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!

Beez Neez - Matilda Bay Brewing Co.

Not Rated.
Beez NeezBeez Neez

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

47 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 47
Reviews: 30
rAvg: 2.57
pDev: 21.4%
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:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Ratings: 47 | Reviews: 30 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of emincems
3/5  rDev +16.7%

emincems, Aug 14, 2014
Photo of bicorrea
4.5/5  rDev +75.1%

bicorrea, Jul 26, 2014
Photo of Mosant
2.5/5  rDev -2.7%

Mosant, Jun 29, 2014
Photo of LathouXaris
3/5  rDev +16.7%

LathouXaris, Sep 15, 2013
Photo of Agentveba
3/5  rDev +16.7%

Agentveba, Sep 12, 2013
Photo of GraduatedCashew
3/5  rDev +16.7%

GraduatedCashew, Aug 29, 2013
Photo of adityashekhar
2.5/5  rDev -2.7%

adityashekhar, Jun 16, 2013
Photo of soju6
2.63/5  rDev +2.3%
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.

soju6, Jun 03, 2013
Photo of magpieken
2.5/5  rDev -2.7%

magpieken, May 25, 2013
Photo of pin
2.5/5  rDev -2.7%

pin, May 21, 2013
Photo of XsoldoutX
2.5/5  rDev -2.7%

XsoldoutX, May 11, 2013
Photo of Jake321
4/5  rDev +55.6%

Jake321, Nov 04, 2012
Photo of kazoo
3/5  rDev +16.7%

kazoo, Oct 20, 2012
Photo of doktorhops
2.08/5  rDev -19.1%
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.

doktorhops, Oct 01, 2012
Photo of Gypson
2.25/5  rDev -12.5%

Gypson, Aug 04, 2012
Photo of hopnerd
2.5/5  rDev -2.7%

hopnerd, Apr 15, 2012
Photo of dmorgan310
2.5/5  rDev -2.7%

dmorgan310, Mar 02, 2012
Photo of aBeeraWeek
2.38/5  rDev -7.4%
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.

aBeeraWeek, Jan 27, 2012
Photo of DrNo
2.5/5  rDev -2.7%

DrNo, Jan 13, 2012
Photo of Robje
3/5  rDev +16.7%

Robje, Jan 10, 2012
Photo of dansmcd
2.63/5  rDev +2.3%
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.

dansmcd, Dec 09, 2011
Photo of Raebies
2.05/5  rDev -20.2%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Perhaps my nostrils are dead. I'm not picking up any aromas, except for a faint generic smell of "beer". Pours a pale, watery golden colour. Crisp light malt flavour. Slight acidity and an off flavour that reminds me of aspirin. Tastes like a watered down lager to me. I don't get any honey in the flavour either.

Raebies, Nov 29, 2011
Photo of Stew41
2.63/5  rDev +2.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Pours a nice clean, pristine white head. Again very clean and clear in the glass with gold to amber hues. Quite a bit of definition on the nose, some malts, quite larger like in the Oz mould. Unfortunately it reminded me a bit too much of CUB’s Crown. Palate is a bit of a letdown, no honey to speak of and quite generic flavours. Carbonation levels are ok and let the beer speak, so to speak. Fizzy back palate and short of flavour. Quite refreshing mouthfeel but you need more at $16 a 6-pack.

Stew41, Aug 12, 2011
Photo of heygeebee
2.85/5  rDev +10.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a one finger head cream head, golden copper coloured. Bubbles in a twister shape from a point on the bottom of the glass. Go figure.

Restrained aromas of malts, sadly some macro-ness, and a little honey. A little. Along the lines of 'its called Beez Neez therefore should smell of honey' lines.

Taste is a bit of a mixture. A bit of Aussie Macro, a bit of malts, a bit of sweetness, and a bit of wax, rather than honey. I used to drink this stuff and quite liked it. Not so sure in this case.

Mouthfeel is OK, but a bit thin.

Overall not too bad, but served too cold, especially for winter.

heygeebee, Jun 22, 2011
Photo of philphilphil
2.7/5  rDev +5.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Appearance was good with a nice amber and okay head. Deceiving.
Smell was honey and low grade malts.
Taste made me say is this sweet to myself, honey in beer wasnt a good idea.
Mouthfeel was okay.
Overall this is for the mass market, had far worse, but not impressed.

philphilphil, Apr 15, 2011
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Beez Neez from Matilda Bay Brewing Co.
65 out of 100 based on 47 ratings.