Beez Neez - Matilda Bay Brewing Co.

Not Rated.
Beez NeezBeez Neez

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
65
poor

51 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 51
Reviews: 31
rAvg: 2.59
pDev: 23.17%
Wants: 1
Gots: 2 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Matilda Bay Brewing Co. visit their website
Australia

Style | ABV
American Pale Wheat Ale |  4.70% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
This unique brew has a light malt palate with a distinct honey aroma and flavour plus a hint of bitterness. Clean, crisp and dry on the palate and surprisingly refreshing.

15 IBU

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 01-07-2004)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 51 | Reviews: 31 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of SmashPants
1.44/5  rDev -44.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.25 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Format: a standard dark brown 345mL bottle, with a decent semi-boutique label - looks good.

Appearance: a strong golden-yellow colour that looks a little too yellow. Limited carbonation with basically no head. Isn't this meant to be a honey wheat beer?

Aroma: oh damn, what is that?? It smells of a fantastically cheap lager grain with a touch of some off honey lumped on top. How did they manage that? Honey doesn't even go off!

Taste: very little of those cheap lager grains on the nose, but a stronger and hence nastier crap honey. This is dead-set one of the worst beers I have ever had.

Aftertaste: I couldn't get this out of my mouth quickly enough. The flavours linger for quite a while, even through my first rinsing with water.

Mouth feel: a very watery body with stacks of sharp carbonation that make those awful flavours explode up your nose.

Overall: suffice to say, this is not one of my favourite beers in the world. I really don't know what they were thinking with this - it tastes like a really poor lager with watered-down honey dropped in just before bottling. It is a horrendous, nasty and vile substance which will never again pass my lips. They also want to charge AU$56 a case for this nonsense.

Photo of nitrofenix
3.5/5  rDev +35.1%

Photo of spycow
2.5/5  rDev -3.5%

Photo of Stuckey_Stuckey
3.88/5  rDev +49.8%

Photo of emincems
3/5  rDev +15.8%

Photo of bicorrea
4.5/5  rDev +73.7%

Photo of Mosant
2.5/5  rDev -3.5%

Photo of LathouXaris
3/5  rDev +15.8%

Photo of Agentveba
3/5  rDev +15.8%

Photo of GraduatedCashew
3/5  rDev +15.8%

Photo of adityashekhar
2.5/5  rDev -3.5%

Photo of soju6
2.63/5  rDev +1.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A: Pours a golden color with a good head that fades slowly to some lacing.

S: Aroma of citrus, honey and some grain in the background.

T: Light taste of honey, trace of fruit and some grain. Mild bitterness and a slightly sticky finish.

F: Light body, smooth but the honey sweetness gets to you by the end of the beer.

O: Drinkable but for only one.

Photo of magpieken
2.5/5  rDev -3.5%

Photo of pin
2.5/5  rDev -3.5%

Photo of XsoldoutX
2.5/5  rDev -3.5%

Photo of Jake321
4/5  rDev +54.4%

Photo of kazoo
3/5  rDev +15.8%

Photo of doktorhops
2.08/5  rDev -19.7%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

How did this one get away? I've reviewed damn near every Matilda Bay beer, however Beez Neez seems to have escaped my grasp. Could it possibly be due to the fact that it was a beer I used to enjoy back in the day when it was first released and then was somehow changed into a mediocre third-class brew? Sure it could, but let's give it a fresh look again and a second chance of glory.

Poured from a 345ml bottle into a 500ml stein.

A: First things first - this is not a wheat beer as we know it. There is some obvious filtering making what should be a cloudy straw body clear and amber like a typical Lager. The head is also in Lager territory; puffy white cloud that dissipates to a thin white lacing. If being marked as a wheat beer it loses points here, and as a personal preference cloudy bottle-conditioned beers are better... they just are.

S: Honey is the big note and is noticeable straight away, along with a heavy grain base, aromas of corn and cut grass hops. There is a vegetal matter (or skunk) smell ever present in the background that really just detracts from the overall aroma and lets this brew down considerably (think along the lines of a typical macro Lager).

T: Upfront with adjunct grains, more corn than wheat flavours, with a that vegetal note in the background and slight hop bitterness. The hops are more grassy foil to the hearty grain base, and the honey flavour noted in the aroma is almost non-existent now. And here is the rub: this is not a wheat beer by any stretch of the imagination, it is total Lager flavours here and this only serves to compound ones disappointment further. Also back when it first came out you could really taste the honey, now it's hardly noticeable, cost-cutting is the first thought that comes to mind.

M: Lagerish in mouthfeel, watery body with a zing of carbonation, far from any wheat beer out there.

D: Yep, it hasn't improved from the day it was changed many years ago. I remember this beer being a minor hit back in the day but now it is a total miss, barely better than the macro Lager scene and not worth investing any time in. If it's at a pub and you have a choice between this and the usual macro Lager club; go for whatever Coopers is on tap instead. At least Coopers haven't compromised the quality of their beers to save money. Bottom line - miss this one. Possibly the worst of the Matilda Bay brews (it's this or Redback, which also used to be a better beer).

Food match: Match this with Lager fare; hot dogs, meat pies, hamburgers and other street food you might find. Don't spend any money food pairing with this as it will be a waste of decent cuisine.

Photo of Gypson
2.25/5  rDev -13.1%

Photo of hopnerd
2.5/5  rDev -3.5%

Photo of dmorgan310
2.5/5  rDev -3.5%

Photo of aBeeraWeek
2.38/5  rDev -8.1%
look: 1.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

When poured it looks pretty thin. There is a few light bubbles rising through a light orange amber colour. Head is virtually non existent, and what was there diappeared quickly. Zero lacing.

Smell is not bad. Some distinct honey, but not as overly sweet as some other honey beers I have tasted before. Some wheat smells coming through as well.

Taste is a let down. The honey is there early, but disappears to leave you with a more maize taste with a light bitter aftertaste of no real distinction.

Quite light bodied with just enough fine carbonation to at least give it some refreshing value.

Photo of DrNo
2.5/5  rDev -3.5%

Photo of Robje
3/5  rDev +15.8%

Photo of dansmcd
2.63/5  rDev +1.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Poured into my Weihenstephan weizen glass.

A - Effervescent pale amber with two fingers of fluffy white head with good retention and reasonable lace. Good start.

S - Mild hefe aromas of wheat and banana.

T - Again, typical hefe flavours of wheat and banana. Im not getting any honey.

M - Watery thin. Moderate carbonation.

O - Pleasant enough but very much one-dimensional. Easy drinking.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Beez Neez from Matilda Bay Brewing Co.
65 out of 100 based on 51 ratings.