Founders Nemesis 2009 - Founders Brewing Company

Not Rated.
Founders Nemesis 2009Founders Nemesis 2009

Educational use only; do not reuse.

467 Reviews
no score

(Send Samples)
Reviews: 467
Hads: 695
Avg: 4.12
pDev: 15.78%
Wants: 187
Gots: 126 | FT: 7
Brewed by:
Founders Brewing Company visit their website
Michigan, United States

Style | ABV
Wheatwine |  12.00% ABV

Availability: Limited (brewed once)

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: WYVYRN527 on 02-06-2010

This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

Maple bourbon barrel aged wheat wine.
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 467 | Hads: 695
Photo of Arbitrator
1.36/5  rDev -67%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Chilled bottle into a glass, courtesy of westcoastbeerlvr in mid-July. Thanks, Craig.

A: Pours a slightly hazy deep orange body with copper tint. Short-lasting, thin off-white head.

S: Butterscotch, cane sugar, vanilla, orange zest.

T: This is like liquefied butterscotch and orange-vanilla candy blended together. Disgustingly sweet -- tastes like something The Bruery would have released.

M: Boozy and sweet.

O: Absolutely don't get the love for this one. It is horrid. I took a small pour and threw out most of it.

 527 characters

Photo of jmdrpi
2/5  rDev -51.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

finally decided to crack this one open. bottle date of 02/03/10.

appears a clear amber golden color. no head, but some bubbles stream to the surface for a bit. fakes of yeast float throughout.
aroma is all whiskey and maple syrup, as expected. boozy.

damn, this is still hot for being over a year aged. way too much bourbon, this tastes like a glass of watered down bourbon, not beer. solvent-like fusel alcohol flavors. very low carbonation.

very disappointed, especially since Fouders is one of my favorite brewers. unpleasant, I could only drank half the glass.

 571 characters

Photo of MusicaleMike
2.29/5  rDev -44.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Incredible hazy orange body with white head, about a finger think, that needed a lot of coaxing. Seems to dissipate quickly as well. Poured into a tulip glass.

Smells delicious, and reminds me of a lot of other barrel-aged Founders beers. Sweet on the nose, with subtle hints of vanilla, maple sugar, some vinous aromas, and oak aromas. Can smell some sweet tropical fruits in the background from the alcohol. Some cherry notes in there too. Okay, I am fully prepared to really enjoy drinking this.

Wow, alcohol is definitely high...tastes like 12 or 13 % least! Very flavorful first sip, with a true lightness of body from the high portion of wheat malt, but big, bold flavors with a ton of heat. Second sip is no more enjoyable. It comes off as messy. Alcohol, maple, bourbon are not mixing well here. There is a really odd, yet familiar flavor up front. It's like eating bitter greens, earthy and more than slightly unpleasant and vegetal. Lots of heat on the finish. Unfortunately not smooth as other barrel-aged Founders beers. The more I drink, the less I like. Towards the end, it tasted almost "moldy" to me like mushrooms.

While the body is lighter than a barleywine, it still comes off as full-bodied. Not syrupy, but definitely high sugar content. Heat from alcohol and some gentle carbonation.

Sadly, this is one vintage Founders beer that stands out as the worst Founders beer I have had in my life. The beer sounds good on paper, but misses completely. Avoid.

 1,490 characters

Photo of trxxpaxxs
2.36/5  rDev -42.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Thanks to projectflam86 for this bottle. My 100th review.

A: Pours a a cloudy peach. There are oranges, reds, and yellows all mixing together in this brew. Almost no head. Absolutely no lacing as it drinks.

S: Smells of sweet malt, rubbing alcohol, and nail polish.

T: Starts off with a big blast of acne astringent. There is some malty sweetness in there, some toasted oats, but it's mainly big boozy alcohol. I'm not in the mood for this beer. After two years in a bottle, I figured this beer would mellow out a bit, but it didn't.

M: Sticky and chewy. This beer coats the palate, and lingers forever.

O: Honestly... this beer is gross. I wanted something exciting for my 100th review, but this beer was a huge disappointment. Founders should stick to stouts. They always knock those out of the park.

 807 characters

Photo of youradhere
2.45/5  rDev -40.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Pours a murky golden orange, no head to speak of but a light cap of lacing. Smells of sweet malt, bourbon, vanilla, raisins and honey. Taste is maple bourbon, some astringency, lots of alcohol burn still. the bourbon makes this pretty one-dimensional as it still dominates the flavor in this beer. As it warms the bourbon becomes more present and so does the astringency, it is almost distracting it is getting so bad. I like bourbon barrel character, just not this flavor of a straight shot of it in my beer, I can hardly even taste the base beer which makes it seem as though it is being masked by the bourbon. Mouthfeel is alright, it is thick enough to carry the bourbon, but could be better. Not a great beer by my standards, I think the bourbon was too much on this like Backwoods. I can't even taste the beer outside of the bourbon, I might as well be drinking straight bourbon instead of this next time.

I definitely prefer the 2010 Nemesis to this one, hands down. On to Bells 10,000 next.

 999 characters

Photo of baconsausage
2.58/5  rDev -37.4%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Dont much care for this at this time. Good aroma and appearance, but the flavor is laking in the like-ability. smells sweet and boozy with a hint of model glue on the finish. Nice golden color and light, slightly fizzy carbonation. Sweet, cheep scotch, ( with a drip of water) aroma with hint of froggy maple dominates the balate, with an unpleasant tannic bitterness on the finish. I drank this trying to find something good, as it is the only Founders beer I have wanted to pour out. This bruiser will go the test of time, but will still be a bruiser in the least.

 566 characters

Photo of steve8robin
2.61/5  rDev -36.7%
look: 3 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Nice extra in a trade...

A: Nothing special on the look. No head with a pink / copper murky color.

S: Smells of wine, oak, sugars with maple on the backend. Smells pretty good.

T: Super boozy! Even after it warms. Not getting much else but a rubbing alcohol type flavor. Mixed in the middle are slight bitter hops with very subtle port, oak, and maple flavors on the backend. Way too boozy. All the flavors are hidden.

M: Leaves your mouth dry immediately as if you were drinking straight vodka.

D: Goes down hard because it's like drinking hard liquor straight.

All in all, I'm not quite sure why this brew is so highly regarded. Not worth hunting unless you are looking for a hard liquor tasting brew. Otherwise, if you need hops or malts, this is not your beer. Many more that are far superior in this style. BIG disappoinment.

 837 characters

Photo of Gtreid
2.61/5  rDev -36.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

12 oz. bottle poured into my CCB tulip.

A: Pours a viscous deep amber color. Almost no head appears, and the beer leaves no lace.

A: Bourbon straight away, and lots of it. I get a hefty amount of maple sugar sweetness and a big caramel malt backbone.

T: Honey, maple, and bourbon. Big caramel malt and some citrusy tartness. But I'm afraid that the bourbon overpowers the brew. It finishes very hot and sticky.

M: Heavy body. This coats the palate just like a maple syrup would. Low carbonation.

D and overall impression: Drinkability is quite low, the sugary sweetness and the buorbon just don't do it for me. Overall, this is an interesting concoction, but one I won't be having again. Skal.

 698 characters

Photo of Tucquan
2.65/5  rDev -35.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Had this on 2010-09-10 in Columbia, PA

A - Dark honey with no head but some small bubbles

S - Bourbon, maple, rock candy

T - Pretty intense and too much of everything. Tons of bourbon (not my favorite flavor), too sweet maple, vanilla, honeysuckle.

M - Medium-heavy body, syrupy. It was effervescent with more carbonation than I expected.

D - I'm in the minority on this one. I really didn't like it. The strong flavors seemed to each fight for prominence. Couldn't finish it although you can tell it was made well with quality ingredients.

 546 characters

Photo of dedrinker
2.68/5  rDev -35%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Amber color, light amber I guess.

A nose of alcohol and sugar - caramel, maple syrup.

Flavors of maple syrup, whiskey, and alcohol.

Split one 12 oz. bottle between 3 guys, and we still didn't finish it.

C'mon beer nerds, I mean really. Is there what we're really investing our street cred in? A new generation of jock mentality childish neanderthal flavored beers? It's gross, way to fat, big, out of balance etc. and the price is through the roof! I'm sure it's costly to produce, but that doesn't make it worth it.

 520 characters

Photo of Coleybeerman
2.71/5  rDev -34.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

After a long wait of arrival, i am rather of dissapointed with outcome. Poured into a Duvel tulip, the head dissipated very quickly. Sweet aroma's of malt, slight maple and alcohol. The taste, again is rather sweet with faint maple that is masked by the big 12% abv, very boozy. I generally don't complain about high alcohol content but in this case it subtracts from my overall impression of this dissapointing offering.

 421 characters

Photo of prototypic
2.72/5  rDev -34%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

The inaugural Nemesis release pours an orange stained gold color. It's extremely hazy and looks almost golden brown when held to light. Unfortunately, the light carbonation yields no head. That's very disappointing. Below average as a result.

The nose is pretty average. It kicks off with an interesting mix of wheat, grain, and maple. It's an odd mix that seems to be a odds. Bourbon and a little oak follow. It's still an interesting blend that doesn't seem to completely mesh. Butterscotch, vanilla, and coconut are secondary. Alcohol is noted, and seems somewhat strong. Eh. It's just okay.

The flavor kicks off with a less than satisfying mix of wheat, alcohol, bourbon, and maple syrup. While it is interesting, it doesn't taste very good. It's very convoluted and doesn't come together well at all. The bourbon and maple syrup flavors are definitely at odds. Oak, vanilla, coconut, and light banana are all secondary. While they add depth and complexity, it still tastes very jumbled and messy. Alcohol has blended nicely and tamed a little over the last 9 months. It's there, but it's not hot. Finishes grainy, syrupy, and bourbony.

2009 Nemesis has a medium body. Carbonation is very light. It doesn't feel smooth, but it's not bad. Drinkability is below average. I don't really like the flavor, it's very big at 12% abv, and it's quite the sipper. Honestly, it's a struggle to get down a bottle in a sitting.

I've always been and will always be a huge fan of Founders Brewing. Having said that, the 2009 Nemesis release is probably my least favorite release from Founders...ever. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but just doesn't work in practice. I tried this when it was released and didn't like it. I still don't. The various flavors do not work well together, and produce a less than satisfying end product. That's especially true given the price point. I know many love it, but it's not my thing.

 1,940 characters

Photo of 05Harley
2.78/5  rDev -32.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Bottled on 2/3/10.

I've had several of these over the last year and this is the last of them.

Purchased @ West Lakeview Liquors, Chicago Illinois

Price - $5.99

Appearance: Pours orange in color with a faint white cap that disappears quickly to an equally faint ring around the glass. Not quite clear, definitely has a slight haze with some fines in suspension.

Smell: Alcohol right up front, no disguising this one. Notes of bourbon, vanilla and oak come to mind.

Taste: Just as it smells, an almost medicinal flavor. Not very good. If you like straight booze this ones for you.

Mouthfeel: Has a decent enough body with a somewhat oily residual feel. Low carbonation if any.

Drinkability: Not in my opinion. A definite sipper, probably could have had it on the rocks. I struggled to finish the bottle each time I experienced it.

I appreciate the effort in producing it, however it just isn't for me.

 910 characters

Photo of zoolzoo
2.86/5  rDev -30.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Thanks gford217

After trying the Smuttynose Wheat Wine and a couple others that I really enjoyed, I have to admit I was pretty pumped to get my hands on this.

Almost no head even after an aggressive pour. Its orange, barely any activity. Its sort of just sitting there.

Smells pretty good. Sugary booze, barrel, maple syrup. Potent, stimulating.

Too sweet, too boozy. Too much bourbon and maple syrup. Pleasant touch of vanilla quickly destroyed by everything that is too big about this beer. Not much of a wheat character. Sip able, but more abrasive than a decent scotch.

 578 characters

Photo of harrymel
2.88/5  rDev -30.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This bitch rolls out tawny and thin, small bubbles rise infrequently to an etched surface. I could smell booze as soon as I cracked the crown, plenty of alcohol, vanilla, oak, more booze, butterscotch and a hint of peppermint in the background. Flavor is sweet with plenty of toffee character and marshmallows. Vanilla and spicy mint in the background (this is intriguing). Reminds me very little of a Wheatwine, and accordingly, I find myself enjoying this one a bit. The body is medium with moderate on low carb. Would have liked a bit of a simple syrup consstency, but hey, can't have it all.

Overall, and interesting beer, the mint nuances threw me off, and the ethanol is poorly shrowded, I'd drink again, but it's a mood beer for me I think.

 748 characters

Photo of cpetrone84
2.88/5  rDev -30.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

pour is a hazy golden amber. Nose is rubbing alcohol and peaches. Taste is a bit better, very sweet caramel malt with peaches and golden fruits, fair amount of grain to the feel, lots of sugars left behind, Nikolai vodka in back with a fair bit of heat and lingering boozy finish.

 280 characters

Photo of DIM
2.9/5  rDev -29.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Split with my dad. I know these made it to PA, but I sure didn't see any. Thanks to OHLRangers for the chance to try this unique offering. Dad gave it a B+.

a: This was a clear, moderately dark golden color. It poured with a short lived fizzy head.

s: Smells interesting, even if it is a bit overpowering. Plenty of sweet elements, the boozy bourbon, vanilla, lots of obvious maple syrup, and something that reminds me of the candied sugar in a tripel. The heat wafting off of this strong, but not obnoxious. Sweet and boozy pretty well sums this one up.

t: Sweet maple, bourbon, and booze up front. Sweeter than I normally like, but it does start off pretty well. These flavors carry over into the finish, which is pretty hot. There is a tingly, unpleasant medicinal quality at the end as well. All I can taste is the booze, the barrel, and the maple. Any wheatwine characteristics are all but lost. Sweet almost to the point of being cloying and too hot.

m: Medium bodied with gentle carbonation.

d: I was less enamored with CBS than most, but it was a good bit better than Nemesis. I like the idea and I respect innovation, but this is a bit of a mess overall. I don't get the idea that time would help any, I'd be afraid it would only get sweeter. Thanks for the chance Ed, I am glad I tried it. Dad liked it I'm happy to say.

 1,335 characters

Photo of mullenite
2.93/5  rDev -28.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

I was really excited to try this one with all the hype it has received. A maple-bourbon barrel-aged wheatwine? Yes, please. Where do I sign up. Thankfully this was thrown in as an extra in a trade from a very generous BeerAdvocate so I got my chance to try it.

Appearance - Hazy orange in color with pretty much no head even with a really hard pour. As a result there is very little lacing left on the glass. I left some of this in the glass last night and this morning it is crystal clear so it appears the haze is coming from chill haze, I also recall it being crystal clear while in the bottle.

Nose - Smells strongly of honey, wheat, and some citrus. There is some fusel heat in there. Not very complex, the alcohol kind of kills it as it isn't a layer but a glaring fault. I'm guessing the honey is coming from the maple but really it has an orange blossom honey thing going on and not really something I would associate with maple.

Taste - The taste... it's good at first with a really great bready, wheat, honey flavors. I would really dig this and understand the hype if it wasn't for the fact that it feels like I'm taking a shot with each sip. I have had many a beer, similar in alcohol content, that was not this hot. A little bit of heat in the background can be great, it can add a layer of complexity to the flavor. In the case of this beer it's beyond that. It is so strong it takes away from the flavor. As the beer warms up closer to room temperature some of the heat subsides and a little bit of the bourbon comes out but it is still too hot. I wish I had another bottle so I could revisit this in a couple years.

Mouthfeel - Medium, creamy, body with a slight tickle of carbonation.

Overall - I don't get the hype. It's a decent beer but Terrapin Gamma Ray blows it away as does Sam Adams Double White. I'm glad to have tried it, with much thanks to Kelp, but I wouldn't seek it out again. If I were to come across another bottle I would age it, but I'm not going to trade anything rare for it.

 2,018 characters

Photo of brdc
2.97/5  rDev -27.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Small capped bottle poured int a snifter.

Peculiar color, a hazy, light orange, with not much of a head, just a very very thin tan covering that dissipates in seconds.
Aroma is interesting, but quite boozy. Some oak notes, a lot of vanilla, burnt sugar, and again, more alcohol.
Medium bodied, the flavor suffers - a lot - from excessive alcohol heat. Sweet notes get drowned, and what would be a good sweet sipper, feels like low quality spirit.
I can see some promise, however, and it is still possible that in another two years this will be good. The other bottle goes back to the cellar, for at least two more years..

 625 characters

Photo of alkchrios
3.06/5  rDev -25.7%
look: 3 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I was excited to get one of these along with two other craft beers for a kate the great (yes it was a legit and great trade..abyss and sexual chocolate) I was going to save this for a while but after much consideration.. I needed to try it. Bottle is from 2009. Initial pour gave way to relatively no head what-so ever. Copper in color. The smell is absolutely amazing. Smells of sweet fruit.. almost like a fruit roll up.. oddly enough. There are also scents of caramel. At 12 percent the alcohol is rather non existent in the nose. knowing it was aged in maple bourbon barrels i am able to smell undertones of bourbon. Taste.. pretty good..nothing to really write home about. I felt as though the taste did not really reflect the smell at all. Its rather bitter and woodsy. As for mouthfeel... slightly carbonation.. finishes kind of rough.
I could drink maybe one or two snifters of these then sadly i feel id get bored with it.

Do I suggest... ehh.

 953 characters

Photo of Gyle41386
3.1/5  rDev -24.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Was very, very surprised to find multiple 4 packs of Nemesis at one of my "local" bottle shops. Grabbed a couple for aging purposes, and figured I might as well crack one open while still relatively fresh.

Murky orange pour. A very aggressive pour yields a thin halo of foam, which was expected. There's a pretty fair amount of sticky lacing on the inside of the glass, though its stay is short-lived.

Aroma is very, very sweet, and dominated by bourbon. Sweet maple, sweet vanilla, even more sweet bourbon, and maybe some sweet brown sugar. Wheat? I don't smell it. Warmth doesn't really add complexity. It just adds boozy heat.

Flavor is about the same. Tons of sweet flavors, and solvent-like alcohol. Sweet heat, all the way. I will say, though, that there is a nice hop bitterness that wasn't evident in the aroma, and provides a much-needed extra dimension to the flavor.

Nemesis is full-bodied, and very viscous. Slick and chewy, with a dry, boozy finish. Drinkability? Uh, not great. Not a drainpour...Thorn telling Rabbit to "Well, finish it up" after a syrup chug victory in Super Troopers comes to mind, somewhat appropriately. We'll see what age does to these...a rare miss from Founders.

 1,205 characters

Photo of hz23hz23
3.13/5  rDev -24%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A: Deep orange with a little brown. No head.

S: Nose reminds me of Sauternes (a famous desert wine). I smell graham crackers, cleaning fluid, faint hops.

T: Balanced for a rich, sweeter style beer. Bananas. Graham crackers. Hint of peppermint candy on finish. Sweet. Short finish.

M: Creamy and lightly bubbly. Just enough hops and bubbles to keep this one from being syrup like the 120min. IPA.

D: Nightcap beer. Too sweet for multiple drinks.

Another over-hyped beer. Bourbon aged beers with high alcohol are almost always too sweet for a beer (no beer is too bitter for me). I'd rather drink real Bourbon or have a glass of desert wine. It's still much better than, let's say, the 120min. IPA. Try with blue cheese.

 724 characters

Photo of Damian
3.13/5  rDev -24%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Drank from a 12 fl. oz./355 ml bottle purchased at Downtown Wine & Spirits, Somerville, MA
Served in a snifter

The beer poured a hazy, peachy-amber color with absolutely no head and no lacing.

The aroma was interesting yet much more mild than I anticipated. Sweet and candy-like in a way that I could not really identify. A bit artificial. Somewhat boozy (bourbon-like) and slightly smoky.

Like the nose, the flavor profile was rather empty, particularly on the front end. Caramel malts were noticeable. Wheaty and tart in the center with discernible lemon notes. The finish was the most intense aspect of this beer. Even after a year-plus of aging, it was boozy and super hoppy. The pithy hops were piney and oily. As the beer warmed, the hops really took over the flavor profile, permeating the palate from start to finish.

The mouthfeel was medium-bodied. Creamy and smooth with a fine, mild effervescence.

According to the label, this is a "maple bourbon barrel aged wheat wine." Unfortunately, I detected no maple, very little bourbon and not much barleywine character. I definitely expected a lot more from this beer.

 1,128 characters

Photo of errantnight
3.15/5  rDev -23.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 3

I must say, for one of my favorite breweries, brewing a beer style (Wheatwhine) that I love, and doing it all up with maple and bourbon and the hoo ha and the whatnot... I was so stoked for this beer when it came out that I hungrily traded for multiple four packs sight unseen.

The last time I let a little thing like brewery reputation and awesome sounding beer influence me to over-commit before tasting.

This beer has never been particularly good, and it really hasn't improved.

A booze bomb to start, two years in it stills reaks of high alcohol and bourbon in particular. I say "reaks" which makes it sound unpalatable, but it's far from it. It's just a touch harsh. A pleasant enough, even soft, harshness for a snifter of the hard stuff, but to my tastes unacceptably sharp for a beer.

Like the far superior Backwoods Bastard, this has a gorgeous, luscious mouthfeel that in and of itself warms me towards this beer. Despite the heavy accents of booze, this is full, smooth, soft and slightly round. Sweetness is apparent on the palate but finishes nicely dry with a hot, warming chest to follow.

This is so in the range of something spectacular. That it avoids thinness in and of itself with this level of aggressive booze is an accomplishment. But it's still enough straight bourbon notes to make me question if this, or the un-barrel aged version of this beer with a shot of bourbon in it, would be preferable.

 1,426 characters

Photo of Reaper16
3.15/5  rDev -23.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

12oz. bottle served into a snifter

Pours a lighter-than-expected amber/orange color that lies somewhere between Princeton orange and deep carrot orange. The body is nearly opaque. There is some yeast sediment floating throughout the body, especially when you pour the last half into the glass. The head, well, there isn't any. No foam at all at any point of the pour. Considering that beer is 12% ABV one shouldn't expect much foam. Still, compared to a wheatwine like Boulevard's Harvest Dance this offering from Founders is lacking in the appearance dept.

The nose unfurls nicely as the beer warms. Initially I get alcohol and a gloopy sort of sweetness. Then the interesting elements come out - baked cinnamon apples, pencil lead, bourbon, honey, pancakes, vanilla extract. It is a pleasant nose for a bourbon barrel-aged beer. I'm not convinced that it works for the wheatwine style. The wheat is obscured by the strong barrel smells. In a blind tasting I would smell this and call it a barleywine or a strong ale ten out of ten times. This beer smells good but I rate to style. Needs to have more discernible wheat.

Thankfully the beer tastes like a wheatwine. It has the overly-sweet honeysuckle taste that I've found in nearly every wheatwine. The maple & bourbon sure do come out of those barrels. They aren't doing the beer many favors. This beer is overly sweet. The wheat malt tastes too sweet, the maple and vanilla tastes too sweet, the boozy element is all sweetness and harshness, both too strong. It finishes with a chalky, oaky astringency that is much needed but even that is covered up by the sugary flavors of apple and syrup. You expect a sweet beer when drinking this, but I wish that all the sweetness would come together better.

No carbonation. You are left with a thick body and no carbonation. This, of course, amplifies the boozyness and doesn't help to make the cloying sweetness any less sweet. Clearly Founders wants to emphasize the sweetness here. I think that it is a mistake; too much. You can guess then that I feel the drinkability is suspect. Some people are all like "half a 12oz. bottle is enough for me," and I'm not going quite that far. I finished the bottle myself. The alcohol does get to you (as you'd expect) but the real problem is that the beer is too sweet.

I love Founders. They might just be my favorite overall brewery. But this beer is a misstep for me. How people can think that this is better than Harvest Dance is beyond me. Hopefully age can tame this beer; I'm not planning on drinking another for quite a few months.

 2,583 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Founders Nemesis 2009 from Founders Brewing Company
92 out of 100 based on 467 ratings.