Brux Domesticated Wild Ale - Sierra Nevada Brewing Co.

smchenry75

Indiana

2.2/5  rDev -42.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

This beer is really not very good at all. I am a huge fan of sours. This is just bad. Not very sour or flavorful. Rather boring and unbalanced... Hops are way out of place here. I wish I had more to say to get to 250 characters. This was a quick drain pour. Going to go crack a Westy 12 as an apology to my palate.

Serving type: bottle

08-05-2012 20:06:04 | More by smchenry75

OldPenguinHunter

California

2.49/5  rDev -35.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Popped the bottle a few days ago, was pretty disappointed... Poured into a tulip.

A. Fizzy and golden, maybe a bit too over-carbonated, sustaining head.
S. Band-aids and tart fruit
T. Sour dough bread, a bit of nutmeggy-ish spice, very dry and sort of anti-septic.
M. Very dry, the carbonation explodes into a pillow-y foam on the tongue.
O. I can see some Orval-esque notes in the beer, that may just be the Brett. Brux. but I can't get over the flaws, the beer tastes antiseptic and smells like Band-Aids.

Serving type: bottle

02-07-2013 19:57:37 | More by OldPenguinHunter

jethrodium

California

2.55/5  rDev -33.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

750 ml bottle. Pours a slightly hazy golden amber with a small white head that disappears quickly and leaves no lacing. The aroma is green apple, apricot, and a light peppery note. There is a light funky brett earthiness, but not much. The initial taste is sweet with green apple, a bit of brett earthiness, and some apricot. The finish has a hint of brett and some lingering apple. Medium body. Low carbonation. This was quite disappointing. It's too sweet for the style and there is not much brett funkiness. It will probably improve with time, but I'm not going to buy more bottles to find out given the price.

Serving type: bottle

07-18-2012 20:20:05 | More by jethrodium

UnderPressure

South Carolina

2.58/5  rDev -32.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Slightly hazy, golden orange. Very fizzy head, which quickly melts to a ring. Highly carbonated. I don't see much lacing, if any.

Tangy and sour aroma. A slightly sweet backbone, and some hops.

Unusual flavor. Not what I was expecting. Aside from the sourness, there is an emptiness to the flavor. Some might describe it as "watery."

The emptiness carries over to the mouthfeel. The carbonation is very high, and explodes as it enters your mouth. The finish is dry and lingering.

I'm sorry to say, I didn't like this beer very much. Normally, I love wild ales and sour beers. But, this one didn't have much going on in the flavor department. Generally speaking, I would prefer a bolder flavor and mouthfeel.

Serving type: bottle

11-25-2012 20:50:18 | More by UnderPressure

Flashy

Vermont

2.65/5  rDev -31%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

From a bottle purchased at a reliable, high turnover store. This beer smells like a skunked bottle (and at $15 I hope to g*d it was fresh)- but I think that this is the way it is supposed to taste.
Sour tasting, but clean, if you want to say anything nice- at $15 a bottle- never again. I am used to pretty much anything. I had high hopes for these brewers and made the purchase based on their rep, but will look before leaping next time.

Serving type: bottle

12-08-2012 00:08:09 | More by Flashy

ZippyThePinhead

California

2.8/5  rDev -27.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

For $14 per bottle, I was really expecting to be wowed by this. Did I miss something here?

In the cigar world, new cigars that sell for small money are commonly regarded as dog rockets. The mentality is, if the cigar is good, the price should reflect that, and if it is not, well, the price is a tacit admission of quality, etc.

Is the same happening in the beer world?

This is definitely drinkable, as it should be for $14 per 750 ml, but it does not seem extraordinary in any way. In fairness, my palate is a little compromised today, after drinking some IPA, but still... this comes across like a home-brew that got some Brett contamination, not like a bottle of $14 store beer.

Serving type: bottle

08-10-2012 00:09:25 | More by ZippyThePinhead

yamar68

Minnesota

3.03/5  rDev -21.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Pours a still honey gold with an extremely lively white head that eventually settles to a thin collar that laces minimally.

Lots of clove, wheat, some honeycomb notes, green apple, fresh yeast flavors, nothing too funky as of yet.

BRUX? What brux? It's like a faintly tart, heavy weissebier with hooves. That said, there are elements of cereal malt, fresh spices, wheat, not too complex in my opinion. I hope the other bottle does a LOT of evolving before I open it. Very average on the tongue.

I think it's a shame that one of the first beers to see widespread distribution with the Russian River name is so ho-hum. I hope a year in the cellar will prove me wrong.

Serving type: bottle

09-04-2012 03:48:22 | More by yamar68

hardy008

Minnesota

3.13/5  rDev -18.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours a hazy light orange marmalade color with a large foamy white head which fades pretty quickly down to less than one fingers width and then vanishes. Leaves no lacing. I can smell the Brett pretty clearly, as well as horse blanket, green apples, and funk.

The taste is less acidic than I thought it would be, and less acidic than I hoped for. There is some apple, grapes, light Brett, and mild tartness from the Brett. Actually tastes somewhat sweet. This doesn't taste bad, but it does taste like it didn't come together the way it was intended to.

Light bodied with above average carbonation, and a slightly sweet aftertaste, and a slightly sticky mouthfeel. Like I said, this doesn't taste bad, but it does taste like it didn't come together properly. Overall, not a successful collaboration.

Serving type: bottle

10-06-2012 02:32:48 | More by hardy008

feloniousmonk

Minnesota

3.18/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Brux Domesticated Wild Ale, A Russian River & Sierra Nevada Collaboration. A dry and complex Belgian-style ale refermented in the bottle with Brettanomyces bruxellensis. Brewed and bottled by Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, Chico, CA, in collaboration with with Russian River Brewing Company.

Caged and cork, 750 ml bottle. Clear, bright amber color, under a slim white head that dissipates quickly.

Aroma: this one will take some time, as it's not throwing out any ordinary flavors or associations. There's some fruit, but no sweetness, no hops, very dry, and none of the typical descriptors for a sour brew come out of this nose. There's some of that horse blanket rearing it's head, now, some of the cat pee shows up, some of the funk.

Taste: lean bodied, short finish, light on flavor. Mild malt character, negligible hop contribution, but the yeast is felt, and tasted. The cat pee returns to the flavor, hints of lemon, dry, yes, again, but , alas, there's very little of anything else going on.

I'll take a minute to read the label. "What began as a mutual admiration between Sierra Nevada's Grossman family and Russian River's Cilurzos has grown and progressed into genuine friendship. Brux began as an idea and has grown into something altogether different. …The liquid manifestation of change over time….Refermented in the bottle with Brettanomyces bruxellensis, Brux will change and develop over time. Copper-colored, dry and complex, with slightly tart notes of green grass, pear, spice and lemon---this ale will progress in the bottle for many years."

Well. damnit, why didn't I read this first? Why did I make the dunder-headed move of actually drinking this bottle fresh and expecting something good, when I should have sat on it for years, to see what happens when it develops? Will it gain flavor, where now it has virtually none?

I'm sorry, but beers should be judged based on how they taste when they're placed on the shelves. This one as it is should be filed under: "meh." No, wait, make that "Blah."

Serving type: bottle

08-27-2012 08:54:20 | More by feloniousmonk

jmaharaj

Maryland

3.2/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A- Golden orange. Fleeting head.
S- Easily its strongest showing. Crisp, clean and fruity-sour. Green apples, pears and a nice spicy backdrop.
T- A little dissapointing. The elements were there but they seemed flat together. Strong belgian yeast flavors dominate and the fruits make a brief appearance that trails of into a spicy dry tartness. Not much funkiness at all.
M- Delicately carbonated. Medium light body, maybe a touch oily.
O- Not bad. An average belgian, but a dissapointing wild ale. Perhaps I built myself up a little too much for this one. Sierra Nevada, Russian River and a Wild Ale? I was expecting a lot.

Serving type: bottle

07-22-2012 21:39:58 | More by jmaharaj

Alieniloquium

Florida

3.2/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

750 mL bottle poured into a pint glass.

Appearance - Golden orange. Big head that settles quickly to a continuous layer of foam. No lacing.

Smell - Extremely bretty. A little bit acidic. Earthy brett aroma. Slight apple aroma too.

Taste - Overpowered by brett. Sharp acidic flavor, but not sour. Slight fruity malt flavor comes through before an earthy brett takes over. Dry with a slight bitterness in the finish.

Mouthfeel - Very dry. Brett has made it feel light. High carbonation.

Overall - The second brett bomb of the evening. This one hasn't fared as well as Saison du Swamp. Many similarities, but this is too bretty.

Serving type: bottle

04-01-2013 00:46:28 | More by Alieniloquium

chugalug06

Colorado

3.23/5  rDev -15.9%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Orange in body color with a fluffy white head. Head rises and falls quickly.

Smells bugged with orange and lemon. Not picking up much tartness.. Bready, funky, and sticky.

Lots of dry sticky pear. Brett stands out. No tartness, unfortunately. High carbonation with nice sweetness.

I couldn't drink much of this, but it's very nice for an Sierra Nevada Collab. I wish RR would have taken the upper hand.. Recommended, just not in large quantities.

Serving type: bottle

09-06-2012 01:59:16 | More by chugalug06

crissy456

3.23/5  rDev -15.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured a nice fluffy head. The look of the beer was cloudy/ hazy / orangey. To me, it smelled yummy, i smelled a lot of fall spices, which i love. Taste is not awful but it is obvious that it needs to age I do wish I would have saved the bottle for a year.

Serving type: bottle

10-20-2012 17:45:15 | More by crissy456

ThisWangsChung

Maryland

3.28/5  rDev -14.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Thanks to Jay for the bottle! about 10 oz poured into a Duvel tulip.

A: Pours a amber-copper color with nice clarity. The tulip helps create a stream of strong-looking carbonation in the middle. The head is a one finger white color with okay retention.

S: Some fruit esters, a bit of earthy hops, and *very* faint funk. If you told me this was just a brett-ed saison rather than a wild ale, I would have believed you more.

T: This isn't very impressive, especially for a wild ale. Faintly tart fruit esters help open the body, while the finish is somewhat expressive in grassy hops. I'm having a lot of trouble finding the brett, but concentrating the palate allows me to find slight touches of brett and sourness. It's okay, but it's not impressive.

M: I like that it's fairly light and dry, and the carbonation isn't insanely strong. Not perfect, but the texture is nice.

O: Decent, but not $15 decent. The process of aging this intrigues me - but not if I have to pay $15 for this again. Still, it's worth a try, especially considering it opens up nicely once it warms up.

Serving type: bottle

09-29-2012 20:45:59 | More by ThisWangsChung

Gameover170

Indiana

3.28/5  rDev -14.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.25

My second "wild" ale (first being a Stone) I was expecting big things from a Russian River/Sierra Nevada collaboration. I was pretty disappointed.

A-golden straw color, huge white head with no lacing

S- light fruity smell, very decent nose. Definitely smell the Brett

T- this was a let down. Expected a much bigger flavor. The "domesticated" in the title doesn't even do it justice. Too tame IMHO.

Not a terrible beer, I think the expectation of two great breweries (one with a great rep for wilds) working together was too much. That and the $17 price tag.

Serving type: bottle

03-10-2013 03:20:36 | More by Gameover170

wagenvolks

Texas

3.3/5  rDev -14.1%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

750ml corked & caged bottle into a (512) Anniv3rsary goblet.

Classy-as-all-hell, the packaging is immaculate. The appearance doesn't quite live up to the bottle, as the apple juice golden body is thin and spritzy. An off-white head retreats all too quickly to a scant ring of foam. The aroma turns things around easily, with a delicate, Brett-rich nose of white grapes, apple skin, musty barn, and hints of cut grass and malty nuttiness.

The flavor cuts across the palate sharply with an effervescence that leaves behind note of apple rinds and tangy, musty Brett in its wake. Not a lot of depth to the flavor yet, and the overall palate comes off as largely disconnected from the aroma--something Russian River wilds rarely do. Brux rolls across the tongue in a sea of large, unruly bubbles that seem to multiply as the sip lingers. Unfortunately, I was not all too impressed with this release. Unfortunate because I love both brewers, and unfortunate because this may be one of the only times a Russian River beer with be available on the Texas shelves...hoping that Brux gets better with a little age on it.

Serving type: bottle

08-13-2012 05:28:53 | More by wagenvolks

cpetrone84

Pennsylvania

3.3/5  rDev -14.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

pour is a golden copper, light haze, light tan extremely tight tan head with incredible retention. The nose is heavy green vegetal and leathery Brett. There is a light golden fruit note behind but struggling to make its way through. The taste is a complete flip, extremely sweet and almost candied. Pear, golden raisin, candied lemon. The Brett notes are faint, vegetal in back with light leather. Decent carbonation, maybe a touch light, oily slick feel on the tongue and faintly heavy.

Serving type: bottle

10-09-2012 16:31:39 | More by cpetrone84

HalfFull

California

3.35/5  rDev -12.8%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Standard 750 ml. bottle, corked and caged. Poured into a Belgian globe glass. The bottle offeers a firm pop yet doesn't burst at the seems as I for some reason expected. The pour is a deep golden with a half inch cap.

Interesting aroma with a touch of Brett and a touch of Tripel yeast battling things out. Offers an intriguing yeast profile yet without the singularity. Touch of funk, touch of sweetness and a touch of mystery.

Flavor is a bit simple, particularly with regards to the aroma. Touch of yeast and spice, bit average.

Ditto the feel on this one.

Overall a bit pricey for an 'ok' brew...

Serving type: bottle

08-08-2012 05:26:22 | More by HalfFull

Thads324

Connecticut

3.35/5  rDev -12.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

A : pours a clear yellow with a puffy and loose white head. Big froth with no lacing. Head dissipates quickly to next to nothing, similar to a fountain soda.
S: smells a bit sweet like a cider, faint vinegar notes. Maybe a bit of husky grains but they are light. Mostly like a tart hard apple cider smell.
T : starts watery, then both tart and sweet. Tastes mostly like a light cider. A bit of apple juice flavor mixed with pale malt grain. Both are light and easy going. The tart flavor is short. Very light on the flavor.
M : light bodied, slightly over carbonated (which is nice). Bubbly, easy drinking and free of alcohol.

Not bad but not what I really was expecting. Much too much like a cider and not many Belgian beer like characteristics. The best part is how well the alcohol is hidden. It's almost non-existent. Ok, but I would spend the money again.

Serving type: bottle

10-30-2012 00:26:03 | More by Thads324

rainydays2020

New York

3.36/5  rDev -12.5%
look: 4.25 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 3.5

Bottle into a tulip glass.

A- Hazy gold color with lots of white thin head

S- slight alcohol scent, grassy, slightly fruity

T- Very dry, Brett upfront, toasty, slightly fruity aftertaste

M- a bit light, somewhat slick, and heavily carbonated

I liked it (I'm a big fan of brett beers) but I should have saved this one in the basement. I think in a few years time the taste should improve (ideally the fruity character will increase) and the carbonation should decrease.

Serving type: bottle

03-30-2013 20:59:31 | More by rainydays2020

lacqueredmouse

Australia

3.39/5  rDev -11.7%
look: 3.25 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.25

A collaboration between Sierra Nevada and Russian River? Sign me up! Tall 750ml caged and corked bottle purchased from Slowbeer in Melbourne.

Pours a clear, bright, slightly coppery golden colour, with a fizzling head that froths at first, and the subsides to a very mild ring. Body is fine, slippery and light, holding some minimal carbonation. No lace. It's actually remarkably unassuming, and much less exciting than I thought it might be.

Nose is better. Definite earthy Brett tones, apple skin, sweet sugar toffee, fairy floss, some banana leaf. But it's actually much more subdued than I expected. There's a hint of funk, but no more, and certainly no wild acidity. I'm a little bit surprised and a little unenthused.

Taste is similarly subdued: in fact, perhaps even more so. There's that sugary sweetness coming through again, more toffee, laced with just suggestions of earthiness, some faint horsey tones, and some cherry- and apple-skin on the finish. Feel is exceptionally light and thin.

Overall, I'm massively unimpressed. This is tame, dull flat and uninteresting. Holy crap this needed something more: it really is lifeless. It ends up "domesticated" to such a degree that it's insipid, weak and unable to fend for itself in the wild.

Serving type: bottle

02-23-2013 03:57:49 | More by lacqueredmouse

beertunes

Washington

3.4/5  rDev -11.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured into Chimay chalice. Poured a hazy orange-yellow color with just a thin cap of off-white head that had no retention or lacing. The aroma had a nice grain base with just a mellow tartness around the edges and a nice yeast scent.

The taste was the same, a nice grainy, yeasty base beer (sort of Saison-like) with some mild tartness around the edges. The body was decent, thinner than I had hoped for, but crisp and dry.

Drinkability was good, the beer was fairly smooth. Overall, a very nice brew. I suspect they made this beer to be a bit more approachable to a wider customer base, so it isn't the big funkster us geeks might wish it was. Certainly worth trying if you see it.

Serving type: bottle

08-12-2012 22:00:03 | More by beertunes

The_Blodge

Ohio

3.4/5  rDev -11.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

A: Served in a tulip glass. Vibrant cloudy orange color with a one finger head that quickly disintegrates into nothing.

S: Tart and spicy. Alcohol notes are there, but don't overwhelm. Clean and floral. Cherries and oranges.

T: Sweet and tart. Sweet in the front, tart and funky in the finish. Hops are subdued, hardly recognizable. Grain lingers on the back of the tongue. Great taste...very unique.

M: Medium-light body with average carbonation. Really has just the right amount of body for this flavor combination.

O: Good beer. I am not overly familiar with this style, but I like it. Head and retention were basically not even there. Wine-like feel to the entire beer experience. I like it, but it didn't floor me.

Serving type: bottle

08-12-2012 23:22:09 | More by The_Blodge

merc7186

New York

3.43/5  rDev -10.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

I had this beer poured from a bomber into a pint glass.

A: Hazy Golden Straw Hue, Passes Some Light, Thick White Head, Decent Lacing

S: Mild Lemons, Mild Brett

T: Lemony, Mild Brett

M: Decent Carbonation, Light to Medium Bodied, Mildly Funky, Mildly Sour

Overall, I was pretty disappointed with this beer...this is Brett for beginners

Serving type: bottle

09-02-2012 00:32:03 | More by merc7186

farrago

New Jersey

3.43/5  rDev -10.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Hard to say it even has a head, all loose bubbles which evaporate even during the pour leaving nothing across the surface nor any lacing. That said, the carbonation could not be more aggressive visually, a maelstrom inside the glass, the liquid a light amber to rusty yellow color, clear and without any haze. The nose comes across as reluctant to share, starts to unfold and then pulls back, you kind of get half-offered yeast, matted field grasses, dried orange peels, uncracked peppercorns, dried apples and peaches, dried honey, are you getting it seems dried yet, truly not that funky and, as a result, maybe not as lengthy as it might be otherwise. Full-bodied, the high level of carbonation evident with each sip, churns inside the mouth, no settling down. Allowing for this, the sourness comes through crystal clear, some barnyard funk to animal fur accents. Lots of lemon, orange, grapefruit citrus but the texture dries it out even as there is indeed underlying juiciness. Attenuated apple, pear, peach fruit, the pepper and cut grass to hay fare better. What it lacks is decisiveness, decide who you want to be and go for it. Instead you get a dialed back version of a distinct personality.

Serving type: bottle

09-14-2012 01:26:10 | More by farrago