It has a rich malt aroma and it tastes of Christmas. Either that or an average dark ale with a hint of spiced fruit. Well, “average” may be a bit too harsh (it is a nice ale) but it isn’t really anything special. It’s pretty much exactly what you’d expect from a Christmas special, which is exactly what I wanted when I chose it. Hooray.
It has goblins with a Christmas pudding on the label and it’s 5.0% ABV.
]]>It smells delicious: the aroma is strong and malty with a heavy hint of something sweeter, possibly fruity. The flavour isn’t actually as strong as the aroma might suggest; I’m not quite sure what to make of it. It is very nice but also very simple. I suppose it is what they call ‘smooth’ (whoever ‘they’ are) which is not necessarily a bad thing but it does make it a bit boring. On the other hand, it is very pleasant indeed.
This beer isn’t one of those beers that amazes you at the first sip but the more sips I have, the more I like it. I tend to prefer more complex flavours, whereas this beer has only one single flavour, but it is a nice flavour. It has a pleasantly bitter finish and hints of sweetness, rather like a diluted version of its aroma.
Yes, definitely smooth.
]]>It certainly looks good, both in its packaged presentation and when poured. It has an orangey-red colour and a curious aroma that combines malt and sweet fruit. It is very sweet, the wrapping claims that it is sweetened with both sugar and “sweetener”, and the sweet fruit almost masks the flavour of the beer completely. There is a malt flavour underneath all the sucrose but it is dominated by raspberries and sugar.
To be honest, I would rather be drinking normal Bacchus than this raspberry flavoured version. I don’t even know what normal Bacchus tastes like but it has to be better than this. The undercurrent of beer, when my tastebuds can filter it out from the sugary fruit, is quite pleasant. But this is just too sweet for me. I love raspberries but not with this much sugar and not in my beer.
]]>I am happy to say that Black Sheep from a bottle is still a lovely drink. It’s sharp and dry and it smells like a medieval tavern. Well, a romanticised tavern without all the body odour and animal shit. Drinking this beer makes me think of Robin Hood, roaring fires, Lindisfarne and Anglo-Saxons.
It’s one of those few beers that manages to blend the malt and the hops in just the way that I like it. It has a crisp bitterness but without the astringent bite that disappoints me in so many other beers. The flavour isn’t complex but it’s strong and hearty and makes me wish I was sitting around a fire with my friends.
So, still one of my top beers, it’s just a shame that the one pub I frequent that serves it on tap doesn’t seem to keep it properly. Or maybe Black Sheep from a cask just isn’t as good as from a bottle. Beers can be weird like that.
Incidentally, the Black Sheep Brewery is run by one of the Theakstons, so it ought to be good.
]]>Actually, it’s not fair to call the taste “fairly average”. It’s better than that. But it isn’t all that special. It’s smooth and has the usual citrus undertones with a strong, hoppy bitterness. It’s nice and I am enjoying drinking it, but it isn’t up there with my favourites. Another standard ale well done, only stronger.
Interestingly, it is bottle conditioned. There is something fresh about bottle conditioned beers and it might be that which raises this beer above the average. Clearly further experiments are in order.
]]>Although this beer is one of Badger’s ridiculous animal themed bitters, it is an excellent example of hoppiness done well. Hops are added to the brewing coppers three times: two lots of Super Styrian hops and one of Styrian Goldings. I believe the lovely, almost sweet aroma comes from the final batch, while the potent bitterness comes from the first two. The malt is very subdued in this beer, most of the flavour comes from the hops. And yet they are not astringent.
I’m not sure how they manage to create beers that are so hoppy and bitter without the bitterness being unpleasant. More to the point, why is it that some beers are astringent and make my tongue curl, while beers such as this one are just as bitter but taste lovely? Is it just the variety of hops used? My notes so far suggest that Goldings hops might be the cause of the flavour that I don’t much like. Perhaps they only work when blended with others, as in this beer or Tribute. On the other hand, there are many different types of Goldings hops - how similar are they all to each other? Clearly more research must be done.
]]>This beer has a light, fruity flavour (just like it says on the label on the bottle) but at the same time it tastes quite strong. I couldn’t quite place the slightly floral smell and flavour until I read the label on the back of the bottle and it said it had an “elderflower aroma”, which I think is about right. It is noticeably more bitter than some darker beers but not in a bad way, it rather accentuates the fruit flavours.
I’ve never understood why Badger (or rather their taskmasters, Hall & Woodhouse) sell their best beers in bottles only. Sometimes, around Christmas, they produce a few casks of Champion or Golden Glory, but never very many. Usually you can only get their Badger Best, Sussex, Tanglefoot or one of their stupid animal themed beers on tap. Tanglefoot is nice but why don’t they put their best beers on tap more often? Why did they cancel the King & Barnes IPA? It was pondering such deep questions as these that I spent my time working behind the bar in a Badger pub. That and drinking.
]]>It has a delicate taste and aroma. It smells of fruit, maybe fruit blossoms. The taste is interesting - at first it seems quite watery and bland but then it develops into a citrusy, hoppy blend on the tongue. It would make an excellent summer beer, so perhaps I should have drunk it outside in the afternoon, when the sun was shining, rather than waiting for the chill evening. I usually do my beer tasting inside, after dark, with a pipe and a good book or film. I think Tribute would have done better in a beer garden during the day.
I did like the label on the bottle, which lists the hops and malts used. I wish more beers listed their ingredients. In this case, the hops were English Fuggle, Oregon Willamette and Slovenian Golding. The malts were Maris Otter and Cornish Gold.
]]>However, although it smells and seems like a standard session bitter, it has an unusually nice bitter flavour. Apparently the hops used, Bramling Cross, are the cause of this pleasant crispness. Or so says the label on the bottle anyway. I was surprised. When I first opened the bottle and smelt it, I thought it was just going to be a bog standard, reasonable but not very special beer. I still can’t really identify anything interesting about it except that the hop flavour is really quite nice - not astringent at all. I suppose I could best describe it as a standard ale, but a superbly well created standard ale.
]]>It has a strong, simple flavour. It is pleasant, especially for people like me who prefer dark beers, but it isn’t special. There’s no edge to the flavour or any complex blends of flavour. Just one rich flavour. It would be perfect to accompany a feast of roasted meat.
]]>The oakish flavour is fantastic. It’s very mellow, balanced by smooth malt and a slight citrus flavour. It is hard to describe - it’s a subtle blend of many flavours, which the blurb on the back of the bottle suggests comes from the thirty days it spends in oak barrels. It isn’t a strong flavour; it’s a very pleasant, interesting combination of flavours. I just wish it came in bigger bottles.
]]>It is made with roasted malts which give it a deep, strong flavour, set off nicely by a hint of bitter hops. This is a powerfully flavoured beer for sipping. Well, for drinking relatively slowly anyway. I know what I mean.
I suppose the flavour isn’t really very interesting. It’s just one, strong flavour on its own. But it is a good flavour and I like the depth and strength. As you might have guessed from my other tasting notes, I am not a big fan of very bitter beers. I do like some very hoppy beers (for instance, the new generation of American IPAs are really rather good) but more often than not I find astringently bitter beers boring and not that pleasant. I like my hops to balance or accentuate the real flavour of the beer, which (in most cases) comes from the malt, rather than to stand out on their own, which I find tends to result in an unpleasant aftertaste. So I like the fact that the hops in this beer are noticeable but only as a sort of defining edge to the thick, roasted malt flavour.
I don’t know if I’m pretentious or just very bad at expressing flavours in words. Probably both.
The variety of hops is not mentioned on the bottle but rumour has it that Styrian Goldings and Fuggles hops are used. Styrian Golding is a seedless clone of Fuggles, apparently.
]]>It contains extract of peach blossom, which gives the beer a wonderful fruity, floral taste and aroma. The hops are more aromatic than bitter, which makes the ale light and redolent while still being rich and relatively dark in colour.
It had been some time since I last tried this beer and I had forgotten how it tasted; I took a sip after pouring it, expecting a fairly standard bitter, and was happily surprised at how good it is. It is an excellent premium ale.
]]>The label claims that this beer is malty and it does have a stronger malt flavour than a light ale, but that flavour is cut through by the astringent bitterness of the hops. Unlike Spitfire, in which the rich malt blends with and complements the hops, in this beer the hops dominate the other flavours. I don’t know if this is caused by the Goldings hops or not. Osprey, which also uses Goldings, had a similarly problematic taste. But I don’t know which hops they use for Spitfire, they just say “Kentish” and I think Goldings hops do come from Kent.
However, after smoking a bowl of tobacco, the harshness of the hops was lessened and the other flavours were clearer. I could taste the fruity esters and the malt was more apparent. Perhaps I am overly sensitive to very bitter hops, or perhaps this beer was intended to be drunk while smoking, either way it was much nicer after a smoke.
It is a good beer, around the upper echelons of the middling beers, but definitely not a great beer.
Having re-read my previous notes, it looks like Master Brew had a similar bitterness that cut through the malt flavour. I wish Shepherd Neame would say which “Kentish” hops they used. Are they the same in Spitfire and Master Brew?
]]>This beer is not a light beer as such, not like Hop or a really blonde beer, but it is much lighter than Spitfire. It is very hoppy and the bitterness of the hops is not balanced by a strong malt flavour as it can be in darker beers. It has a slightly fruity taste without much complexity or richness. It is very pleasant - a nice session bitter but that’s all.
]]>