Theobroma - Dogfish Head Brewery

bturton

Massachusetts

2.25/5  rDev -41.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

I had long awaited the arrival of this beer in my neck of the woods. The concept of Chili Peppers and Chocolate (not to mention the reviews I had seen of it) sounded AMAZING. I am sad to say that I was not impressed by the balance of the flavors at all. I didn't find that there was any flavor of the Chili Peppers in the beer at all (ideally I would have liked a little spice or something to be there) I wasn't expecting much from the chocolate going in, but I got nothing. Although I am glad to have tried it and learned from the experience, I felt a bit let down by it.

Serving type: bottle

09-28-2010 02:12:40 | More by bturton

Lerxst

Florida

2.28/5  rDev -40.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

A-Pours an yellow/gold color with a nice head that fades quickly and left little lacing.

S-Fruity. I can't smell any of the chilies, honey or chocolate. Maybe its my sinuses. But what I can smells smells good.

T-I can't smell the chilies, but I can taste them big time. Its not working real well for me. A sweet honey/malty taste as well, but the most prominent taste for me is definitely the chilies. The combination of the sweetness and the chilies is not working for me.

M-Medium body, spicy finish. But there is a horrendous aftertaste that I can't get rid of.

D-I can't see myself drinking this one again.

Others may like this, but for me, DFH missed the boat on this one.

Serving type: bottle

08-15-2009 16:13:05 | More by Lerxst

donkeyrunner

Massachusetts

2.33/5  rDev -39.2%
look: 1 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Cloudy peach fuzz color. Thin white head that is quick to skim and vanish. Looks heavy and lifeless. Honey, nectarine and mild boozey aroma. Pretty bland for such a grocery list of special ingredients.

Orange flavor ice with a chilis for balance. Pulpy mouthfeel. Again, really bland for such a shopping list of special ingredients.

Where are all these special ingredients? I get the honey, I get the chilis, but where's everything else? For a beer that claims to be "a recreation of the premier chocolate beverage of the Americas" this beer has as much chocolate as a pickle.

Pricey drainpour.

Serving type: bottle

12-07-2009 15:10:47 | More by donkeyrunner

GordonQuid

Michigan

2.38/5  rDev -37.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Poured from a 750ml bottle to a freshly washed goblet. Golden honey in color with a slightly off-white head one inch sustaining with moderate "leggy" lacing. *I am thrown off considering this is suposed to be a cocoa nib/chile beer. I was expecting something darker respectively.

Smell is sweet honey biscuit. Slightly buttery and a hint of anise, nutty almond is present. I cannot detect any chocolate or raosted malt characteristics at all; which was anticipated.

Taste is that of cloying honey. Holy honey batman! A hint of anise and buttery almond is present in the finish. Very heavy sweetness. Almost too sweet to detect anything else but the sweetness of cloying honey.

Very full bodied and almost undrinkable for me. I finished my sampling respecting that this was a collaborative effort to recreate a style of beer native to the respective culture of the time. Dogfish is an excellent brewery with BIG bold tasting brews. I love Dogfish.... However I am dissapointed that this offering is lacking characteristics that are marketed by Dogfish. Coacoa nibs, chilies and anatto seems to be mising from the beer/mead. I would like to see another attempt at this brewing with more emphisis on respecting culture but yet also staying true to todays standard. Perhaps some raosted malts and new hop variety could be added. I would have rather experienced a brew with too much to offer than this dissapointing one demensional experience.

Respectfully,
-Gordon

Serving type: bottle

01-05-2009 16:07:42 | More by GordonQuid

BrewCrew2010

New York

2.38/5  rDev -37.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

A: Pours a slightly hazy orange body. Head was small, white, & fizzy. By the time I walked from my kitchen to my living room, you would never have guess there was a head.

S: A stong honey & malt aroma that's slightly boozy. Reminds me of a mead.

T: Overwhelming honey flavor with some spices. Very syrupy sweet. Not getting any chile or chocolate flavor as described on the label.

M: Slick syrupy mouthfeel; medium body; no carbonation.

O: Did not enjoy this one. Felt like I needed to drink it with a straw to get it done and over with. Husband drank mine and he enjoyed it, but the honey flavor was way too strong for me. I would never get this again. It did not taste like it said on the label.

Serving type: bottle

04-27-2011 17:06:32 | More by BrewCrew2010

Klym

California

2.38/5  rDev -37.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a snifter. Shared with Cavery.

A: Pours a brownish orange with a very small had that dies off extremely quickly and leaves no lacing. The body looks placid and carbonationless as could be with the exception of a very small swirl of clear bubbles laying on top in the middle. Looks, honestly, like a dark lager left in a glass for a day.

S: Definitely a lager base to the smell with most of the ingredients mixing together and coming off more as a mound of burnt grain than individual notes. A little bit of chocolate sweetness, which doesn't mix well with the lager background, and a kind of chili sweetness, which also doesn't mix well. I don't want to drink this.

T: Actually hits with a very mild spiciness that spreads to the roof of the mouth on swallow. Cocoa nib sweetness in the middle taste and roasted grain throughout the rest. This all sounds okay, but would you want cocoa nib bud light? Spicy coors? Lager is not the platform for these flavors.

M: Carbonation is more present than the look would have you think, and the body is more thick than the lagerish feel would make you believe. Honey comes out more in the smoothness of the mouthfeel than it does the taste of the beer.

O: The ingredients used in this are some of the best I've heard of for a beer. I was expecting something dark, creamy, spicy with a paired cocoa kick that mellowed into a honey finish. Instead I feel like I got pranked by having such good ingredients tossed into what to me is basically a lager. Really terrible match, really difficult to drink and enjoy. This was very close to a drainpour but I managed to finish my glass. I gave this a small score bump because of the originality.

Serving type: bottle

07-19-2011 05:55:10 | More by Klym

hosehead83

Ohio

2.5/5  rDev -34.7%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

What? What is this? I was totally expectingthis to pour black or at least dark brown, what with all the talk of chocolate and cocoa on the label! Poured light golden with a fluffy white head-looks just like a lager--O.K. if they can get this to taste like the cocoa/chile beer that I'm hoping to tasteI'll be really impressed! My taste buds hit the brakes and nearly go off the road-Honey, honey, honey!! This beer is cloyingly sweet--I wait for the cocoa nibs, chiles and anatto to come around. And wait, and wait. Something touches the back of my tounge and then quickly departs-I am left baffled- something must counteract all this sweetness-My kingdom for a hop!!
I suppose that for this very unusual style of beer that the flavor is close to the mark. But for a brewer like Dogfish Head (of whose beers I usually really enjoy) this offering seemed to fall short of my expectations of their normally big, bold-flavored brews. But hey, keep makin' 'em and I'll keep tryin' 'em!

Serving type: bottle

01-05-2009 01:58:47 | More by hosehead83

champ103

Texas

2.5/5  rDev -34.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

On tap at the Petrol Station. I enjoyed this on tap with armock. More for his company than the actual qualities of the beer.

A: Pours a dull hazy golden/orange color. A minimal white head forms, but recedes to nothing in a second. Not much lace to speak of. Almost macro like, which is not a good start to a beer IMO.
S: Some sweet malt up front, light spice and soapy hops. Grainy malt. Kind of adjunct like. Not much else. Really bland and very disappointing overall.
T: Sweet malt, light chocolate, and very light spice. Some light soapy hops. Nothing else. Completely bland and generic.
M/D: A medium body and carbonation. Fairly creamy and smooth. Not a lot of alcohol noticeable, but just really bland and uninteresting. Glad I only got a pint instead of a bomber (this time anyway). It has been drained poured at other times.

I have had this many times, and it is not something I would recommend at all. Very bland and generic. Dogfish Head does some interesting stuff from time to time. Sometimes it is really good, sometimes it is average, and sometimes it is just bad. This is just bad IMO.

Serving type: on-tap

10-26-2010 06:09:24 | More by champ103

beachbum1975

Ohio

2.53/5  rDev -33.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Got a 750ml of this anticipated beer at Dutch's in Hyde Park. Jay, the owner said he just got this off the truck yesterday. Shared with pwoods at my place.

A: Pours a slightly cloudy, rust yellow with a nice creamy off-white head that disappears quickly.

S: After a good roll in my glass, I smell a murky, earthy, musty blend of undefinable scents. Smells also included cinnamon and a strange lingering spiciness, almost like pepper.

T/M: Surprisingly light-bodied with a fair variety of flavors including mild cinnamon, muted anise, earthy hops, mildly toasted malts. The finish was warm (almost spicy). As the beer warmed, the alcohol became more prevalent. This reminds me of the 2006 vintage of Three Floyd's Munsterfest - lots of earthiness.

Overall, this was unique beer and I am glad I had the opportunity to try. Would I buy it again? Probably not, no thanks - too light bodied and strange for me...

Serving type: bottle

09-26-2008 00:38:34 | More by beachbum1975

Phyl21ca

Quebec (Canada)

2.53/5  rDev -33.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Bottle: Poured a light golden color ale with a medium pure white foamy head with good retention and some lacing. Aroma of Chiles and staled grain is not as interesting as I had expected. Taste is more geared toward Chiles then anything else and chocolate notes are very hard to distinguish. Body is about average with OK carbonation and no sign of alcohol. I kind of understand the experience but I am not sure why someone would want to drink this more then once.

Serving type: bottle

01-22-2010 03:02:46 | More by Phyl21ca

deapokid

Pennsylvania

2.53/5  rDev -33.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

As I poured this Aztec influenced ale, I was quiet surprised to find a golden and crisp liquid, instead of the jet black behemoth I expected.

Head is firm and sticky, if slight, and carbonation is lively. I'm reminded of a Helles or American Adjunct Lager, which is an odd look for a beer that supposedly tastes like cocoa and chili peppers.

Smell is a bit sweaty, featuring mild chocolate aroma, a hint of honey and some ground pepper. It's not necessarily unpleasant, but the onion notes are off-putting.

Flavor is rather one-dimensional, focusing all of its attention on the sweetness of the honey. It reminds me of a mead, carrying on that beverage's warming characteristics and alcoholic back end. I'm really struggling to locate any spice and I was hoping for a big blast of chili goodness to scorch my palate. Cocoa peaks out subtly at the conclusion, but the honey's cloying sweetness dominates the flavor profile.

Liquid is smooth initially, but the medicinal quality of the honey and the utter lack of balance make this stand out in a negative way.

I'd say that the untraditional aspects of this beer will be hard to take for most. I understand brewer intention and innovation, but I still think this is too focused on one ingredient to truly reflect the original nature of this beer. It would be much easier to take in a 12 oz. bottle, but, at 750 ml., it's hard to choke down.

Serving type: bottle

08-29-2010 16:23:51 | More by deapokid

claspada

New Jersey

2.55/5  rDev -33.4%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Pours a clear golden amber color with an amber/burnt orange flair when held to the light. One finger frothy off white head that quickly fades into a lasting ring with typical high alcohol minimal lacing.
Smell is kinda spicy and peppery with a decent amount of chocolate maltiness, small amounts of chili pepper, and earthy hops. Contradicting smells and aromas make this seem more/less desireable depending on your tastes.
Medium bodied with an unpleasant peppery spice characteristic which is not balanced particularly well by a silky chocolate maltiness. There's also hints of nuttiness, earthy hops, cloying alcohol sweetness, which creates a strong warmth in the finish. Tastes and flavors do not improve as the beer warms. I wish the chocolate and chilies flavors were stronger and that the beer overall was better balanced. Not worth the inflated price tag, if someone allows you to sample theirs, its worth tasting but no need to seek out on your own.

Serving type: bottle

07-28-2010 19:24:14 | More by claspada

popery

California

2.58/5  rDev -32.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Draft, City Beer Store. The second of a pair of way too sweet DFH beers from tonight's stop at CBS. The beer looks thick and odd, mustily golden in color with no head to speak of. The aroma is oddly light and off. The malt smells musty with, maybe, an aluminum touch. There's a light chili pepper note and an extremely faint shade of cocoa that I might be projecting given expectations. The flavor is unapologetically sweet. There's a blandly sweet honey note, a bit of chili pepper in the finish and not much else besides so-so malt. Mouthfeel is unfortunately oily and thick. There isn't much alcohol, for what it's worth. I had trouble getting through a 5 ounce pour and can only imagine that a solo attempt on a full bottle would have ended with a trip to the sink. Sorry, Dogfish. I really wanted to like this one.

Serving type: bottle

03-05-2010 06:30:41 | More by popery

jneiswender

Massachusetts

2.58/5  rDev -32.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Served from a wine-like bottle into a pils glass. Cool.

A-strawberry roan, gold, with an off white head.

S-candy, m+m's

T-candy, milk chocolate, corn chip, boozy finish

M-medium,

D-I tried this beer all sorts of ways. Cool, warm, cold and none of them gave me much in the area of flavors advertised. Maybe the annatto more than any of the advertised additions. It doesn't taste bad, just not as advertised.

Serving type: bottle

12-23-2010 17:02:53 | More by jneiswender

originalsin

California

2.6/5  rDev -32.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

From Notes nearly 6 weeks old. Man have I been busy...

Had on tap at the Shep.

When I saw this classified as a chile beer my stomach sort of retracted. I've never ventured into such unfamiliar territory. The beer that founds its way to me on the bar wasn't frightening, though.

Pour is a nice light amber with a small foamy white head capping the brew. This beer smells and tastes very interesting...

It's sweet and spicy all at once. Smells of honey and spices come through. The taste, while interesting, wasn't enjoyable for me. I struggled to finish my glass. The cocoa makes its presence known, as does a little bit of a kick from the chile. There's a sweet honey presence as well.

I guess this is simply a case of "one mans trash is..." I'm a big DFH fan but this one won't be passing my lips again anytime soon.

Serving type: on-tap

08-21-2009 00:59:08 | More by originalsin

Bravo4

Kentucky

2.6/5  rDev -32.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Poured from the bottle into a Duvel glass.

A-Deep golden color with extremely small white head. The head dissipated very quickly and left no lacing. Highly carbonated and opaque.

S- The smell isn't very strong but I definately detect honey and chilies. Upon second sniff, it smells a lot like pineapple. My sense of smell isn't very good though.

T- It almost has a wheaty taste with strong hints of honey and cocoa. It follows up with the flavor and warmth of the chilies. Alcohol is almost undetectable.

M- Very fizzy mouthfeel due to the high carbonation. It's pretty light and slick with some warmth from the chilies and alcohol.

D- I would rate this as decently drinkable if not for the ABV. This one could sneak up on you. The alcohol is almost undetectable. This one ended up making me sick to my stomach by the end of the bottle. I'm sure that isn't everyone's experience but I didn't like it.

Serving type: bottle

07-19-2010 21:13:39 | More by Bravo4

drowninginhops

South Carolina

2.63/5  rDev -31.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: Hazy orange with thin quickly disspearing white head
S: Chocolate and a few other smells i cant destinguish.
T: Chocolate, faint chili (I eat a lot of hot things so it would not register with me) and some others that are indistinguished.
M: thin in feel and carbonation.
D: meh. Not one i will be revisiting on my own accord.

Serving type: bottle

04-05-2011 01:12:51 | More by drowninginhops

jbriggs7036

Maryland

2.65/5  rDev -30.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Sorry DFH, but you can stop brewing this now.

A- Average...kinda thinking it would be darker but hey.

S- Not a bad smell, got a lot of quaint cocoa sniffs mixed with watered down honey, maybe slight chile burn, nothing awesome but certainly not bad.

T- AH! How did you do this to me DFH?!?!?!? Very sweet, but not the good kind of 120 minute sweet. It was like stale chocolate from grandmom's cupboard. Very slight honey and maybe a touch of chile. Extremely plain though, thats what got me, from what I was expecting i was let down.

M- Well, I do love the feelof beer in my mouth. Decent carbonation and no terrible burn.

D- No bueno

Serving type: bottle

02-11-2011 21:47:55 | More by jbriggs7036

pokesbeerdude

Colorado

2.68/5  rDev -30%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

$14 for a 750ml, purchased from Supermarket Liquors in Ft. Collins, CO. Into my DFH Signature glass, split with my girlfriend.

A: Pours a light amber/honey color with a white head, not much retention, and a fair amount of bubbles moving from the nucleation point. A few gobs of lacing here and there. Nothing impressive.

S: Right up front I'm hit with a huge nose of wet dog. Under that are some sweet honey notes and some spicy notes of chili peppers as well. Maybe just a hint of chocolate way in the back, and some booze as well. Maybe a hint of grainy malt. Pretty tame in the nose.

T: Hugely disappointed here, I can taste the honey, and there is just a taste of chocolate, and I'm not getting any spice or pepper notes here at all. So far the only thing on the label coming through is honey. Everything else is practically gone. Tastes similar to Midas Touch. No noticeable hops, but I figured as much. Maybe just a hint of spice comes through but definitely no flavors of Ancho's. Bummer.

M: Fairly light, with a medium body, remarkably dry and just a bit warm and boozey. Meh.

D: I can't say that I like this, the flavors that the bottle advertises are not there and are insanely subtle, or non-existent. I had pretty high hopes for this beer, like i do the other "historic" beers, but once again, I'm a bit disappointed. Price tag is steep, and this just is disappointing.

Serving type: bottle

08-07-2010 22:33:34 | More by pokesbeerdude

Crosling

Colorado

2.7/5  rDev -29.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Light golden colored ale with a long lasting white head of cream. Nose isn't lacking in its vibrancy, but doesn't have a lot of complexity. Flavor is very sweet, with a honeyed fruit character. Mead-like. Not a complex beer, but interesting and pleasant tasting.

Serving type: bottle

11-15-2008 04:30:25 | More by Crosling

BuckeyeNation

Iowa

2.7/5  rDev -29.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Sunny Sunkist tangerine with light showers of fine yeast. With cocoa powder and cocoa nibs as ingredients, I was expecting the beer to be much darker. The ecru-ivory colored cap is on the crackly side and isn't very sticky. A few sorry scraps of melty foam are all that make it to the glass.

The nose is different in a way that is hard to put into words. It's fruity and spicy, although none of the rather unconventional ingredients are appreciated per se. I'm probably talking myself into smelling the cocoa powder. In the end, the aroma isn't very interesting, which is the one thing that I thought this ale would have going for it.

The story behind Theobroma's inspiration and creation is available at the top of this page, so I won't recount it here. Suffice it to say that this is another one of those Dogfish Head historically-accurate brews that could have done anything from succeed admirably to fail miserably. It does neither, but it comes disappointingly closer to the latter.

Carob (or malted milk) is the first flavor that engages the taste buds. It's quite an odd vibe coming from such a lightly colored beverage. Honey contributes a light sweetness without adding much flavor. Ancho chile adds a modest amount of heat and possibly a little earthy flavor as well. Annatto is supposed to be slightly sweet and peppery, but then how would one know with honey and chile peppers in the house?

In the end, the flavors never really come together into a unified whole and simply aren't interesting enough to make me want to keep on keepin' on. Historical interest aside, this simply isn't very good beer. On a positive note, almost no alcohol is appreciated on the palate. The central nervous system is another matter entirely.

The mouthfeel is no great shakes either. It's medium in heft, is somewhat slick, and lacks bubbles, which leads to a lack of volume and a shortage of creaminess. It looks like 'look', also known as appearance, is the highlight.

Theobroma is not one of Dogfish Head's better efforts. I appreciate that Sam likes to push the envelope (and I applaud him for it), but good beer has to be the end result or nothing else matters. For my money, Chateau Jiahu is the much better 'ancient civilization pottery fragment residue recreation' beer.

Serving type: bottle

08-31-2009 21:03:06 | More by BuckeyeNation

magictrokini

California

2.7/5  rDev -29.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

An amazingly disappointing beer. Poured a clear yellow-gold with a flat white head that disappeared as rapidly as it appeared. No lacing. Nose was full of honey with hints of cocoa and earthy spice. Very, very faint chile aroma in the nose. Flat, kind of sticky mouthfeel with a long finish. Taste was lackluster. Lots of honey, as in I questioned whether this was a mead. The honey nearly drowned out the cocoa and earthy spice. No chile to speak of. No anchos, no spice. I want to say I could feel some "warmth" but think that was more wishful thinking that I could actually taste the chile.

Serving type: bottle

09-01-2009 19:40:02 | More by magictrokini

adamette

Ohio

2.73/5  rDev -28.7%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Live review. Poured from a 1 pint, 9.4 oz. bottle into my DFH pint glass. Purchased at Warehouse Beverage on Mayfield in Cleveland for $11.99 about two weeks ago. No "freshness" date or :"best by" date as was on the Sah'tea bottle that I purchased at the same time which stated it was bottled in 2009.

A Initially there was a nice head but this quickly dissipated and I do not see significant lacing over a rather pedestrian light brown/orange translucent body without significant carbonation rising up. 3.0

S Malt sweetness with some alcohol. I do not smell the chocolate that is mentioned in the brewing process on the label. This remains an inviting smell to me as I enjoy malt prominent beers. 4.0

T Now THIS is an odd beer. There is the malt sweetness and the alcohol kick but there is, in my opinion, a third unwelcome and seemingly out of place taste that I did not expect. I am not sure how to describe it. I will sip a few more times and try to formulate a description...I think that it might be some type of a barley or maybe a spice or pepper of some kind but it is something that I do not like. I just read the label and I think that I found what it is...the ancho chilies... Anyway I do not like this taste as it is harsh. I have to say that I am dissapointed that I do not taste much of any of the Soconusco Cocoa nibs or the cocoa powder. 2.5

M Well, a big beer for sure due to many factors: 1. big malt presence 2. big ABV 3. Ancho Chilies. The alcohol and the chilies provide a bite that is almost too much. 2.5

D Not that good. I will finish at least one pint but I am not sure that I will drink another. Several minutes after I wrote that I drain poured the rest of the bottle. 2.0

Notes: Ambitious DFH have went for it with this beer and I love that enthusiasm but this was a difficult beer for me to drink. The craft beer community is richer for DFH, though.

Serving type: bottle

08-09-2009 06:10:44 | More by adamette

lacqueredmouse

Australia

2.73/5  rDev -28.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Purchased in the USA at the wishes of @LaitueGonflable and brought back to share with him.

Pours a surprisingly light coloured orange yellow, with a fine bubbled head of white. Some sudsy lacing, and a moderately heavy, but not outrageous body. It looks rather tame, considering I know what's in it.

Really very little on the nose, almost nothing in fact. Perhaps a little capsicum, mixed with a bit of ass. Certainly something a little feral and organic. Meh.

Taste is also very thin and not very interesting. Some astringent booze characters, with a very light spice and a twang of crushed organics on the back. Not a lot of cocoa hints, although the organics may be attributable to unroasted raw nibs. Feel is wickedly thin.

Wow, it's not even that interesting, when I expected it to be challenging and perhaps a little disturbing. It ends up tasting more like malt liquor than anything else. Minimal character from the chilli, the cocoa nibs, or anything, leaves it coming out rather thin and insipid, with just a big alcohol burn for your troubles.

Serving type: bottle

01-29-2011 03:34:32 | More by lacqueredmouse

laituegonflable

Australia

2.75/5  rDev -28.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a metallic golden colour with slight dull haze in the body. Head is unimpressive, thin rim of foam but lace is beautifully sticky and dense. Yeah, looks alright.

Nose is quite nutty and grainy, sweet with some stone fruit esters and some brown bread grain. Touch of chestnut on there as well, slightly caramelised, and a slight phenolic note hidden at the back (maybe Belgian?) Can't really fault it, except that I can't find any of the characters I was expecting either.

Taste has a sweetness for the most part, quite grainy especially on the mid, with slight caramel malt notes on the front becoming slightly bready with sourdough character as well. Finishes quite phenolic with a cough syrup hint and a touch of white peppery yeast as well. Not really bad, but not really very flavoursome either, and moreover, where's my cocksucking chilli? (Little nod to our mate Don Russell there) Some nice notes, but all lacking.

A bit lacking on the feel, allows the carbonation to show through too prominently. Don't love it.

Yeah, not a bad drop as a beer, but I find myself very uninspired by this.

Serving type: bottle

02-03-2011 01:23:51 | More by laituegonflable