Trappistes Rochefort 8 - Brasserie de Rochefort

DaveFL1976

Florida

3.53/5  rDev -18.7%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Ok, don't kick me out of BA because of this. But.... Rochfort 8? ehhh... not a fan.

My experience with the 10 was amazing. The 6 was memorable. But the 8? ehh.

The 10 is extreme. Intense sweetness and maltyness and complexity. The 6 is comparitively tame. The true flavors of the beer really shine through. The alcohol doesn't interrupt the party.

But in the 8, I found that the alcohol drowned out the intricate flavours. The flavours wern't as intense as they are in the 10 and were unable to compete against the alcohol. I just found it unbalanced.

So that's that. Maybe I got a bad bottle.

Serving type: bottle

08-22-2006 20:16:42 | More by DaveFL1976

oelergud

Virginia

3.53/5  rDev -18.7%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Close to being completely opaque the body is a muddy brown reddish color. Tan silken head with great retention and lace. Very little carbonation.
The scent has strong sweet and alcoholic notes. Some plum and raison. Brown sugar and almond as it warms.
Nutskin and molasses tastes along with raison and almonds. Hoppy aftertaste with a pretty dry finish.
Medium mouthfeel, no coating with was abit strange.
Ok drinkability, but not something I'll seek out again. Maybe if it wasn't so damn dry.

-Oelergud

Serving type: bottle

10-23-2006 23:50:49 | More by oelergud

korndog

California

3.53/5  rDev -18.7%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured great into a tulip with a nice head that quickly dissipated into a sea foamy surface with medium residual lacing that was there to stay. Black Cherry/fig aroma mixed with malt and medium alcohol giving this high rating on the nose. Tastes drier than the 6 from start to finish with a more leathery, peaty character. Highly carbonated. I am a little disappointed at this juncture. I feel that there is not enough malty sweetness backing up the rest of the flavor and alcohol notes. I tried one yesterday and thought my buds were off, or I had a bad bottle. This one had the same deficiencies. It's difficult to believe that the 6 is so significantly different to my palate, but that's the way it is.

Serving type: bottle

12-24-2007 02:49:24 | More by korndog

tai4ji2x

Massachusetts

3.53/5  rDev -18.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

bought a case to share with friends, from one of the importers here in beijing.

330ml brown bottle poured into tulip. "best by" date of 051212 (5th of dec, 2012 - ie, bottled five years before: 5th of dec, 2007)

bottle is a gusher however... (more on this later)

translucent amber brown, decent head fades to thin layer, but with somewhat minimal lacing.

scent is faintly medicinal with spice note. yeast hint. something is "off" however... hints of vinegar and funk... makes me wonder if this case wasn't stored properly in the warehouse.

flavor has woody notes, again some spices and a heavily caramelized malt note, with a moderate bitterness, but overall the taste also seems "off" again, with a sour funkiness that collides with the bitterness in the finish...

not too thin, but definitely OVER-carbonated. again, maybe a bad batch?

hmm... will have to secure a different batch for comparison. will do so ASAP.

Serving type: bottle

05-29-2008 08:48:39 | More by tai4ji2x

jmdrpi

Pennsylvania

3.53/5  rDev -18.7%
look: 5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

updated review:

bottle stamped 070715. appearance the same. aroma is better, more malty aroma- but still a bit of that odd "scented dishsoap" smell. I still think the taste is a bit one-noted, but it's better. mouthfeel is the same.

updated score: 5/3.5/3.5/3/3.5

***
330ml bottle. stamped 141014, which I understand to be "best by October 14, 2014". based on research, they are dated 5 years out from bottling.

initial pour into snifter is limited to 2/3 of the bottle, as the creamy head builds to about 3 inches thick and threatens to overflow the glass. a dark chesnutt brown color, but competely opaque, even when held to the light. smell is a wierd boozy soapy aroma.
oddly, the taste seems to lack the typical complex flavor of the style. raisin is the only flavor I pick up. not terrible, just very dissapointing.
mild carbonation and medium body.

based on the discriptions in the other reviews, I really wonder if I got a bad bottle. I'll try to pick up another one when I get the chance and re-review. I'll just give it the average 3 on drinkability for now.

5/2/2.5/3/3

Serving type: bottle

09-03-2010 02:44:50 | More by jmdrpi

PeatReek

California

3.5/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Even chilled to a medium-cool serving temp (~50F), poured ridiculously foamy. Head is huge, rocky, and just a tad off-white towards beige. Body is deep amber/copper with a touch of haze, not especially cloudy. Aroma is caramelly sweet and resinous, with a prominent floral hop component; maybe even edging towards lavender-soapy. Waiting several minutes for the head to die down so I can take a taste... Carbonation is very prominent, a sharp buzzing on the tongue throughout each sip. The initial taste is round and floral, with a somewhat abrasive and alcoholic bitterness. Then fruity sweet with a hint of prunes, and finally a sweet smoky finish. Hmm. Honestly it kind of tastes like someone poured Mad Dog 20/20 into a hoppy brown ale.

Serving type: bottle

12-23-2006 01:30:08 | More by PeatReek

sewald

Brazil

3.5/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Nice large and creamy head, with a cool lacing effect. Pale dark reddish colour. Smells of pepper, chocolate and a sweet smell of caramel. Low on carbonation. Tastes of different types of malt. Medium bodied with some fruity flavors on finish. Heavy on aftertaste, with some alcochol mouthfeel. A very bitter ale.

As other fellow BA member said, I think expected more from this beer. Not bad though.

Serving type: bottle

03-12-2007 21:18:12 | More by sewald

MrMcGibblets

Illinois

3.5/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

poured into a goblet, this had a thick, dark layer of sediment at the bottom which i left in the bottle. the appearance is a hazy amber/brown with a tan, creamy head and incredible lacing that does not want to go away. the first smell that hits me is a whiskey aroma. was this barrel aged? also notes of toffee, dark fruit, candied fruit, and some earthy mustiness. barnyardy kinda nose. taste is of sweet malts and alcohol with some of the above aromatics translating onto the tongue. a vague spicy character is present that i'm not familiar with. somehow the carbonation is still lively enough in this big beer to balance the sweet malts. any hop bitterness is in the background and difficult to pick up. this is a showcase of malt, yeast, and however they make this beer. mouthfeel is big-bodied but not as much as the abv lets on. long, warming finish with some alcohol burn. this is definitely a sipping beer, i couldn't do more than one of these, unless it was cold and i had a big, meaty cigar to pair with it. this is more reminiscent of a liquer or madeira than a beer.

Serving type: bottle

05-25-2007 04:21:46 | More by MrMcGibblets

magictacosinus

California

3.5/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Ahh, Rochefort. How I've missed thee. Their 10 blew me away over a year ago, and their 6 held up really well in comparison. I'm finally glad I get to revisit 8 for a proper review. Freshness date is "28/09/16," but I purchased this the first week of December 2011. Poured out of a 11.2oz bottle into a chalice.

Pours a dark, brownish color that from afar gives the impression of being Coke, especially with the enormous foamy head. Hard to spot carbonation in the darkness, but it seems there isn't as much as expected - not even through bottle conditioning. Looks hearty and welcoming overall, but not quite what I expected.

Aroma is strong, rich, but above all else, really nutty. I mean *extremely* nutty! If you're a fan of walnuts, roasted chestnuts, pecans, or any variety of rich nuts, look no further. The aroma here reminds me of all of them. I also am getting prunes, candied raisins, rum, and extreme yeastiness, but that nuttiness is very overpowering. The malts are also prevalent here, and I can barely make out any hoppiness under all of these aromas. It's good because it smells like a true meal, but I'm still crossing my fingers for the upcoming flavor.

The flavor starts out slightly fruity and yeasty - then quickly descends into an excessively malty and bittered roasted taste. While I'm trying to make out various flavors - such as dark fruits and smoked grains - I can't seem to get my palate to keep track of individual aspects that are occurring within this beer. Furthermore, while it seems to be equally complex and perplexing, I'm am extremely let down by the beer's body. This may be a bad batch, because I don't remember Rocheforts being this thinned. It's practically watery towards the finish, which is confusing (to me) for a beer this malty to feel this way! The alcohol is well masked - but maybe it *needs* to come out a bit more to make this reach full potential.

In short - disappointed. I really wanted to give this a great review, as Rochefort 10 is one of the greatest I've ever had, but it seems messy overall in terms of conflicting flavors and thinned body. Again, this may be a bad batch, but I have had this at least once before and it didn't blow me away. It perhaps seems to be too middle-of-the-road in between 6 and 10. But no matter what, it is still a good quality product that should be tasted, as it is very popular and well loved in the global beer community. I just find that there are far better (and cheaper) DBPAs or "imperial dubbels" that can be found out there.

Serving type: bottle

08-31-2012 08:13:43 | More by magictacosinus

liamt07

Ontario (Canada)

3.5/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

2005 vintage, from Sammy. Into a tulip.

Mahogany with a small but solid cap of offwhite head. Nose is potent, loads of nutty liqueur, dark fruits, plums, currants, brown sugar and some alcohol. Taste has some more nutty liqueur with some harsher than anticipated ethanol, oxidized in a light cardboard-y kind of way, and retains only mild dark fruit and brown sugar qualities. Watery feel, and ethanol (almost tequila-like alcohol) comes out again in the finish. Over the hill, and unfortunate. I'll need to try this much younger for reassessment.

Serving type: bottle

09-19-2012 02:57:27 | More by liamt07

TerryW

Ontario (Canada)

3.48/5  rDev -19.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Dark walnut colour with a moderate head that lingers a bit before settling away. Nice curtains of lace as you go.

A decent beer as it warms in the glass and gives up more of its character. Fruit and leather and the barnyard give it interesting features, but they're not married to well to the alcohol in the beer which has a sharp disruptive edge. Takes away from some of the relaxation lurking in the glass.

Some thiness on drinking, and flavours that are too quickly overwhelmed by the alcohol. Good, but needs polish.

Serving type: bottle

02-05-2006 23:03:43 | More by TerryW

scott

Ohio

3.48/5  rDev -19.8%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

I've waited to drink this ($6/bottle), so it should be special. Cannot say that it is. It is good, don't me wrong, but this isn't from a "'round the corner" brewer, so they aren't provided the leverage. Maybe it isn't in it's prime, because I truly taste ripened cider.
Earthy bouquet with a murky-as-the-Loch Ness body. The mouth is left with a lot of silt, like after an English Breakfast. Small head and very little lacing.
Smell is enticing and quite promising, but alas, far from alive.
I let it sit before consumtion and it didn't open up.
Darn it.

Serving type: bottle

09-26-2006 01:19:58 | More by scott

ccrida

Oregon

3.48/5  rDev -19.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 3

Poured from a 33ml bottle into my 70s era Westamalle chalice, the Rochefort 8 is murky brown with a 1 finger tan head that has fairly large bubbles and leaves moderate lace. I like the color and cloudiness, but I'd like to see smaller bubbles with a rockier head. My benchmark here is St. Bernardus 12, which looks much better.
The aroma is very rich but not that strong, malt, spicy yeast that touches on cinnamon and nutmeg, and fairly boozy. Of course, as it warms, it opens up, getting richer and sweeter.
The taste is richer then the aroma, toffee and toasted malts dominate the spiciness of the yeast, with a boozy finish that is mildly sweet yet clean. There are also notes of banana and clove, reminiscent of a dunkleweizen, though only one of many layers here. Still, there's a bit to much bitterness from the husk tannins, which distracts me from the deep character. I don't recall these being much of an issue with the 12, which of course is much richer. Overall, it is a bit more abrasive then some of the benchmarks of the style.
The mouthfeel is moderate, lighter then one might expect from it's appearance and ABV, with only a few streamers ripping through the glass, and a bit of texture from the soft yeast, which I purposely swirl up from the bottle for the last 1/2 inch, no decanting for me!
The drinkability on this is not the highest amongst the Trappists. There is a lot of dept to unlock, but I find the roastiness to be a bit much, and overall the taste is not so great that I just can't get enough. After this, I'm going to have to revisit the the 12, which I've always considered perhaps my favorite beer (and have had both in Europe and the US), because this was a bit of a let down. Good, but not fantastic, although I don't think I've had the 8 before, and preceded it with a pair of Westmalle tripel's, so perhaps I raised the bar to high. I just prefer to drink different beers in order of least to more robust taste, which is why I had this last.

Serving type: bottle

03-25-2007 01:24:18 | More by ccrida

Beerandraiderfan

Nevada

3.48/5  rDev -19.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

A cloudy brown beer. Aroma doesn't distinguish itself. Taste, sweet, must be the belgian yeast. A little buttery (not the spoilage kind). No hops. Might be one of those Belgians that add belgian sugar or whatnot.

Kinda light feel for a 9+%er. Alcohol remains very well hidden.

Mouthfeel, the body seems to get lighter throughout. Good. Kinda drinkable. This definitely is not my style of beer, but must recognize that it is well made, and exceeded my expectations.

Serving type: bottle

02-28-2010 01:30:58 | More by Beerandraiderfan

ptykozoon

California

3.48/5  rDev -19.8%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Large sizzling head eventually settles into a frothy layer. Dark brown, red in the light.

Alcohol, lots of nuts, spice, prune, grape (wine) in the background. Sweetness as well, but I can't quite place it. Smells delicious and complex.

Subtle, tastes almost, watery, bad bottle? I had bad luck with the 10 as well - I bought them together a year or so ago so think I came across a bad batch. In any case I get many subtle muted flavors and nothing strikes me that this beer is fantastic or even exceptional.

Very carbonated, almost soda-like - too much so I'll let it sit..Is this supposed to be so carbonated??

I wouldn't normally, but with a beer with this pedigree I plan to re-review. I really think there is bottle variation with Rochefort because I just had a Westy and there is literally no comparison. For reference the bottle info is: 141014/7:43.

Serving type: bottle

08-10-2011 02:57:58 | More by ptykozoon

number1bum

Pennsylvania

3.45/5  rDev -20.5%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a slightly reddish dark brown with a somewhat soapy/fizzy two inches of beige head. Head settles to a full, thick lace that leaves some patches of stick on the sides, too. Some yeast sediment is evident in the bottom of the glass and in the head, too.

Smell consists of dark fruits and some sweet candi sugar and malt. There are aromas of sweet red grapes, plums, brown sugar, maybe even some rum. The smell is quite nice but it's also on the weak side. Were it stronger it'd probably be a 4.5, but given the prominent booze in the nose it still wouldn't quite be perfect.

Even though the smell was weak, the taste does not live up to it. There is some candi sugar sweetness and nice fruity flavor, but there is also a tannic harshness and a strange dirt/woodsy flavor that doesn't seem to fit. Some grapey flavor, candi sugar, plums and some alcohol in the finish, too. Definitely improves as it warms, but still has the bitter tannins, in particular.

The mouthfeel is much too fizzy and has a wet cardboard sort of quality to it. Medium bodied but really not very smooth or creamy at all. Odd and disappointing.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed in this beer. I was really looking forward to trying it but I'm definitely let down. Not very smooth and a bit harsh and rough around the edges. Neither smell nor taste really popped, either. It was ok but I didn't really enjoy it as much as I thought I would.

I'm not convinced that this bottle wasn't kept very well or something, because it just seems a bit off to me. Reading other reviews, however, I see that others have given similar sentiments, so I'm just not sure. I'm going to pick up another bottle next week from another retailer and revisit this review as necessary.

Serving type: bottle

01-09-2009 00:01:03 | More by number1bum

taez555

Massachusetts

3.43/5  rDev -21%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

This beer poured a huge foamy whitehead with a dark opaque brown body.

The nose was a mix of alcohol, garbage, soft chocolate and malt.

Taste was very grassy and tea like. Medium to A sour and very present bitterness. Lots of dark and very muted caramel and chocolate malts. Sort of like someone turned the volume down on the dark roasted flavor. Mild dark fruit tones, some yeast and malt. A large carbonation that needs it’s time to settle.

Overall a very tasty trapist ale, not the greatest, but basically decent. The carbonation really overpowered the taste.

Serving type: bottle

12-16-2005 16:32:24 | More by taez555

PerzentRizen

Mississippi

3.43/5  rDev -21%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

I like this beer but I don't love it. I really think this might be my first true let down beer. It's just a belgian version of a brown ale. It's not all that spectacular to me.

Poured into a St. Bernardus apt 12 glass this beer has a dark brown, yet clear look, with a white puffy head that dies to nothing - no lace, nothing (after only 1 minute). So far it's not looking good (pun intended) for hold Rochefort 8.

I loved the nose on 10 but 8 is rather bland. There's not much going on at all. It's smell is much like a homebrew all grain wart I helped make last weekend (that was a rye wheat).

The flavors are much more refined and complex than the nose on this beer. I really didn't expect to have this marriage of malts. The first taste is toffee and caramel that is whisked away by the carbonation (a bit much for my taste - where's the head???). The next pour does coax a head out of hiding but it's gone as fast as it came. There is no hop character but I didn't really expect one after trying the 10.

Mouthfeel is light, a bit over-carbonated and a touch thin for my taste.

Drinkability is off the charts. For a beer over 9% abv this is an easy drinker. I couldn't decide between this and a barleywine for my after dinner drink tonigth, but I think this was a fine choice.

Overall, this is a good but not great beer. For me the 8 is a mere shaddow of the greatness that is Rochefort 10. Both are no match for St. B apt 12. I'm a bit dissappointed but glad that I can still be surprised; even if it's a bad surprise.

Serving type: bottle

05-21-2009 03:02:35 | More by PerzentRizen

enfield249

Michigan

3.43/5  rDev -21%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

A- Cloudy reddish brown, with a slightly off white head

S - Dusty, with a hint of fruit, maybe plums.

T - Funky, dark fruit, raisins, slight anise flavor, and candy sugar.

M - Full, with not to much C02.

D - Not bad, but I wouldn't want it every day. Very much a desert beer.

Serving type: bottle

03-06-2011 01:14:35 | More by enfield249

jmarsh123

Indiana

3.43/5  rDev -21%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This beer pours a light hazy brown with a small tan head that dissipates pretty quickly.

Smell is of raisins, bread and plums.

Taste is similar. Very much raisin/plum taste comes out with a little bit of malt. Finishes very dry with just a touch of alcohol.

Mouthfeel is light for what I was expecting. Lots of carbonation and not very sticky.

Not a huge fan of this one as there are better options for this style out there. It's a bit too sweet although the high alcohol content is hidden well.

Serving type: bottle

07-25-2011 21:52:52 | More by jmarsh123

falloutsnow

Illinois

3.43/5  rDev -21%
look: 5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

From: Friar Tuck's, Savoy, IL
Date: 070715 08:30
Glass: St. Bernardus chalice

I didn't really enjoy Rochefort's 8, and I was hoping for a show-stopping beer that would complement this very cold winter day. The ethanol was too pronounced, while other flavors were too muted. Perhaps this doesn't age as well as thought, because with two years of age on it, this is not a particularly good beer to me (if it ever was). One I might try again at some point, but only due to the songs of praise others drop upon it, and the ever-increasing price point for a single bottle is certainly not conducive to further experimentation.

Pours a 2cm tall head of beige colored foam, constituted by small bubbles, with above average retention, lasting over two minutes. The head fades to a 1cm cap atop the body of the beer, where it remains for the duration of drinking. Lacing is present, of moderate accumulation along the glass' sides, in various small shapes and lines. The body is a very dark garnet color, nearly opaque due to darkness, but slightly transparent when brought to light, which also lightens the hue of the dark red-brown coloration. Carbonation is active and visible, streaking up along the sides of the glass.

Aroma of sweet amber Belgian candi sugar, obvious ethanol, faint raisins, and dried brown figs. Overall, the scents are rather faint, and the only easily discernible ones are the sweet sugar influences and ethanol.

The flavor of the beer is primarily sweet, with hints of Belgian yeast and fruit esters, until the ethanol hits, which makes this come across as much harsher. Age has not, perhaps, been kind to the beer. Front of palate picks up mild sweetness and fruit esters (plum, grape, raisin). Mid-palate is of slightly musty Belgian yeast, amber Belgian candi sugar, ethanol, heavily faded raisins and plums. Back of palate is slightly bitter and astringent (ethanol and hop presence?) with ethanol, ghostly fruit esters, and sweetness that reminds me a bit of heavy, old-style cough syrup. Closes in a flash of hot, burning ethanol, leading to an aftertaste of more ethanol and some rum-soaked (heavy on the rum) raisins with Belgian yeast flourishes.

Beer is medium-bodied, with carbonation of medium-low intensity, resulting in a fizzy mouthfeel that gradually settles to a calm, smooth, slightly foamy flow. Ethanol is easily, aggressively felt in the nostrils, on the tongue, and the back of the throat. Not impressed at all. Closes semi-dry, with substantial stickines lingering across the palate.

Serving type: bottle

02-02-2013 03:20:10 | More by falloutsnow

Mosstrooper

California

3.4/5  rDev -21.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured from 11.2oz bottle into 300mL Krusovice chalice.

Appearance: Purs a dark caramel color with a very large tan head that dissipates rather quickly and leaves behind some tiny lace spots. Many bubbles around the inside of the glass. Also has lots of visible pieces of sediment floating around.

Smell: Weak smell overall- plum and slight yeast with alcohol.

Taste: Begins with sweet/tart grape and plum flavors, finishing alcoholic with a hint of yeast. Also has hints of caramel.

Mouthfeel: Fairly heavy body with sharp carbonation and a dry, warming, alcoholic finish.

Drinkability: This beer was actually a disappointment to me. I was looking for a nice, smooth, trappist ale and that is not what I got. This one lacks aroma, isn't very deep flavor-wise, the alcohol dominates a bit too much, and is too heavily carbonated. This is a good beer, but I don't see it as up to par with other trappist brews. I would have it again, though not if other trappist ales were available ahead of this one.

Serving type: bottle

08-19-2010 19:54:41 | More by Mosstrooper

TheEclecticGent

Georgia

3.38/5  rDev -22.1%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Had the bottled version of this beer in a beer tasting event. This beer has a thick cloudy deep brown color with a thick even light brown head and good lacing. The smell is rich with fermented fruit and leather. The taste, like the 10, is still lighter than I would expect, but better than the 10. The taste, although light, is of nuts and fruits and a bit of tannin. It has all the tags to be a great beer but it lacks a full flavor. It is better than the 10, I’m looking forward to drinking a 6 for the final comparison.

Serving type: bottle

01-12-2006 15:57:26 | More by TheEclecticGent

dedrinker

Kansas

3.38/5  rDev -22.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Murky rusty dark brown. Stagnant pond brown. But the light tan head has a nice soft smoothness to it. Faint aroma of yeast, musty, holiday spice. Faint-so faint, but pleasant. The flavor is dry cocoa and dehydrated tree fruit, maybe fig/ date. There is a certain bitter, phenolic/ medicinal grip to it that I find unpleasant, but in my experience that usually indicates that some cellaring is in order. These days I am leaning more towards the milder varieties - like the Rochefort 6, that offer the softened nuances and accessible complexities without the wait for the beer to mature. There is a bitter yeast and boozy flavor on the finish. I have had a better example of this, but it was a few years old. Age-away fellows. At least one year for this.

Serving type: bottle

01-07-2008 05:45:13 | More by dedrinker

BlackAura

Alberta (Canada)

3.36/5  rDev -22.6%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Rather than write my own review I'd just like to agree with the user Falloutsnow with their review.

I recently found a gift-box version of this ale that had been tucked aside at my local shop a few years prior. It was the only one remaining and I was happy to get a box of 4 already-aged bottles with a glass.

It poured beautifully and I was very excited by the initial aroma, however my first sip was not quite what I expected. As per Falloutsnow's review, there is a very strong ethanol flavour that I just can't get away from.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/207/1696/?ba=falloutsnow

I'm hoping to go back and pick up a fresh bottle to give it a try, as the bouquet when I initially opened it was amazing.

For reference my bottle is "best before" March 2015, so would have been bottled March 2010. Opened April 2013.

Serving type: bottle

04-20-2013 06:51:28 | More by BlackAura