You have to love the fancy packaging. When you can only buy the bottles at the brewery, however, I guess you have already attracted the audience. The packing tape is a very nice touch. Eleven bucks for a six when you buy two. On tap at many finer brew bars in Ontario.
This is a really good beer. I thought when I started writing these reviews I would have a hard time thinking of anything to write other than "this is a really good beer" - but it is. It is not overwhelming, it is balanced, it is fresh, it's interesting and its flavourful. That is "really good" to me. So, the details. It pours dark mahogany, the head resolving to an active rim of small bubbles, it smells of both chocolate and smoked malt, but not strongly of either. In the mouth those are the two strongest flavours the first nicely giving way to the second. There is also a lot of honest grain and a good clean yeast palate, a basic British ale with some apple fruitiness. Where you think it might all be big, instead it is fairly restrained and subtle though solid. The water is very clean and makes me wonder if it is from a well on site. The hops are restrained, twiggy rather than green and may be supported with some black malt for that traditional Scots edge.
Some unhappier advocatonian reviewers wish it pumped up one way or another but for me to find the 6.25% in this light a beer is fairly masterful brewing. They may be thinking of a style like we find in a smoked porter. One top rater say she or he finds notes of bacon - this is not far off given the slightly oily feel that might mean a bit of oats in the mash and that easy smokiness. Does that make it breakfast beer?
Comments
Joe Reed - February 15, 2005 12:15 am
"Bacon" could be related to the smoked malts, especially if hickory is used. It doesn't taste like bacon, but the mind associates the hickory smoked malt with hickory smoked bacon. It's why I vowed to only used fruit wood (probably cherry or apple) if I made a smoked beer.
Alan - February 15, 2005 8:07 am
It is an odd adjective to use and it is certainly not the one that would pop into my mind but that is what I like about good reviewing. These esters and other flavouring chemicals that make up a taste rearrange themselves in the mouth triggering different sensations and memories. This particular reviewer said the brew reminded him or her of camping which likely triggered the odd association. Fasckinatin'
Joe Reed - February 15, 2005 11:41 am
The only flavors I'm particularly sensitive to in beer are the banana and butter/butterscotch esters.
I had a horrid experience with an ale once that tasted like movie popcorn butter.
Alan - February 15, 2005 12:18 pm
But there are some polish beers that have that caramel / butterscotch (diacetyl?) ester that works really well with the Lublin hops. A long way from buttered popcorn, though. THat would be horrible.
blork - February 19, 2005 3:39 pm
I was at the Manx pub in Ottawa a few days ago and they had this on tap (or one like it -- I only remember "Church Key Chocolate Stout"). Unfortunately, they had run out! D'oh! I really wanted to try it.
Alan - March 5, 2005 11:27 pm
Another taste three weeks later. Just lovey. The smoke is there and maybe more than I indicated before - but not in the taste of the smoke but the taste of the wood being smoked. Think salmon plank. Now that I say that I am thinking this beer plus medium maple syrup as a reduction over salmon or as a baste for lamb. If I were to do anything I would add a level of whiskey malt echoing Raftman and a wee wee touch of light crystal malt. But that is not a suggestion for improvement. That is how <i>I</i> would hope to make a beer like this classic.