1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Honey Wheat - Triumph Brewing Company

Not Rated.
Honey Wheat
No picture uploaded.
Have one? Upload it now.
BA SCORE
71
okay

20 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 20
Reviews: 14
rAvg: 2.78
pDev: 21.94%
Wants: 0
Gots: 0 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Triumph Brewing Company visit their website
New Jersey, United States

Style | ABV
American Pale Wheat Ale |  ABV ?

Availability: Rotating

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 04-14-2003)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
Ratings: 20 | Reviews: 14 | Display Reviews Only:
Reviews by the Alström Bros:

  None found.

More User Reviews:
Photo of HollandTunnels
HollandTunnels

Pennsylvania

3.5/5  rDev +25.9%

12-31-2011 15:11:51 | More by HollandTunnels
Photo of NeroFiddled
NeroFiddled

Pennsylvania

3.8/5  rDev +36.7%

A hazy, golden body is capped by a thin, bright-white head that drops readily and leaves only minor spottty lace. The nose is limited, but offers a touch of wheatish malt, some minor fruitiness, and background floral hops. It's light bodied and mildly crisp in the mouth with a fine, moderate carbonation that leaves it soft and smooth. The flavor is delicately malty with a light accent from wheat and a mild sweetness and flavor from the hops. It's balanced towards sweetness with a low key bitterness, but somehow still finishes fairly dry. Limited by its basic character, it's a decent beer but it just doesn't have a great drinkability.

10-31-2003 04:27:51 | More by NeroFiddled
Photo of mdillon86
mdillon86

Pennsylvania

2/5  rDev -28.1%

11-26-2011 18:34:17 | More by mdillon86
Photo of Dodo2step
Dodo2step

Pennsylvania

2.7/5  rDev -2.9%

from notes at brewry

A- a pale yellow pour that was hazy.

S- malt and that was pretty much it.

T- bland but there was some hints of honey and huge malts. It reminds me of a BMC beer.

M-weak and watered down, no complexities to it and nothing special.

D- one and done. It wasnt all that great and will not have this one again. If your a BMC fan drink up.

04-11-2009 16:25:34 | More by Dodo2step
Photo of Chugs13
Chugs13

New Jersey

3/5  rDev +7.9%

06-14-2012 01:42:12 | More by Chugs13
Photo of Loki
Loki

North Carolina

2.53/5  rDev -9%

Part of the sampler and the first of seven I tried from Triumph on June 24th, 2003.

Poured a light golden yellow with little head and no real lacing. I would have expected a more honey color from a honey wheat.

Very off, nose. Scents of wheat but stale wheat and maybe some burnt corn? I'm not sure exactly what the nose was, but it wasn't good at all.

The taste was of malt and wheat with little honey to speak of and no discernable hops or spice. Very disappointing, this was not a good way to start the much atticipated tasting off.

06-26-2003 09:12:36 | More by Loki
Photo of marcpal
marcpal

New Jersey

1.88/5  rDev -32.4%

Agree with most of the reviewers, not good. Not good at all. Part of a sampler and was still difficult to get down. Wife loves the weak bland weak beers and she didnt even like this. Would love to know who this beer appeals to??

Thought this may have been skunked but apparently I wasnt the only one with the bad experience.

A: Light honey color with nothing to right home about here.

S: Slight wheat smell but nothing else. Really seemed skunked.

T: Nothing here whatsoever. Possibly the most bland version of
this style Ive ever had.

M/D: Offered you nothing and in terms of having a few, it was hard enought getting down the part of the sampler.

10-21-2007 19:20:30 | More by marcpal
Photo of potownbill
potownbill

New York

2.53/5  rDev -9%

Wish I would have read the reviews beforehand. I limit myself to one beer per visit, because this is a lunch stop on my route from Philly to Potown. This was not a stellar brew by any means. The color was pale yellow, with virtually no head. Slight wheat smell. Taste was noticably off. Maybe some biscuity malt, but more of the taste of a BMC approaching the end of its freshness date. Mouthfeel was watery.
This is unusual for Triumph, as I usually go out of my way so I can try one of their brews. This will not deter me in the future.

08-08-2007 20:37:56 | More by potownbill
Photo of cmq103
cmq103

New Jersey

3/5  rDev +7.9%

02-14-2014 01:51:52 | More by cmq103
Photo of acrawf6
acrawf6

Louisiana

2.65/5  rDev -4.7%

Pours out a light cloudy straw color, small head.

Smell really reminds me of a euro lager, not a wheat.

Taste was not all that good, imho. I did get a touch of the honey, but the beer just tasted watered down. I get an artificial sweetness here.

Mouthfeel is quite thin. thin body.

Overall, i hate to knock this beer so much, but i just dont see many posititves about it. It's drinkable, but was the beer i liked least at triumph.

05-17-2006 18:55:29 | More by acrawf6
Photo of JJBlanche
JJBlanche

California

2.13/5  rDev -23.4%

Purchased via growler at the New Hope, PA location...

...apparently, Triumph won a gold medal for this. It begs the question, does Triumph own the place that's giving out the medals?

This brew reminded me of a Bud-Miller-Coors pisser, with maybe a bit more by way of malt backbone. I really had to search hard for any degree of complexity. Indeed, it was so lackluster that it prompted me to join BeerAdvocate to write this review...so maybe in that regard it warrants a bonus point.

It does improve somewhat as it warms. I'd say around 50ish degrees is a good serving temp. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't miraculously become excellent, but (for me) it's much more tolerable as it warms (tolerable being the key word). At standard fridge temps, it tastes like watery BMC.

The aroma, appearance, palate, flavor, etc, are all BMC. This is clearly a beer designed for folks that normally drink Bud-Miller-Coors. In other words, I'll never order it again.

I know from experience that Triumph is capable of making good beers, but this is not one of them. If you're ever there, bypass this offering all together (unless, of course, you drink BMC on the regular).

01-21-2009 19:16:43 | More by JJBlanche
Photo of GnomeKing
GnomeKing

Pennsylvania

3.95/5  rDev +42.1%

Look at all these low reviews...surprises the hell out of me. Personally, I liked this one without reservation. The taste is delicate and light, yet it's also assertive: the honey and hops (I was surprised by the strength of the hops flavor) were a nice one-two punch. The result is a crisp, sweet taste that will make you pucker. The carbonation is moderately sharp. The color is light, even weak, but the quality of the head and lacing balanced things out...an average looker.

So, if you go, at least ask for a sample...you might be a nut like me and dig this interesting brew.

03-09-2006 15:30:01 | More by GnomeKing
Photo of blitheringidiot
blitheringidiot

Pennsylvania

2.7/5  rDev -2.9%

Quite the pale clear pour pint that offered little looks wise or aroma wise. Just a delicate suggestion of the honey wheat aspects. Seemed overall to be a mild more than anything. The best compliment that I can pay this brew is that it is clean as all get out with a fresh invigorating nature. But I like flavor personally.

Last swigs: This was my least favorite of the beers. Great for most folks I'm sure who want a "beer with not a lot of flavor." Hopefully they sell a lot of this.

08-09-2005 00:57:37 | More by blitheringidiot
Photo of nickdank
nickdank

New Jersey

3/5  rDev +7.9%

02-20-2014 15:43:28 | More by nickdank
Photo of paulie
paulie

Connecticut

2.3/5  rDev -17.3%

Part of a sampler my wife and I shared. She tried it first and said, "Oh my god! It's Budweiser!" Not a bad description. Pale with neither head nor lace by the time it reached our table. Kind of watery, kind of weak. Flavor would be entirely forgetable except for a little high-pitched hop whine totally unblended with the malt -- made me think of a mosquito buzzing around my head. The malt flavor itself seemed ... odd, like they had used rice instead of wheat. I'd say it was brewed for the macro-loving crowd. We quickly moved on to the other offerings.

01-08-2004 15:18:24 | More by paulie
Photo of BeerNemesis
BeerNemesis

New York

1.78/5  rDev -36%

Honey Wheat.

Appearance:
Pale yellow, a bit hazy, very unsubstantial looking. Poured from a Triumph growler shortly after leaving the brewery. Almost no head, thin lacing.

Aroma:
Some wheaty malt, maybe honey, that's about it. What it lacks in complexity... it also lacks in flavor:

Taste:
As one sided as can be -- really reminiscent of the sort of drivel BMC (Bud, Miller, Coors) typically puts out. A bit of lackluster maltiness is about all I can say for this beer. Some weak honey flavor in the background. Very disappointing: bland, and precariously straddling the fence between tolerable and disgusting.

Mouthfeel & Drinkability:
Very thin and watery in the mouth. The fact that the flavor is so one-sided, so BMC really puts a bad taste in my mouth, especially coming from a brewery like Triumph that has produced good craft beer.

03-18-2010 23:27:15 | More by BeerNemesis
Photo of francisweizen
francisweizen

Alaska

2.5/5  rDev -10.1%

From notes: A light golden brew with a small white head that dies quickly and leaves no real lacing. Aromas are of faint sweet honey and lightly biscuity malts. The aftertaste is sweet and grainy and the mouthfeel is very very light. Drinkability suffers as this is very bland and one dimensional. Next.

03-03-2005 19:11:31 | More by francisweizen
Photo of Reagan1984
Reagan1984

Massachusetts

3.73/5  rDev +34.2%

I notice it's been six months since anyone has reviewed this beer. From my discussion with the bartender, I get the sense they may have changed the recipe.

Frankly, I enjoyed the beer but it also provides a challenge in the area of reviewing.

I didn't really think it tasted much like a Pale Wheat Ale. When I mentioned this to the bartender, he readily admitted they barely use any wheat and that it was almost not considered a wheat despite the name.

So, do I rate this based on the style as this site requests, or based on whether or not I enjoyed it? How about both.

Clear gold color with some visible carbonation and very little head sitting atop the beer.

I noted a sweet bread like aroma and was surprised that it was malt like and not really reminiscent of a wheat beer.

I thought the flavor was very good, but again not like a Wheat style at all.

Excellent bread like finish with a crispness and subtle sweet malt flavor.

Very light mouth feel, this was clearly Triumph's session beer and the one seeking to target those looking for a summer brew or taking their first steps into the Micro-brew world.

But I have to be honest, I don't taste any of the off flavors noted by other reviewers and I would not dream of saying this was a bad beer.

The style is not my favorite to begin with. This beer by their own admission doesn't fit the style. This beer is not targeted at those who are inclined to review beers as a hobby.

Having said all of that I thought the beer was a nice brew and one I would certainly enjoy on a hot summer day.

07-01-2008 10:41:32 | More by Reagan1984
Photo of Dogbrick
Dogbrick

Ohio

3/5  rDev +7.9%

Sample at the Princeton location: Pours a pale yellow-gold color with a thin white head that fizzes away quickly. Spotty lacing. Mild honey and malt in the nose. Light clean body with malt, honey and wheat flavors. The finish is wehaty and malty with a lingering honey aftertaste. Average overall.

12-19-2007 20:09:47 | More by Dogbrick
Photo of petermethot
petermethot

New Jersey

3/5  rDev +7.9%

06-26-2013 15:18:19 | More by petermethot
Honey Wheat from Triumph Brewing Company
71 out of 100 based on 20 ratings.