Ranger - New Belgium Brewing

jethrodium

California

1.28/5  rDev -66.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

On tap. Pours a clear light amber with a small white head that has decent retention and leaves some light lacing on the glass. The aroma is pine and dank hops, some light caramel, sugar cookie, and a lot of butterscotch. Quite nasty. The taste is sweet with piney and dank hops, caramel, and tons of butterscotch and buttered popcorn. Nasty butterscotch finish with a light bitterness. Medium body. Medium carbonation. This is one of the worst beers I've had. I only had a couple ounces of it. I'm assuming it was a bad batch, but I won't be ordering it again.

Serving type: on-tap

02-15-2012 19:17:34 | More by jethrodium

Savewaterdrinkbeer

1.8/5  rDev -52.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Pours good with nice head and lacing.

Appearence is medium-light amber. Moderate carbonation.

Very mild citrus with a little funky smell. Not very aromatic.

Piney with mild citrus notes, hoppiness over-powers flavor, very bitter after taste.

Watery feeling, goes flat quickly...you will notice if you cant get past the bitter after taste.

Overall, personally i wont buy again, ive had better that cost less!!

This is my personal opinion.

Serving type: bottle

07-04-2012 12:52:46 | More by Savewaterdrinkbeer

928BeerBlog

1.83/5  rDev -52.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Severely disappointed to find that this is an extra bitter brew (ESB) not an IPA. This is far too bitter to be considered an IPA. Who can drink stuff this BITTER? It made me sick to my stomach. This is SOUR like taking a huge bite of the white inside of an orange peel, unbearably bitter!

So sour in fact that I called them to see if they take pride in their brews. Apparently not seeing as how I had to suggest that they take down the batch number to see if others had concerns. The lady told me this beer is the #2 IPA, all natural and vegan & that they get a high volume of complaints?! Either label it right or recall the batch.

This is alcohol folks and improper brewing can be dangerous and can make people sick. How can you begin to review a beer that isn't made with pride? No accountability means you don't get my business.

I was trying to get to the bottom of why this beer turned my stomach after drinking it. It's a business with a bottom line.

Severely disappointed to find a failed attempt at beer,
as well as customer service.

NOT IPA.
Dangerous.

Serving type: bottle

07-03-2012 21:59:41 | More by 928BeerBlog

Rodekill

Colorado

2.1/5  rDev -45%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

I like the new look of the label, but the beer itself was disappointing. Thin body, no malt backbone. It tastes like fizzy hop water. The hop character is funky in every way - nose, bitterness and flavor. Perhaps a little more malt to back up the hops would help, but it's not a good beer at the moment. I like balance in beer in general, and especially in hoppy beers. This one doesn't deliver.

Serving type: bottle

02-22-2010 03:35:40 | More by Rodekill

AboutBeverages

Arizona

2.2/5  rDev -42.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Copper/red, yellow in color. Notes of hops in the aroma, with hints of herbs and fruit on the end. Initially mild on the palate, but then turns real herbal, and really dries out the tongue. Some metallic notes were picked up the finish. Overall, very dry and not well balanced.

Serving type: bottle

04-14-2010 03:10:19 | More by AboutBeverages

klmcmachen

Texas

2.25/5  rDev -41.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

I love New Belgium Brewing products, but this was hard to swallow. The smell was very hoppy with a hint of mid-eastern spices. I also smelled something like a desert weed. The taste was not like it smelled. It tasted like grass brewed in hairspray. I was very disappointed. This was my first IPA and I will have to say it will take a lot of courage to try another. Maybe I will have to grow my pallet for this style of beer. I will try some more and if my taste for IPA changes, I may revise this review. Otherwise I cannot say that I like it at this time.

Serving type: bottle

07-25-2012 14:02:26 | More by klmcmachen

Riccymon

Texas

2.28/5  rDev -40.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

Pours from the bottle a surprisingly clear, orangey-brown cider color. About a half inch of white head. Smell is new to me for an IPA; immediately there's a pencil eraser/Windex note, though it's not necessarily unpleasant, just odd. Light mint and lemon join in. Taste is pretty bitter at first and that chemical/plastic flavor is still there, but malt and minty hops join in an odd Goldfish-cracker finish.

Body is pretty light and easy-drinking, but a harsh, salty bitterness settles in the throat, making for mouthfeel characteristics that I don't enjoy. The combination of strange flavors and the unpleasant mouthfeel didn't make this a good drinking experience. Drainpour.

Serving type: bottle

03-05-2010 04:11:34 | More by Riccymon

WhatsNewinBooze

Colorado

2.28/5  rDev -40.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

This was one of the weakest IPA's I have ever tasted. Most pale ales have more hops than this beer. But it is a good interduction into IPA for people who have never tried one before, since it is smooth and easy to drink. I am not a fan but I can see how people would like this anyway

Serving type: bottle

03-07-2010 19:31:39 | More by WhatsNewinBooze

kojevergas

California

2.3/5  rDev -39.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

33cl brown glass bottle with standard pressure cap served into a Hard Rock cafe hefeweissbier glass in low altitude Los Angeles, California. Reviewed live, unpaired with food.

A: Pours a four finger head of fair cream and thickness, and good retention. Colour is a clear yellow-gold. Generally appealing.

Sm: A mild strength aroma of citrus ester hops and barley.

T: Citrus ester hops indeed dominate - mainly badly handled grapefruit - but they're curbed near the climax by unwelcome bittering hops and off cream. The first half starts out decently, but it trainwrecks at the climax, ruining the balance. The flavours were chosen alright, but the structure and balance are where the problems lay.

Mf: Smooth and wet, but indistinct and certainly not tailored to the flavours. The thickness is strange as well.

Dr: The quality - or relative lack thereof - makes it difficult to drink. The price isn't that great especially as part of a variety pack. I won't be having it again. A relatively high ABV.

Serving type: bottle

08-21-2011 02:25:37 | More by kojevergas

MrOH

Pennsylvania

2.3/5  rDev -39.8%
look: 5 | smell: 4 | taste: 1 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Brilliant light gold with a solid finger and a half of tight foam. Excellent retention. Spotty lace.

Resinous and citrus hops on the nose. A good amount of earthiness, as well. Slight toast.

Resiny at first, followed by earthiness, followed by foul B.O. taste. Gross. No malt to speak of. Very bitter on the finish with lingering bitterness.

Medium bodied with good carbonation.

With the exception of that horrible flavor and a bit too much bitterness, this would be a very good IPA.

Serving type: bottle

11-27-2011 07:13:23 | More by MrOH

Murchmac

California

2.35/5  rDev -38.5%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1

Was hoping this beer was good as i've heard so much about it.

Poured brilliant, smelled brilliant, tasted awful.

Ive only had two beers by New Belgium that are any good, 1554 beer and La Folie. All their other beers taste like some variation of fat tire.

This brewery is the rogue of the rocky mountains. A couple good beers, the rest all have the same mediocore taste.

Serving type: bottle

12-24-2010 06:23:16 | More by Murchmac

Soneast

Wisconsin

2.48/5  rDev -35.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Pours a clear, golden color with a 2 finger thick, dense, cream colored head, with great retention, a thin layer hanging on through the whole glass, with moderate lacing.

The aroma is clearly hop forward, with a fair amount of pineyness on the nose in addition to a decent citrus character, as well as some sweet honey-like, pale malt notes.

The flavor starts out with some decent hop character, predominately of the citrus/pine variety with some herbal in the background towards the finish. The malt flavor takes over pretty quick, leaving a buttery caramel impression, the finish has a "harsh bitterness" to it that ends on a relatively sweet, butterscotch note, leaving an uncomfortable bitterness on the palate.

Ranger is a decent IPA...it doesn't excel in it's category, but the hops are showcased fairly well, though I perceive a touch of diacetyl in the finish, plus there is a unusual sweetness that drops in at the end that ruins the hop character. The finishing bitterness is quite harsh, with an almost metallic character. ***The last two bottles of this beer have been sitting in my fridge for over 3 months now. I just can't bring myself to drink them when I have FAR batter IPAs in there. That to me is indicative of the quality of this beer....it's just really not good. Consequently....lowering my grade.

Serving type: bottle

03-20-2010 00:22:40 | More by Soneast

Reaper16

Alabama

2.48/5  rDev -35.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

12oz. bottle served into a pint glass

Pours an ultra-clear light amber. This looks like a lager; like a bock or something. The head sits at two solid fingers of white fluff. This doesn't look like many IPAs but it is pretty. The lacing does its thing admirably as well.

The beer smells soapy and spicy with a faint sense of grapefruit. The hops, that is, smell that way. Some pine, too. I'm expecting the malts to shine and become assertive and, though it takes a while, it happens. It smells pretty sweet. Meh.

Sweet, sugary malt is what this supposedly American-style IPA tastes like. The hops? Ummmm, let me try and find them again. *dives down* *minutes pass* *surfaces* Welp, I found a couple but that's it. There is some light grapefruit but it leaves the palate quicker than the average length of term for a CTU Director on "24." There is no hop bitterness. There is no finish. No aftertaste. This is disappointing and I came in with low expectations.

This is pretty thick for an IPA. I've had double IPAs that are thinner. And if you've read my reviews then you know that I personally prefer a light mouthfeel for hoppy beers. I have mixed feelings about the drinkability. One one hand the beer is light and super-easy to drink. On the other hand it is as boring as the first 15 episodes of season 8 of "24."

This beer might score more favorably as an Amber Ale. As an IPA? Nope.

Serving type: bottle

04-13-2010 01:57:41 | More by Reaper16

david131

Michigan

2.48/5  rDev -35.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A- A clear, light orange liquid with a thin white head that leaves some nice lacing.

S- Steamed asparagus, butter, lemon, and lots of pepper. Normally a beer of this nature tend to be repulsive to me, but it works better than most here.

T- Oh man... This is not good to me. The asparagus, butter, and pepper really take over and makes this very strange... The one redeeming value is the slight watermelon aspect. Still, I can't get into this at all.

M- The carbonation keeps it spicy and it has a lasting dryness associated with the bitterness.

D- Overall, the asparagus aspect to this really killed it. Not gross though.

Serving type: bottle

04-29-2010 04:30:24 | More by david131

dpnelson1978

Minnesota

2.5/5  rDev -34.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

22 oz. bottle into glass pint.
40°F

$3.99 / ea.

Bottled: June 9, 2010
Enjoyed: September 6, 2010

A: Bright straw body topped with a big loos head that quickly dissipates leaving light lacing, and a thin creamy cover.

S: Citrus aroma with strong pineapple character. Sweetness in the background. Very simple, but enjoyable.

T: Strong resinous hop flavor that dominates the flavor profile, and builds, ultimately overpowering the hint of citrus that was present at first taste. Difficult to make out any malt flavor after a few sips. Unpleasant hop aftertaste.

M: Light body with heavy carbonation. Crisp despite the hop strength. I would have expected an oilier texture.

D: Difficult to enjoy this one out of the bottle. One glass is plenty, but age may be playing a role. The mouthfeel is adequate, and the aroma touches on greatness, but ultimately the flavor profile is too one sided to enjoy in volume.

O: This beer was much better on tap. I'm pretty disappointed with the bottled version, but age could be playing a role. I'll pay close attention the next time I pick up a bottle. It could very easily be the last time.

Serving type: bottle

09-06-2010 23:49:12 | More by dpnelson1978

BarrytheBear

Wisconsin

2.53/5  rDev -33.8%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

12 oz bottle pours a nice pale orange. Each sip leaves pretty legs down the side of my tulip.

Smell is muted fruitiness and a vaporous boozy quality that I'm not excited to pull from a 6.5% beer. If this is dry hopped, I'm not getting it.

What's happening here? Heavy solvent taste and bittering hops. Seems the Chinook are taking center stage. I realize balance is overrated, but this is an astringent mess. For the alcohol level, this beer does nothing to hide it. Bummer.

Mouthfeel and drinkability pull an average. Feelin a bit confused by this beer.

Really don't enjoy slamming a beer, because there are so many good beers, great brewers, and it's a tough gig. But, this is a major letdown.

Serving type: bottle

02-19-2010 00:16:28 | More by BarrytheBear

OremLK

Texas

2.58/5  rDev -32.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Poured a cold one from a sampler case into a chalice and let warm for a few minutes.

A: Pours golden, medium head which quickly fades, soft bubbles as you drink through the glass.

S: Pine, pine, citrus, more pine. Pine smell is too strong to be appealing. Would've liked more balance with the citrus.

T: Solid initially. Medium bitterness, nice hoppy citrus/pine at the start. Not much malt backing, but fine for the style. The problem comes in with the aftertaste. It is VERY strong pine and follows the smell. After a burp I feel like I've just eaten a whole plate full of pine needles. Honestly kind of gross.

M: Perfect carbonation. A nice, drinkable pale ale in terms of the mouthfeel.

Overall: Not a big fan. Too much pine going on here, as I mentioned before. I don't think I will have another. I hope the amber and the Snow Day are better beers as I wasn't a fan of this one or the Trippel (due to the overwhelming coriander taste, but that's for another review).

Serving type: bottle

12-31-2011 20:03:06 | More by OremLK

alysmith4

District of Columbia

2.58/5  rDev -32.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Not a bad IPA, just not one of my favorites. The taste is a little lacking in flavor, in my opinion. It's just a bit one-dimentional. Appearance and smell are just about average, and the taste is mildly hoppy. Not much else to report. I've picked up this beer several times from the grocery store when there aren't many other options, but I'm usually not all that thrilled with it.

Serving type: bottle

08-17-2012 17:21:36 | More by alysmith4

Buebie

Minnesota

2.63/5  rDev -31.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Poured from a brown bottle into a pub glass. The pour produces a 2 inch white frothy head. Receding to leave a thin cap with sticky lace drageape. Color is a darker golden yellow. The ultra filtered look is not very appealing. Its crystal clear, like food coloring in water.

Aroma is a bit weak for the style, hops do not jump out in the traditional american ipa fashion. There are some jucy hop aromas, but they are very subdued. No malt aroma, some mild sweet butter, and a touch of fruity hops.

Taste is also quite thin, hops are better here, but flavors are subdued and almost watered down in taste and mouthfeel. I cannot understand how this was dubbed an american ipa, because it is not. Now had it been labled an epa, or pale ale, I would have likely given it an A. Mouthfeel is thin and water, some carbonation present.

Taste has some more mango fruit forward hop flavors and there is some mild malt sweetness coming forward.

All in all, go ahead and avoid this one if you are looking for smashing hops and a full flavored thicker brew.
Not pleased.

Serving type: bottle

02-10-2010 22:42:50 | More by Buebie

Bfarr

Washington

2.63/5  rDev -31.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

It pours a pleasant orange blossom honey color with nice lacey foam. A light piney hop aroma is persistant throughout. The taste is a spicey pine bitterness with an earthy subtext with a very acidic mouthfeel. A strong peppermint finishes out after swallowing.

This is a surprisingly strong flavored IPA. Unfortuanately, I don't think it's particulatly well balanced and is strong in areas of taste that I do not particularly care for. So if you really enjoy peppermint and pine, then you should love this one.

Serving type: bottle

03-06-2010 03:11:30 | More by Bfarr

spacholl

Minnesota

2.65/5  rDev -30.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

OH... Is this a beer or is it grapefruit juice? Get me my vodka and we can make a salty dog.

For real, the cascade is really pronounced. From the first wiff when you crack open the bottle all the way to the back of your throat. Even the burps taste and smell of cascade.

I don't taste any malt what-so-ever.
You know they used some because the beer is a honey color.

The thin head remains to the bottom of the glass and laces nicely down the side of the glass.

I have to say this is a totally one sided, unbalanced, glass of hop juice.
You all might like it.

Serving type: bottle

04-29-2010 14:12:32 | More by spacholl

thedindaniel

California

2.68/5  rDev -29.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured this from a 22 oz bomber into a standard pint glass. Had a nice two finger white head and a light, clear golden body. There was very weak aroma of grassy hops and I felt like I could smell some of the malts as well. As for taste goes, I almost forgot that I was drinking an IPA. It was so watery and bland that I almost felt like I was drinking a pale ale. I also noticed that it seems to have that "fat tire" after taste. Not sure if its the malts or yeast that they use. Overall, I drank this very quickly but didn't really enjoy it. I bought it because it was cheap and I was curious, but I would rather pony up a few more bucks for something of higher quality. Have I gotten spoiled with all of the wonderful IPA's available these days?

Serving type: bottle

02-17-2010 04:28:49 | More by thedindaniel

works4beer

Georgia

2.73/5  rDev -28.5%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This beer pours a luxurious golden color that is topped off by an enticing thick foam head. The effects of the carbonation that create this creamy white cloud releases an aroma of spicy pine infused undertones that is almost overbearing when drinking. The intense bitterness hits the tongue in a refreshing way, but the after taste of pine almost ruins the experience for me. It is a well crafted beer that almost gets ruined by the intense spicy flavor of pine that I do not find in some of my other favorites IPA's.

Serving type: bottle

06-25-2011 16:45:55 | More by works4beer

RedBrewer83

Oregon

2.75/5  rDev -28%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Aggressively poured into pint glass...

A: Pours a golden yellow that is crystal clear with a steady stream of bubbles floating upward. A huge four finger white foamy head forms and falls slowly leaving very nice lacing behind.

S: Incredibly lifeless...very faint grapefruit citrus aroma mixed with a little pine and the typical new belgium yeast profile is present.

T: This is pretty weak when it comes to the ipa category, even for a pale ale this is fairly mild. The hops seem very muted and very one note being faint citrus/pine and the yeast profile tastes like everything from else from new belgium. Imagine fat tire with less malt and a dash of hop and you get the ranger. Pretty lackluster for the ipa category.

M: Light medium body with active carbonation, fairly aggressive and balanced with the flavors, leaves that yeast profile lingering as always...

D: Fairly drinkable, maybe i'm just not a huge new belgium fan but this is pretty weak for an ipa all around save for the appearance, had high hopes upon pouring but thats where it ended for this one.

Serving type: bottle

02-22-2010 23:13:35 | More by RedBrewer83

appenzeller

Washington

2.75/5  rDev -28%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a medium gold with high clarity and a modest head. Looks like a lager. Smell is very resinous. Taste is a hodgepodge meld of pine, resin, lemon, bread, watery. No single offensive flavor but the synchronicity of flavors here is just unbalanced and, frankly, weird. Mouthfeel is a light hops bite up front, followed up by wateriness. Drinkability would be good, except who wants to drink multiple mediocre beers?

Seems like New Belgium was aiming for a crisp, clear IPA with nice light hoppy flavor (a "lagerlike" IPA). Unfortunately, they whiffed on this, I can't help but point to Alaskan IPA for a brewery that really nailed this style.

Serving type: bottle

08-12-2010 07:54:24 | More by appenzeller