Trappistes Rochefort 8 - Brasserie de Rochefort

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

donkeyrunner

Massachusetts

3.35/5  rDev -22.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Cloudy burgundy with floaties aplenty. I thought I poured carefully. Large beige head the collars and skims. Rouses well.

Aroma is dark, steely caramel, peach fuzz, fig, mild clove and spicy phenols. Kinda ho hum. Taste is equally, good but unimpressive. Steely caramel, earthy brownie crust and raisins. Creamy mouthfeel.

It's nice but I was expecting a display of Belgian mastery.

Serving type: bottle

10-15-2010 01:02:00 | More by donkeyrunner

Dubber55

New York

3.33/5  rDev -23.3%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours a murky brown with tremendous amount of carbonation-3 finger head. It definitely has that distinctive Belgian yeast smell. I smell lots of spices like clove, nutmeg, and ginger. I am also getting an aroma of rum soaked dark fruits and banana.

Tastes follows the smell- yeasty, spicy, and bready. It also tastes like caramel, banana and rum. At the end of each sip I am getting an alcohol kick.

Really lively carbonation. I feel it is overcarbonated for the style.

The breadiness and the spiciness really begin to wear on me. The alcohol kick is pretty strong.

I like the 6 and the 10 but this one just did not do it for me. I am a big fan of Belgian strong dark ales so I was surprised that I wasn't really digging this one.

Serving type: bottle

05-26-2010 01:54:32 | More by Dubber55

yeahnatenelson

Illinois

3.33/5  rDev -23.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Appearance -- Pours a hazy chestnut hue with two fingers of frothy beige head. Great retention.

Smell -- Rum raisin, plum, applesauce (yeah), buttered dark bread, gentle spice.

Taste -- Like the nose, dark and dried fruits are in the forefront: rum-soaked raisins, plum, apple and pear. Some dark bread flavor still persists, but is quite muted. A little bit of candi sugar flavor toward the finish. Alcohol is prominent and sharp.

Mouthfeel -- Medium in body, perhaps a hair lighter, with an abundance of prickly carbonation. Really not where it should be. Also, alcohol is a bit too sharp, even for the style.

Drinkability -- Honestly, a bit of a letdown. How is this the top-rated BSDA? Depth of flavor isn't really there, a few off flavors, and the mouthfeel is too light and spritzy.

Serving type: bottle

11-18-2010 01:55:08 | More by yeahnatenelson

WetCoaster

California

3.33/5  rDev -23.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Well, based on the "good until" date -- if I'm reading it correctly -- this is actually quite fresh. Let's see how it goes.

Appearance: Clear oxblood brown with a tan, fizzy head. Retention is OK, but it quickly recedes to a thin skin of froth.

Smell: Surprisingly bright and spicy. The malt is actually in the background, instead overcome by apple fruitiness and a rather run-of-the-mill clove spice; there just doesn't seem to be much here. I'm also getting an odd tobacco aroma that I can't really place.

Mouthfeel: Again, a bit underwhelming. The mouthfeel, given the big ABV and style, is very light and crisp -- perhaps even a bit overcarbonated.

Taste: Well, on the plus side, the alcohol is very nicely disguised. However, the taste is, wow, I really can't believe I'm saying this, but a bit bland, frankly. There's a vague caramel maltiness, a bit of fruit (fig, raisin, apple), some dextrose sugar sourness, but as was once famously quoted, "there's no there there." It's just all ends and corners; there's no middle.

Drinkability: I'm stunned. The 10 is a marvel, one of the richest, most complex, absolutely delicious beers the planet has to offer; it's amazing. This -- which I assumed would be its little brother -- is an entirely different animal. And that's not good, because it's a fizzy, thin, somewhat drab animal, and it ain't cheap.

It is spring, so perhaps my sinuses are a bit compromised, but I just don't think this is quite what I hoped it would be. I'd pony up the extra two bucks and go for the mindblowing 10 instead.

Serving type: bottle

03-16-2011 01:53:27 | More by WetCoaster

Damian

Massachusetts

3.3/5  rDev -24%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured a beautiful copper reddish-brown. The fluffy head left copious amounts of lacing.

Smell was somewhat herbal, bready and medicinal.

Taste was rich, malty and spicy. Alcohol was very noticeable.

Body was quite thin. Carbonation was a bit overdone.

Overall, this beer was a disappointment.

Serving type: bottle

07-09-2006 00:45:59 | More by Damian

WhiteOak

Connecticut

3.3/5  rDev -24%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Glass- Riedel 6416/07

A- Copper/brown. Huge, rapidly expanding dark beige head persists with some lace.

S- The hayloft of an antique barn: Hay, old wood, saddle leather, funk. Some earth minerals. Touch of dates.

T- Creamy caramel maltiness, brown sugar. Looonnng, lingering sweet & sour malty finish.

M,D- Pleasant, but hindered by an aggressive level of CO2. I will let the next one flatten to a degree first.

Serving type: bottle

01-17-2010 18:50:45 | More by WhiteOak

mrasskicktastic

New Jersey

3.28/5  rDev -24.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 3

A - A murky amber brew with a small quickly vanishing head. Lacing clings intensely to the glass.

S - A lot of caramel malt and candied sugar with a bit of a pomegranate an coconut odor, both very faint, they mesh surprisingly well.

T - Dates, prunes, lillies, and a boat load of alcohol. Not as sweet as I had expected from the odor. A lightly bitter aftertaste with a touch of lingering sweetness and alcohol.

M - Froths up intensely in my mouth. Moderately smooth, very very creamy (from the frothing) and fairly refreshing.

D - Okay. It isn't quite the aromatic kick in the face that is the 10, it is enjoyable, but highly overrated. Unsessionable. I had it with some lime and pepper perch and haddock. The Rochefort brews are easily the most overrated on the market.

Serving type: bottle

03-22-2006 23:39:24 | More by mrasskicktastic

DavoleBomb

Ohio

3.28/5  rDev -24.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Poured into a snifter.

4.5 A: Murky medium brown color, like apple cider or something. Two fingers of light brown head with excellent retention and lots of lacing.

3.0 S: Aroma really isn't that impressive. It's pleasant, but not strong enough. A bit of dark fruity esters. Not really any spiciness. Pretty boring.

3.0 T: Caramel malt, some dark fruit. The yeast characteristics are really subdued. I'm not getting any spiciness. A little boozy, which mellows toward the end. This is a very one dimensional brew. This really doesn't do it for me like the 10 does.

4.0 M: Lighter medium body. Carbonation could be a bit more spritzy. Really creamy.

3.5 D: Why this beer is in the top 100 is beyond me. I liked it, but it cost way too much for how mediocre this is.

Serving type: bottle

07-10-2009 04:05:19 | More by DavoleBomb

pootz

Ontario (Canada)

3.25/5  rDev -25.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

The bottle put a maple syrup colored murkey ale in my goblet with a frothy beige cap which appeared to be specked with cinnamon colored yeast particles. Cap did not last...soft carbonation. As this ale warms and begins to "breathe" in the glass, you get some marvelous aromas; banana muffin dough, spice, pear cider with a musty wet animal hair smell. Medium body, oily mouth feel. Fairly complex flavor profile with toffee, bread, spice , figs...very nice, HOWEVER..all this is eclipsed by a poorly hidden sharp alcohol burn and piney resinous hopping...finish is sharp, bittering and heated with alcohol.

Put me down as one craft beer drinker who is unimpressed with Rochefort ales. I think they are well made and have some interesting distinctive features but they are overrated. If I want this type of stiff drink which I have to eat food with or else 3 or 4 on an empty stomach are trouble, I'll do the job better with a rum drink or a sherry.

Serving type: bottle

01-11-2006 18:04:28 | More by pootz

Jeffo

Netherlands

3.25/5  rDev -25.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Got this down the road at the bottle shop.

From a bottle into a Rochefort Chalice.

APPEARANCE: Pours a 1 finger medium looking tan head that quickly pops and fades away to a decent film. Some carbonation evident, but lots coming up from the middle, decorating the glass. Colour is a brown or russet brown. A decent film stays until the end and leaves a little bit of lacing down the sides.

SMELL: A relatively weak nose. Caramel malt and some toffee. Hints of sweet pears and apples, as well as some sweet brown sugar, but not as spicy as I had hoped and expected. Nice, but needs to be much bolder to really make a statement. Average at best.

TASTE: Really lacks initially; nothing up front really. A slight hint of caramel malt and some brown sugar, like the nose, but that's about it. The second act is much more impressive, with a dose of spices, cloves and coriander again, and finishes with some warming spicy alcohol. A strong and long lasting aftertaste has some sweet sugar and lots of spicy elements, with some spicy alcohol the whole way through the end. The initial taste was a big let down, but the second part was good and effectively saved the show.

PALATE: Medium thin body, higher end carbonation and slightly airy going down as well. Slightly more creamy smooth than the Roch 6, it goes down without a bite and finishes with a touch of dryness on the palate. Decent, but nothing overly special. Average.

OVERALL: A decent brew, but nothing worth writing home about. Like the Roch 6, this one doesn't even approach the class of the Rochefort 10. A brew I'd have again, but wouldn't use cellar space to keep in the house. Unfortunately, this one is probably more hype than anything else.

Serving type: bottle

05-25-2009 14:13:36 | More by Jeffo