Baltika #5 Gold - Baltika Breweries

northyorksammy

Ontario (Canada)

2.2/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

LCBO same gift pack as the #7. A typical Euro pale. A little cheesy arom. A light yellow colour with a big soapy head. A bit thin mouthfeel. Malt sugary taste, drinkable but a whole beer is not pleasurable. Still better than your macro brew, but not by much.

Serving type: bottle

12-30-2010 18:52:55 | More by northyorksammy

BuckeyeNation

Iowa

3.4/5  rDev +22.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Simple amber, easily seen through the clear glass bottle prior to the pour. The beer is topped by an eggshell white head that is fairly tight-bubbled and lasts more than a few minutes as a result. Very little lace makes it way to the glass in the end.

It spite of the bottle (the only clear glass in the entire Baltika line as far as I know), there's no hint of skunkiness. The nose consists of mildy sweet, untoasted grain and light musky hops. It isn't a standout, but it'll do.

Like most beer from this brewery, #5 tastes better than average to me and is definitely ahead of the game when it comes to most other EPLs. I was a little disturbed to see maltose syrup as one of the ingredients, but I'll be hanged if I can tell that something other than malt, hops and yeast is present. The beer is a little sweeter than usual, so I suppose that could be one clue.

Like the appearance and the nose, Golden Lager delivers simple, straightforward, no-frills flavor. Sweetened grain balanced by a modicum of noble hops is pretty much the extent of things. Even though I've given them all identical taste scores, I don't know if I like #5 quite as much as I liked the other Baltika EPLs, #2 (brewed with rice) and #3 (no maltose syrup).

The body/mouthfeel favors medium over light, especially considering the style, and is a little lacking in the carbonation department. A lack of bubbles works here though because it gives the beer a slightly more full feel that distinguishes it from its brothers.

Baltika #5 Golden Lager is a worthy member of the brewery's lineup despite being less than outstanding beer. On those rare occasions (okay, nonexistent occasions) when I have a hankering for a Euro pale lager, I know that Pivzavod Baltika will deliver the goods more often than not.

Serving type: bottle

10-08-2006 12:57:06 | More by BuckeyeNation

ChainGangGuy

Georgia

3.1/5  rDev +11.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

I have an itch that only Baltika can scratch! Now, mind you, these are in a can; the only way to enjoy a Baltika brew.

Appearance: Pours a yellow body with a small, fizzy, white head.

Smell: Sweet-smelling cereal nose with light floral hints. You know, the usual.

Taste: Pale maltiness with a unabashed sweetness throughout -- like liquid breakfast time cereal! Hint of cooked veggies when you drink deep, so you might want to avoid that. Very skimpy on the hops, with only a very minor bitterness present. A touch watery on the finish, with a tiny touch of grain.

Mouthfeel: Medium-thin body. Medium-high carbonation.

Drinkability: Good? Heavens no! But it's not altogether terrible for being just a simple pale lager.

Serving type: can

09-02-2008 01:33:14 | More by ChainGangGuy

UCLABrewN84

California

2.73/5  rDev -1.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Bottled 6/13/12. Best before 6/13/13.

Pours a slightly hazy yellow with a foamy white head that settles to a film on top of the beer. Tiny dots of lace form around the glass on the drink down. Smell is of malt and grain. Taste is much the same with a slight metallic flavor on the finish. There is a very mild bitterness on the palate with each sip. This beer has a lower level of carbonation with a slightly crisp mouthfeel. Overall, this is a pretty poor beer and I think it may have something to do with the clear bottle it comes in.

Serving type: bottle

10-31-2012 03:31:34 | More by UCLABrewN84

WesWes

New York

3.05/5  rDev +9.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

The beer pours a pale gold color with a thick frothy white head that slowly fades to lacing. The aroma is average. It has a weak pale malt scent along with a dry lager yeast aroma. It's a bit musty and bitter. The taste is average as well. It has the standard pale malt and lager yeast taste. It's light and clean on the finish; an easy drinker. The mouthfeel is decent. It is a low bodied beer with good carbonation. This is a typical golden lager, nothing special. I will probably save my money or buy something else next time.

Serving type: bottle

10-17-2005 22:27:43 | More by WesWes

Mora2000

Texas

3.68/5  rDev +32.4%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

The beer pours a golden yellow color with a white head. The aroma is pilsener malt with some grassy hops. The flavor is that of a basic lager. I get some pilsener malt, some wheat, lemons and grassy hops. This tastes like a very lightly hopped pilsener. Creamy mouthfeel and medium carbonation.

Serving type: bottle

08-09-2010 04:01:40 | More by Mora2000

zeff80

Missouri

2.2/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

A - Poured out a clear, bubbly, pale gold color with a bubbly, white, two finger head of foam. It faded quickly and left very little lace.

S - It smelled of corn and caramel malt. Not much else.

T - It tasted of candy sweet caramel with a buttery-like flavor. No bitterness or hop presence at all.

M - It was crisp and sharp. A light bodied beer.

D - This is not very good. I can understand why they imported stouts from England.

Serving type: bottle

06-06-2009 00:40:41 | More by zeff80

russpowell

Oklahoma

2.08/5  rDev -25.2%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Bottle#2 of the expirment..

Pours extremely (can you say urine?) yellow with a white head that drops immediately, zero lacing

Smell: Sweetness and graininess

Taste: Over the top sweetness, with slight bitterness ad frutiness on the tounge

MF: Thin and way undecarbonated, out of whack

Too damn sweet. Try this if you have the guts! Otherwise stear clear

Serving type: bottle

02-11-2006 05:23:11 | More by russpowell

Halcyondays

California

3.2/5  rDev +15.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

500 mL clear bottle from the Total Wine,

A: Pours a clear, pale yellow with a soapy white head, some lace.

S: Grainy, husky notes, brown sugar, maybe a bit of DMS and corn smell.

T: Solid malt, cereal grains, some caramel and sugar with very light hopping, not bad for the style.

M: Light-bodied, thin at times, smooth, off-dry.

D: A average lager altogether, drinkable, but nothing to rush out and buy again, quite inexpensive.

Serving type: bottle

07-01-2009 16:52:52 | More by Halcyondays

jwc215

New Jersey

2.95/5  rDev +6.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Best before 10.04.08:

Pours golden yellow with a thin white head that soon disappears, with quick reappearances only upon hefty swirling.

The smell is of "Euro-skunk" - lime and sulfur - some traces of graininess.

The taste - after the "Euro-skunk" dissipates - some graininess with something corn/veggie-like (don't know if adjuncts are used - my guess is not - but - hard to tell) Some slickness and a vague hint of spicy hops. Ho-hum finish.

Mild carbonation with some semi-dryness lingering.

Not a wreck, but with enough minor flaws and irritants - and lack of anything notable - to put it in the "typical Euro Pale Lager" range.

Serving type: bottle

01-07-2008 02:48:30 | More by jwc215

tempest

Pennsylvania

2.75/5  rDev -1.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Picked up a 500ml can from Euromart in Astoria. It smells of pale malts with a hint of honey and adjunct. The flavor is similarly sweet with an odd vegetal spice to it. Honestly, this beer reminds me of malt liquor more than anything. I'd avoid this one. Stick to the Baltika porter.

Serving type: can

03-07-2011 04:10:57 | More by tempest

jdhilt

New Hampshire

3/5  rDev +7.9%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours a four finger white head that fades quickly leaving no lace. Chrystal clear light amber color. Light carbonation and light bodied. Sweet malty nose. Starts sweet, faint hint of blueberry?? almost like a light, clean finish. Very good lawnmower beer. $1.95 for a 500ml bottle from Colonial Spirits Acton, Ma.

Serving type: bottle

04-18-2006 00:10:39 | More by jdhilt

Jason

Massachusetts

3.03/5  rDev +9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

16.9 oz clear glass bottle with a freshness date on the back of the label.

A- Crystal clear yellowish golden color, really thin lacing ... head retention lacks as well.

S- Cooked vegetables, bland dry malt aroma ... watered down grape cool-aid-like smell from some sort of malt husk.

T&M- Grape Nuts cereal, watery malt ... wet palate with a solid crispness. Plain hop bitterness with no real flavor to be found. Corn grits and cooked veggies ... finishes semi-dry.

D- Nothing horrible, but nothing good about it either other than it is a cheap lager with no flaws that offend my palate.

Serving type: bottle

03-19-2006 22:08:03 | More by Jason

DrJay

Massachusetts

2.8/5  rDev +0.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Crystal clear, pale yellow with a think fine, white cap. Sticky lace, decent retention after the head fell to a collar. Aromas of cooked veggies, floral hops, and light sweetness. Low bitterness. The flavour was the same as the aroma, lots of veggies and not much else. Fairly clean though without a lot of sulfur or skunk. Light bodied with average carbonation, fairly dry. Not bad, but nothing here worth revisiting.

Serving type: bottle

09-06-2009 22:42:57 | More by DrJay

woodychandler

Pennsylvania

2.53/5  rDev -9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

If you are reading this review and notice that it remains on my "Gots", please understand that I am the creator of The CANQuest (TM) and as such, I still desirous of getting this beer in a CAN.

I have been on a Russian kick for a couple of years now, starting with Kvass and expanding to the language, the history, the literature, the women ... Well, as to that last, I have known that the Russkies are generating some drop-dead knockouts for some time. Hell, I remember this one towering honey-honey from Kiev that I hung out with for several days in Haifa, Israel during an inport period that left everybody's tongues lolling. I called her "Svetlana" and she would have answered to anything as long as this AmeriCAN sailor's money held up. What a giantess! She was nearly twice as tall as me and we made a great pair strolling around town. Ah, yes.

An aggro pour generated just over a finger of fizzy, foamy bone-white head that lasted about as long as a career sailor's inport relationship. Bye! Color was a pale yellow with NE-plus quality clarity. I could see right through it, through the neighbor's walls, and into the future. Nose had a certain je ne sais quois - it did not smell like the usual adjunct suspects, but at the same time, it had an unpleasant underlying mustiness. Label check: Bottled 25 March 11 Best by 25 March 12, so I was in the window and it had probably been pasteurized, given its clear bottle, so what was the problem? Mouthfeel was on the thin side and it had a slightly minty flavor on the tongue along with a mild lager sweetness. This was quickly shaping up to be a whole buncha nothin'! Finish was relatively bland and I REALLY wished that I had scored another bottle of the #4, which actually was enjoyable. This was not unpleasant, but instead lacking anything that would make me want to open another.

Serving type: bottle

01-06-2012 01:38:42 | More by woodychandler

biegaman

Ontario (Canada)

2.6/5  rDev -6.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

The bubbles and head both appear blatantly artificial; each bubble - and there are many - look like drifting mini magnifying glasses and once on the surface appear like a giant sack of marbles. There is not an ounce of creaminess to it whatsoever and the wide pockets of air between bubbles create something of a 'bucked tooth' characteristic. It's rare that I see a beer this brilliantly golden and actually find myself turned off by it.

I've never once found an instance where clear glass has made a beer better (sell better, well that's another thing all together). Baltika 5 is no exception - the clear glass, regardless of its lovely shape and etchings, has actually made this worse! It smells like someone vomited canned cream corn. Realistically, I can't be sure how much of that is the fault of clear glass and how much of that is the fault of the brewery.

The taste, however, should provide a clue. Let us inspect the ingredients list: water, light(!) barley malt, caramel malt, maltose syrups, hop extracts. Therefore, before even trying the beer, I know to expect something light that is made from syrups and extracts. Great. Because when you're hankering for a beer isn't that exactly what you want?

Actually, in fairness, the blatant artificiality aside yet again, the beer doesn't fare all that poorly. It's flavour is a little light on the barley (as advertised) and very heavy on the sweet syrup (as advertised), yet I can't say I find it as offensive as some other mass-produced lagers on the market. And it actually has a decent weight to it as well - I may not be enjoying what I'm drinking but at least I feel some satiation drinking it!

Almost literally, Baltika 5 is a gold brick: it's an impostor of a lager that doesn't disguise even an ounce of its adjuncts and imitation ingredients. It's only about as natural as a Twinkie and twice as corrupted as the Russian government. Curiously, like most anything you find at a fast food outlet, it's edible, even strangely agreeable, but knowing what's in it is a put off and, besides, it doesn't come close to comparing to the real thing.

Serving type: bottle

11-03-2010 19:01:29 | More by biegaman

kojevergas

California

1.8/5  rDev -35.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Why the clear bottle? That's a classic hallmark of amateur brewmastery. FAIL. The bottle was poured into a Williams Bros pint glass in low altitude Galway, Ireland. Bottle acquired in an off-license in Ennis, Ireland.

A: Pours a four finger head, quite thin, with a bit of cream. Retention is actually quite nice. Colour is a clear yellow without any bubbles at all.

Sm: Slightly musty barley with assorted tones of light cream and maybe vanilla. A moderately light smell.

T: Blandish barley body with undertones of cream and malt. Very simple and not at all great. Poorly built. The bittering hops destroy the balane and feel unnatural.

Mf: Very wet and rather coarse, even for the style. Doesn't suit the flavours of the body.

Dr: A bland beer not worth trying unless you're an obsessive fanatic of the style. It's not particularly easy to down, being more thick than it ought to be, and the ABV isn't that high, so it's not really even a good option for getting bollocksed. Move along, lads. Get yourself a more worthy beer for less money (especially if you're here in Ireland).

Serving type: bottle

05-19-2011 22:44:15 | More by kojevergas

RoyalT

Ohio

2.23/5  rDev -19.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Appearance - This is a nice, straw-colored yellow in color with a wonderful head that was pure white and showed above-average retention.

Smell - The singular grain has a nice crispness to it although this is not a high-quality nose.

Taste - This beer falls to pieces at the taste. The grain is stale, almost rotten, with some cheap sugar at the finish.

Mouthfeel - This light-bodied lager had some nice carbonation and a touch of leafy bitterness.

Sinkability - I couldn't get past that rotten grain flavor to save my life. This was the hardest of the series for me to find and unfortunately the most disappointing.

PS: This beer was all over the place. I think this is only the second time in almost 2,000 reviews that I have five scores in which no two are the same.

Serving type: bottle

02-22-2011 04:07:28 | More by RoyalT

TheLongBeachBum

California

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

Presentation: Totally different to previous Baltika’s that I have had to date (namely the #3, #4, #6, #8 and #9) because this one comes in a 500ml bottle (but labeled as 1 Pint .9 fluid ounces for the US market) tall clear glass bottle sealed with a gold, black and white cap with a the words “БAЛTИKA 5 ЗОЛОТОЕ” on it. Shiny gold label wraps the proboscis like neck. Main label is golden metallic gold and white with a hint of red in the coat of arms above the word “BALTIKA 5”. More English wording states “Golden Lager” below. Listed as 5.3% Alc./Vol. Reverse label has this listed as imported by Dime Group International, IL and with a Freshness Date listed as 04.04.06.

Appearance: Starts with a fizzing white head that rises up to form a thick creamy cap above the sheer and clear golden body. Rising streamers soon fade, as does the head. Dissolved carbonation is high at first but this too rescinds quickly.

Nose: Smells like…..a weak faded lager. Nothing too repulsive, but nothing too exciting either. Pale malts with a hint of delicate hops. Has a funny aspect to it, hard to describe, sort of “old - damp - musty” cellars.

Taste: Soft sweet malts, lagery with some low end sparkling condition that spreads the earlier damp-musty aspect that I picked up from the nose, directly onto the tongue. Some hops do tend to add to the finish, sweet fruit ending though.

Mouthfeel: Even when it “flattens” in appearance, it is fizzy in the mouth, a little prickly that tends to annoy a little and it detracts from the overall Drinkability, the burps can tend to be nose bound if imbibed a little too quickly.

Drinkability: Not one that was quaffable, but easy enough to finish the bottle without feeling like you got beaten by it.

Overall: Could be one of a thousand faceless World Lagers, and I would not return to this, but it was nice to try it at least and satisfy my curiosity.

Music: Thin Lizzy, Johnny the Fox - Borderline……rather appropriate really.

Serving type: bottle

02-18-2006 06:42:23 | More by TheLongBeachBum

jrallen34

Illinois

2.93/5  rDev +5.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4

I drank this from a 22oz bottle into a chalice.

The beer pours crystal clear straw gold with a white head not much retention or lacing.

The aroma is not much, just light skunk.

The taste is the same just ligit skunk, not much flavor. Like you're typical ameriacan lager.

Moutfeel is light.

Overall a very boring disappointing beer.

Serving type: bottle

12-25-2009 00:16:26 | More by jrallen34

twiggamortis420

Texas

2.55/5  rDev -8.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Clear 500mL bottle with a freshness date of 03.04.10. Pours a very clear dark yellow color with a medium sized white head that disappears at a macro-esque clip. It does leave a decent collar with some low-hanging lace.

Nose is grainy and a bit stale. A few whiffs of skunk-funk, but not quite up to Heineken levels. Hops are pretty secretive, but a few grassy notes are detectable. This beer just does not smell very good.

Taste is heavy on the wet grains and I would be willing to gamble there is some corn in here as well. Alcohol is very drying on the palate and has a harsh edge to it. Hops are virtually a no-show here but could have provided some much needed depth. It does taste better than it smells and drinks like it is higher than 5.2%. Another less than stellar Baltika experience, but at a buck-fidy it's worth a try.

Serving type: bottle

08-13-2009 00:40:17 | More by twiggamortis420

nickfl

Florida

2.73/5  rDev -1.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

A - Small, fizzy white head that disappears quickly and leaves little lace. The body is light yellow with good clarity.

S - A light, grainy smell along with some weak hops, otherwise clean

T - Very light, grainy flavor. The finish is clean with a little bit of bitterness.

M - High carbonation, light body, and a very dry finish.

D - This is a very light beer. Similar to an American lite beer with just a hint of hops. Not really worth the effort of prying the cap off the bottle.

Serving type: bottle

09-23-2008 18:34:10 | More by nickfl

tgbljb

Pennsylvania

3.6/5  rDev +29.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Poured a clear golden color with modest white creamy head.
Smell demonstrates some malt fruitiness, with a slight note of hops in the background.
Taste also shows a nice fruity sweetness, but there is not enough hops to balance it.
Thin in the finish.
Very easy to drink, very refreshing, nothing offensive, but very boring.

Serving type: bottle

03-16-2008 20:33:14 | More by tgbljb

flagmantho

Washington

2.73/5  rDev -1.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Poured from 500mL bottle into a mug.

Appearance: light gold hue with a crystal clear body. Head is two fingers of frothy white foam. Not bad, though not exciting.

Smell: a little bit of malt and a little wet grain. Not great, but not substantially worse than other examples of the style.

Taste: grainy flavor; mostly inoffensive but not something of which I'd care to drink a lot. There is a light bitterness which is relatively well-balanced and appropriate but the malt is just not doing it for me.

Mouthfeel: light body but surprisingly creamy. I'd have to say that the mouthfeel is this beer's best feature.

Drinkability: well, this beer is alright, but I don't see myself buying it again in the future. This beer would certainly be better on a hot day than on a Saturday in January, but even so there are better examples of the style.

Serving type: bottle

01-15-2011 18:36:47 | More by flagmantho

mynie

Indiana

3.08/5  rDev +10.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Brewed in Russia. "Production Date" is Nov 30 2005, and it sez that it was supposed to be consumed before Nov 30 2006. My rule is 90 days past expiry date before I discount a review.

Pours a pretty gold with absolutely no head. Mediocre.

Smells of decent euro pils grains and a simple but solid hop background, along with some of the earthen fruitiness that comes with age.

Tastes very much like it smells, like a watered-down Czech Pilsener that's showing some light fruitness from age.

It's held up pretty well in the year since it was made, but I can't imagine it was too great to start with. Probably better fresh, but not much better.

Serving type: bottle

01-20-2007 05:05:51 | More by mynie