head, with copper color and med lacing. Aroma is strongly fruity -pear? Flavor is cleaner though, mainly bitter...an interesting contrast to the aroma.
Tried
on 04 Feb 2002
at 12:23
6.1/10
—
Appearance 8
Aroma 7
Flavor 5
Texture 4
Overall 6.5
Consider a Vienna eh? Well, I found it somewhat Viennaish and also Pilsnerish. It looks like a pilsner, and showed some promise, pouring bright yellow-gold with a natural looking thick rocky head. It even had a moderately spicy aroma. The flavor was strangely sweet though, with some mild caramel notes. Bitterness was light, and there was a slightly metallic aftertaste.
Tried
on 04 Feb 2002
at 12:18
2.4/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 2
Flavor 3
Texture 2
Overall 2.5
Dull straw, very slight haze and no head. Horrible communistic aroma with lots of phenols, rotting grains, apple. Watery body, lots of glue. Bland...I won’t go so far as to say inoffensive. This beer has a lot of problems. Old equipment, poor QC, that sort of thing. Like I said, communistic.
Tried
on 07 Jan 2002
at 00:13
4.6/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 6
Flavor 4
Texture 4
Overall 4.5
Light brown colour with limited head. The aroma is caramelly with molasses accents and a hint of nuttiness. The body is thin and spritzy, the flavour sweet. The dark malts promised by the aroma never really appear on the palate, which finishes poorly with an accent on wateriness.
Tried
on 07 Jan 2002
at 00:12
2.5/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 2
Flavor 3
Texture 4
Overall 2
Looks terrible - very dull amber with no head and an abundance of murkiness. The aroma is vaguely caramelly with vegetables, copper and some of that Soviet-style funk. Tastes of sour caramel and, well, I don’t really know. It tastes like really old brewery using cheap ingredients. Damn. Only marginally palatable.
Tried
on 07 Jan 2002
at 00:10
3.4/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 3
Flavor 4
Texture 4
Overall 3.5
Dull amber without much head. The aroma is caramel, abundant fields of grain and a light fruitiness. Palate is strange - like pear juice, with some caramel. There’s a weirdness I can’t put my finger on. The body is somewhat watery, and maybe a bit thin, but it’s also doughy. Very strange. The finish is sweet, again with a somewhat innocuous pear juice note. When I first had this sample pack, 9 1/2 years ago, I kind of like this beer. Now, I really don’t. The sweetness is mild and body sufficiently soft that it should be at least pleasant if not pleasing. But it isn’t. Maybe it’s too cloying. Maybe it’s a bit strange, like dirty yeast or ancient brewing equipment strange. That might be it. This beer smacks of old Communist-era brewing equipment. Hmm.
Tried
from Can
on 07 Jan 2002
at 00:09