Tap Room No. 21 Amber Ale - World Brews

hackmann

Michigan

1.9/5  rDev -30.4%
look: 2.25 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.75 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Appearance: clear amber colored body with ¼ inch white head that leaves no lacing behind.

Aroma: dusty grains and muted spice mingled with some sweet bread

Flavors: a strange sweet note (if that is the honey – I don’t like it) – I think that sweet note is coming from the corn, stale caramel malt, flat dusty grains – old corn, dainty non-descript spice on the back

Mouthfeel: light in body and just a bad taste on the palate, strange, strange and strange, good thing it has a weak nasty aftertaste.

To the Point: a first time home brewer can do better making it out of their bath tub. Yes, this is terrible, save your money, save your taste buds, save the future of mankind -

Serving type: bottle

02-05-2013 01:09:46 | More by hackmann

fischerking

2.63/5  rDev -3.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Tap Room No. 21 Amber Ale from Novato, CA.

This beer had a sweet honey taste (overly sweet) - it says "honey added" on the bottle. A little too sugary for my liking. Even smells sweet.

I drank it out of a bottle from Kroger in Knoxville, TN on 12/22/2012 from a create your own 6-pack.

No.

Serving type: bottle

12-23-2012 02:12:51 | More by fischerking

B-Rad

2.35/5  rDev -13.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

A- Light amber color.
S- Sweet flowery aroma.
T- Sweet malt.
M- Average. Rather dull.
O- Nothing to really describe. Very average ale. Too sweet for my taste. I guess that's the best way to describe it- sweet malty flavor.

Honestly. I did not like this ale. It was very sweet, almost juice like. It didn't taste like any amber ale I have ever had or would really want to have again.

Serving type: bottle

09-25-2012 19:36:50 | More by B-Rad

Bookseeb

Washington

2.2/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Appearance is a mid amber color supporting a thin dissipating head leaving no lace. Smell having a honey sweetness with a bit of malt in the background. Taste has that honey sweetness that kind of overpowers everything else and not truly enjoying the malt or hops. Mouthfeel is light with some body with a spike of carbonation. This amber is to sweet for me and takes away from the actual style.

Serving type: bottle

09-19-2012 00:54:47 | More by Bookseeb

lwillitz

Florida

2.65/5  rDev -2.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

12-oz bottle into Samuel Smith "Tulip" pint glass

A - 4 fingers of off-white head atop a crystal-clear body of pale amber; a few carbonation bubbles

S - appple, grass, caramel

T - honey sweetness, diacetyl, grassy hops, fruit (primarily apple); not a very good balance of tastes

M - sticky light body, medium/high carbonation, astringent bite

O - The label looks crafty, but the beer just isn't very good.

Serving type: bottle

07-21-2012 02:31:43 | More by lwillitz

travolta

California

2.85/5  rDev +4.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

App: Clear, amber, puffed white head that disappeared quickly.

Nose: Malts and fruity, but slightly and cheaply.

Taste: Sweet and syrupy. Corn syrupy sweet.

Notes: Smells and tastes like a Macro's sneaky interpretation of craft and quality. Nothing memorable.

Serving type: bottle

06-14-2012 00:54:07 | More by travolta

Brenden

Ohio

2.5/5  rDev -8.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

The color is a completely clear amber. A very slight white head sticks around for a minute or two before being reduced to a thinnish foam. Just a bit of thin, spotty lacing is left around.
The aroma is certainly thin and weak. Malts are in here but not the highest quality. Are there adjuncts in here? There's almost a corny sweetness before leaning more toward fruits. A bit of toast is here as well and a dusting of something herbal makes me believe that there's at least something by way opf hops contributed.
The flavor follows suit. Grains carry the day and a bit of something diacetylic lingers as well. It's not terrible, but it's below average.
Thin and dull, at least this light-bodied brew has enough crispness to not be flat.

If this is representative of these Tap Room 21 beers, I'm not sure I want to try the rest. Seeing them pop up at grocery stores everywhere, I hasd a feeling it might be a macro effort. Whatever else, it's certainly lackluster.

Serving type: bottle

03-01-2012 16:25:15 | More by Brenden

zeff80

Missouri

2.63/5  rDev -3.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

A - Poured out a clear, amber color with a one-finger, egg shell white head of foam. Short retention and little to no lacing.

S - It smelled malty and fruity, but not very good.

T - It tasted of sweet malt, very, very sweet. Odd fruitiness with a very mild spice.

M - It was crisp and sharp. A light bodied ale with a smooth finish.

O - This is an okay brew. Too sweet. Needs some balance.

Serving type: bottle

12-17-2011 21:00:58 | More by zeff80

ginemesis

North Carolina

3.13/5  rDev +14.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

A - Surprisingly clear, like apple juice or morning piss. Virtually no head.
S - Slightly sour in smell.. a little bit of acetone smell.
T - Green apple aftertaste. Light on flavor. Quite sweet.
M - Thick and sticky, especially in the finish.
O - 3 ounces was enough for me. Might be good on a hot day, or paired with cow.

Serving type: bottle

12-01-2011 00:34:20 | More by ginemesis

DaveBlack

Virginia

2.93/5  rDev +7.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Given to me by a friend, who apparently has fond memories of it from a bygone time.

A: Light amber with a finger's width of fluffy white head that is fed by a seemingly never-ending stream of bubbles from the bottom of the glass. Leaves a fair amount of lacing on the edges

S: A malty sweetness and cereal grains. Not a whole lot going on for this beer in the nose department.

T: Tastes rather like it smells: malts and grains. Better than a BMC lager, but flavor profiles are the same. Lacking in complexity.

M: Mouthfeel is relatively light with moderate carbonation. Again, thoroughly average.

O: Meh. Not a terrible beer, but not one that I'm anxious to drink again. I've had any number of beers that taste more or less the same, and I don't generally drink those either.

Serving type: bottle

08-08-2011 21:01:05 | More by DaveBlack

Veillantif

Pennsylvania

2.68/5  rDev -1.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

On special at the supermarket; bottle poured into tall 14-oz juice beaker.

A: a fetching amber, with a reddish tint; diaphonous but doesn't look weak; the head is too sudsy; the repeal of prohibition, much celebrated by the beer's makers, was before my time, and the lawful right to drink isn't something that's ever been on my mind; 1933, a year lauded on the neck label, doesn't have such good connotations in my mind.

S: I had to look at the label again to know that I had bought an amber ale; this smells more like apple juice, and

T: tastes like it, too.

M: I don't see much really wrong with it; maybe the carbonation, which is a little too smooth. An old friend of mine would say this is the kind of beer that drunks like to drink for breakfast.

D: I would drink this again if I had to, but I wouldn't be expecting an amber ale, at all: amber ales have touches of earthiness and bitterness that keep notes of fruit juice at bay. This has notes of fruit juice and not much else. It is mildly likeable, as long as you disabuse yourself of any expectation that it will be...good. To be tolerated at best, not relished.

Serving type: bottle

08-04-2011 04:02:43 | More by Veillantif

katan

Colorado

3.6/5  rDev +31.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

12oz into a pint

A - Pours a light brown color. Very clear, lightly bubbly. Head formation is about none.

S - Very light nose. Just a little bit of graininess. Nothing much there.

T - Starts off lightly malty, some caramel malts. Pilsner graininess seems present. Mid-stream gets more bitter, a little bit of hops. Finishes mostly clean, perhaps a little oxidation.

M - Light mouthfeel, light carbonation. A little bit of a sugary cling left on the palette.

O/D - Easy drinking beer - albeit a little bit pedestrian. For this style, thats probably appropriate.

Serving type: bottle

05-22-2011 02:15:04 | More by katan

Jadjunk

Georgia

2.25/5  rDev -17.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

#91. This is another of those beers that are found at most Kroger grocers lately at a crazy expensive retail price but a much more affordable (and appropriate) sale price of under $6 for a six pack. It was this price range that coerced me into picking up a variety. The last one wasn't too great, but again I'm leaving an open mind for this one.

Poured from a 12 oz. bottle to a pint glass at room temp.

(Appearance) Yikes. There's that alarmingly fizzy head again (Just like the lager) that dissipates alarmingly quickly. It's almost like soda water in its consistency. Starts out at a 2 finger depth but is down to a thin froth like sea foam within about a minute. The color is a slightly pinkish tone amber and crystal clear. Carbonation is busy and scattered. The head was a major disappointment and overshadows the other average-at-best qualities of this beer. Ultimate sadness. 2

(Smell) Very fishy smelling to me. There's a great deal of macro presence in this beer; sweet corn, grassy malts and a faint unpleasant, unidentifiable foul tone wafting over the entire thing, like something died or went bad. It's very bizarre; not in a good way. Besides the cheap malty flavors, which render the aroma on the subtly sweet side, the potency of this beer is on a very low setting. It's about as impressive as the appearance, which means this isn't getting off on a good start. 2

(Taste) Hardly passes for much. Beginning impression is a tidal wave of super clean sweet corn malt, carrying over the entire brew. Fact of the matter is, I can hardly pick out anything else in this beer, save for possibly a slight hint of caramel, but not enough to balance out flavor. It's not repulsive but I could only imagine enjoying this if I were in a mood to enjoy cheap sweet corn lagers (and I never am). Rebranded as one, I would be hard pressed to note a difference in taste. That sweetness is borderline cloying; it's a good deal tougher to drink than I expected. One point down for originality or lack thereof. There's not much exciting about this beer. It's fairly easy to drink but that's all it's got going for it. It would likely be a winner in a crowd of underage drinkers with no enthusiasm for variety or complexity (or good beer). Not good. 2

(Mouthfeel) Slightly tart beginning which turns sweet later on. Extra carbonation is nearly dead or indiscernible in this thin, textureless beer. While the entire beer could certainly use a kick in any department, this one would be a great place to start. The beer doesn't quite hit flat in any places, the body is quite light and the alcohol is packed away quite well. The whole thing is super clean and the finish is ever-slightly dry. There's work to be done everywhere, but this is just as likely a worthy candidate for improvement as the remaining categories. 2.5

(Drinkability) I'm not very excited about opening a second of these but I've had worse. The body is very one-dimensional but at least it has some flavor presence. There needs to be improvement everywhere as it seems. The head had pitiful staying power and consistency, the aroma was weak, the flavor bland and one-sided, the mouthfeel was dull. I get a good impression as to why this brand has suddenly "popped up" out of the blue and can sell these beers for dirt cheap prices. They're simply not that good. In a party scene these might do well and the price isn't bad, but as something worth casual drinking, I'd do my looking elsewhere. Average based on it's simplicity to drink, but I wouldn't rate it any higher considering my lack of desire to ever drink it again. 3

Verdict: Believe it or not, this is worse than the last Tap Room Brew (Lager) I tried last week, but by a hair. To summarize: it is mostly cheap corn malt, sickly sweet with very little character or complexity. Practically no bitterness! I was upset by how dull and unexciting this beer really was. I will be sure to steer clear of this forevermore. For you enthusiasts out there: Drink at your own risk! D (2.15)

Serving type: bottle

02-13-2011 04:34:28 | More by Jadjunk

aficionado224

Ohio

4.38/5  rDev +60.4%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.5

This is fine beer. Maybe not great, but way better than average. It has a sweet flavor and good balance, not too bitter, but if you're someone who craves bitterness, this might not be for you. I picked up a six-pack at Kroger, not a boutique. This is one of those new mass-produced "craft" beers, an oxymoron if ever there was one. I really like it, though. I'll probably get more of it.

Serving type: bottle

01-19-2011 16:41:59 | More by aficionado224

Mosley1212

Florida

2.73/5  rDev 0%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

I grabbed this at Kroger when I was making a sixer. Have no idea what to expect.

A--Ok. Not that great of a start. It has a nice color--I suppose. A rich amber color that I would expect for the style. It poured with one of the weakest heads I have seen in a while. Reminds me almost of a Bud head...I hope that's not a sign of what's to come.

S--Nothing. Honestly. I don't smell much of anything. I suppose if I really try I can pick up a little hint of caramel, but really it's like smelling water...could this be another Bud like beer??

T--Yes. It's like a Bud. This beer is awful. Overly sweet corn, with a taste of sickening caramel finish. I also got a hint of barley, but it was so hidden that I may be mistaken about whether it's there or not.

M--Carbonated water. Nothing more to say. There's an overly sweet aftertaste, and the feel is of the heavy carbonation, but the lack of a taste is honestly like water.

D--I suppose this drinkability is "semi-high" because of it's low alcohol content you could easily knock back a sixer or so of this and probably still be able to drive. The problem is that it's so overly sweet that I can barely finish one, much less think to drink another.

Avoid this beer guys. One of the worst ever.

Serving type: bottle

01-15-2011 23:47:49 | More by Mosley1212

Duff27

Illinois

2.4/5  rDev -12.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

A- Light amber in color with a quickly receding one-inch white head. Some lacing.

S- Bready. Smells of a macro.

T- Corn, caramel malt. Slightly sweet taste at the back end.

M- Adequate enough carbonation. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

D/O- Got this one from a friend. Had to look it up. Went in with an open mind. Never again. A BMC drinker may like this one, who knows.

Serving type: bottle

12-04-2010 03:26:11 | More by Duff27

twiggamortis420

Texas

2.63/5  rDev -3.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

12 oz bottle from a 12 pack procured on sale from Kroger for 9.99. No freshness date. Pours a crystal clear amber color with a stark white head. Retention is excellent but does not leave much lacing.

Nose is caramel popcorn, grainy, wet malt and some cooked vegetables. Not really very appealing.

Taste is pretty basic and seems to have a DMS problem. This is NOT craft beer, right? Tastes mass-produced. Sweet and caramely without any real hop presence to speak of. Mouthfeel is fine and carbonation adequate. Its beer, albeit not very good beer, Id take one over a BMC most of the time. Unfortunately for Moe's Taproom, it is a pretty poor example of the style, and compares poorly to its peers for an Amber Ale.

Serving type: bottle

11-24-2010 01:23:14 | More by twiggamortis420

Nerudamann

Arizona

3.6/5  rDev +31.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Look - strong golden color. Almost 2 fingers worth of head, and good carbonation.

Smell - Pale ale smell.. Slightly hoppy but with a floral aroma.

Taste - Tastes much like the smell. Slightly hoppy, and with a floral like hint, which creates a extra bitterness on the middle part of the palate, while the hop's bitterness strikes the back of the palate. Interesting sensation. Kind of a zestiness to it.

Mouthfeel - good balance, but slightly on the creamier side.

Drinkability - Very interesting brew! Nice complexity, decent in taste. Also, not at a bad price, so I'd be very tempted to be coming back for more of this one!

Serving type: bottle

11-17-2010 05:09:09 | More by Nerudamann

barleyman

Georgia

2.95/5  rDev +8.1%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured from the 12 oz brown bottle into my straight sided glass tumbler. Appearance is an amber color, right for the variety. Very little smell, of corn, no hop aroma. Taste is mainly malt and corn. Mouthfeel is light, with very little aftertaste. One could drink a few of these, if it was hot and you had just finished working out in the yard.

Just a thought,

barleyman

Serving type: bottle

09-29-2010 00:22:00 | More by barleyman

CheckmateBrew

Georgia

2.13/5  rDev -22%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Moe might consider keeping this beer in the back room.

The color was spot on to what I would expect of an amber, but slight head.

There was a lack of smell to this brew, I was expecting more.

The taste is below average. Just not a lot going on here a slight off after taste. Again I was expecting more.

The mouthfeel is ok, but taste is where this beer wins my repeat business.

Would be a good beer to chug or put in a beer bong, but I really want to savor a beer, and this one is not it.

Serving type: bottle

09-28-2010 04:33:23 | More by CheckmateBrew

Tunafever73

Texas

3.15/5  rDev +15.4%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Nice high head but fizzled quickly. No strong smell. The color was close to perfect, exactly what I think amber should look like. After seeing the awesome color in the glass I was dissapointed with the flavor, or lack of. This is a decent beer, no problems with it. I think I'll have another just to be sure.

Serving type: bottle

08-21-2010 03:35:50 | More by Tunafever73

WVbeergeek

Ohio

2.08/5  rDev -23.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Light copper amber hue with a briht white head froming nice even lacing. Aroma has a very grainy earthy herbal hop character underneath caramelized malts. Super fruity apple juice and tart cherry notes way too sweet for me like unfermented malts here way to harsh on the palate. I can't believe this is at every Kroger in my area. Flavor is super sweet with a tart juicy flavor it's got apple juice lik notes tastes like a fourty intead of a macro ale or lager. Fizzy cabonation not the best stuff, very fogrettable light to medium carbonation with thick residual sugar notes throughout. You couldn't pay me to pick more of this stuff up.

Serving type: bottle

07-19-2010 07:38:26 | More by WVbeergeek

jeddsp

Georgia

3/5  rDev +9.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Ya know...this beer isn't all that bad. Is it going to win any awards? not even close. But if you are looking for a cheap beer that is great for a BBQ then is far better than packing the cooler with (god forbid) bud/miller or any of the others that pretend to pose a beer. I am not saying you should rush out and buy a sixer, but...if in a pinch, and you don't want to spend your hard earned duckets....then this beer is not a bad option.

Serving type: bottle

07-17-2010 14:59:34 | More by jeddsp

tempest

Pennsylvania

2.45/5  rDev -10.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Picked up a single from Chip's Wine and Beer in NC. This tastes like a beer from a macro brewer and reminds me a bit of Yuengling's Lord Chersterfield. There's a mild caramel note that's sweet before the beer finishes dry. But there's also an unpleasant vegetable note, that remind me of cheap beer. I'd avoid this one. It's not cheap or very good. At least it looks decent.

Serving type: bottle

07-13-2010 02:32:01 | More by tempest

Kinanik

Virginia

4.2/5  rDev +53.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.5

If you are looking for a traditional amber, you will probably be disappointed. However, if you are looking for a drinkable, slightly sweet beer, I highly recommend this. There isn't a hint of bitterness, so if you are the type of beer drinker that avoids pale ales, you will probably enjoy this one.

Serving type: bottle

07-06-2010 03:42:40 | More by Kinanik