Beez Neez - Matilda Bay Brewing Co.

Not Rated.
Beez NeezBeez Neez

Educational use only; do not reuse.

54 Ratings
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 54
Reviews: 34
rAvg: 2.59
pDev: 22.39%
Wants: 1
Gots: 2 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Matilda Bay Brewing Co. visit their website

Style | ABV
American Pale Wheat Ale |  4.70% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 01-07-2004

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: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Ratings: 54 | Reviews: 34
Reviews by Robje:
More User Reviews:
Photo of rastaman
1.3/5  rDev -49.8%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

Crap. Like Melbourne Bitter with honey stirred into it, Cloying, slightly syruppy and fizzy at the same time. Awful. If theres anything to say about it, its probably that, at least its better than The former Masthead version, but im truth, not a whole lot better, i thought it was too sweet and thin, and not very interesting.

Photo of WoodBrew
2.68/5  rDev +3.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

Not sure why this beer is being brutalized by others. There is alot worse beers out there than this.

Photo of CrazyDavros
2.58/5  rDev -0.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Golden amber pour with a small head showing reasonable persistence.
Aroma is quite faint, there's some grainy aussie malt and possible some pride of ringwood hops? A bit of sweet honey in the background.
Flavours are very similar: grainy malt with a little supporting sweet honey and a hint of grassy hops.
Soft, fine carbonation.

Photo of Kulrak
2.18/5  rDev -15.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 3

Other than not having much flavor, smell or mouthfeel, there isn't really anything bad to say about this beer. There isn't much good to say about it either. I came up with no head at all, something I thought was impossible with a wheat beer. The color is a light straw yellow and the the taste is sorta dry and not bitter or sweet. At least the finish is clean! I probably won't be buying this again, especially for what they want for it.

Photo of foles
2.76/5  rDev +6.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A really poor effort by Matilda bay to expand on the success of the Redback Wheat beer. Basically a watery wheat beer which is unsure of its identity, trying to behave like a lager beer.

No real character in it, loosely hinting to the taste of the redback, with a teaspoon of honey.

I'll stay away from this one, given the quality of most of the brewery's other offerings.

Nice bottle.

Photo of rec
2.31/5  rDev -10.8%
look: 2 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 3

Initially I was a fan of this beer, but my mind quickly changed...

While brewed with honey, it's not all that sweet and is extremely light bodied - after drinking something heavier it almost feels (and tastes) like a flavoured water.

It's far better on-tap than in-bottle, but remains unimpressive at the best of times.

Due to its light nature and honey flavour, it's easily drinkable and a big winner with the ladies.

I do however remember it being a nicer drink a year or two ago.

Photo of joecast
1.65/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

filtered yellow fizzy beer with barely a lace of head.
really lacking any aroma at all. let it warm a bit and maybe im wrong, but i swear there is a woody smoky character to it. is that intentional?
flavor, basically like they added honey and wheat to a macro lager, and not even a premium one either!! im no expert, but if that is diacetyl in the background it certainly isnt helping things.
mouthfeel is pretty flat.
well this is just bland all around. picked out the last one in the display fridge at the bottleshop. wish they would have run out so i could have grabbed a js amber or ipa.

Photo of Raebies
2.05/5  rDev -20.8%
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.

Photo of DaveFL1976
2.82/5  rDev +8.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Where's the honey? I can't taste it. Heck, I barely even believe that this is a wheat beer, let alone a honey wheat. A slightly sweet malt smell and sweetish taste. Not very well rounded. Not a lot of flavour. Not much going for it, but it is drinkable. Especially on a hot day. That is until you realize that you could have bought a Little Creatures or a Coopers Sparkling for the same price, if not cheaper. This beer is not worth the money they ask for it.

Photo of rjimlad
2.88/5  rDev +11.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Generally I like Matilda Bay beers but this one's a bit boring. A nice looking wheaty with no aroma and a barely perceptible honey note. No hops as you'd expect but not much else going on either. It's very drinkable and inoffensive but it's not far removed from a dozen other BBQ macros. Dull.

Photo of Macca
2.61/5  rDev +0.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Looked nice when first poured with a generous white head but it dropped quickly. Clear.

Very grainy nose. If I get any honey it's only fleeting. Disappointing.

Again the graininess on the palate. Blah. Reminds me of a macro.

Crisp mouthfeel.

What a bland brew!

Photo of WHROO
2.4/5  rDev -7.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

A: Cloudy golden, 1 finger head, ave head retention, no lacing...ave carbonation.

S: Fruity (pears), little skunky & sulphury, only got honey as it warmed a little...expected more sweet honey but too bland.

T: Really struggled to get any honey - maybe a little as it warmed...just bland, with a little fruit & thats about it...boring finish too.

M: Thin & watery...

D: just another bland beer...was really hoping for more honey. Had this on tap years ago & remembered it to have way more honey.

Boring installment from Matilda Bay.

Photo of soju6
2.64/5  rDev +1.9%
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
2.26/5  rDev -12.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

345ml bottle. 02 May 15. Pours a pale gold colour with a decent, creamy, white head which lasted well and left some very nice lace rings. Initially pleasant honey note is matched by an equally unpleasant vegetal one. At times the smell reminds me of a shandy. Light to medium sweetness and some mild unappealing sourness which lingers. Light bodied and with a dry finish. This beer was passable until I put it in my mouth and then that lingering sour taste ruins everything. Please make it stop. Unenjoyable. 4.

Photo of Parrotshake
2.48/5  rDev -4.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

This beer has a bit of a bad rap on this site, it seems. Fair enough, it's not very good, but it's not that bad either... or is it? Maybe I'm just in a good mood at this point. Knocked off a quite a bit of Avec Les Bon Voeux earlier and turned to my girlfriend's supply of this as a nightcap, so to speak, but I'm not not enjoying it....

Pours pale gold without much head. Spotty lacing here and there.

Cheap lager-y smell with a fermented grainy note and a nondescript sweetness. I can't tell if I'm getting a little bit of honey or it's just that I already know the beer contains honey... nothing convincing, at any rate.

A bit of honey on the first sip, which I never really noticed again... strange. Watery, followed with a corn-like flavor. Not much more to it. Metallic hop bitterness leading to an abrupt dry finish. Not as sweet, nor as carbonated as I'd imagined (thank God), but still an obvious shot at the Alcopop market. That said, it goes down easy, even if the taste is a bit lacking.

For anyone interested, I recall it being quite a bit better on tap, though the glassware made me feel a bit self-conscious. But I (and I suspect YOU) are clearly not the target maket. Because we like beer, mostly.

Photo of vancurly
2.6/5  rDev +0.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Mid-gold colour with nice white head.
Yep...some honey on the nose, but not much.
Light touch of citrus, with some malty body. Honey is there of course. But even still, I get a watery impression.
Finishes a bit thin, but there is a touch of hop at the end, which is the first time I notice it.
I don't really see the point of this beer. It's drinkable, I suppose, but not normally my kind of beer.

Photo of laituegonflable
1.89/5  rDev -27%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Got given this when I asked my mate to fetch something that would 'surprise me' - of course I'd already seen Beez Neez was on tap so I was willing to take the risk.

Came out looking alright, golden colour with fair carbonation, sparsely bubbled head but fairly good retention. No lacing at all; I find this disappointing in a supposedly sweet beer. Everything else pretty meh.

Smells alright and better than it does out of a bottle. Distinct honey aroma which, basically, is what I expect. Little bit of floral hop behind, but not enough to make a fanfare about. Decent nose, but simple.

Taste is a hodge-podge and badly so. Starts with a strong honey hit on the front palate, seems like it's heading for sweetsville then takes a sharp right into nasty, sharp adjunct flavour. The honey which makes this beer a marketing bonanza lasts for about a second, and the mid-palate is flat and weak, while the finish is very nasty bitter with no real hop character. Just a sort of chemical bitter, like putting your tongue to a battery. Mouthfeel is thin and dull, no carbonation, and the finish really renders this a difficult one to get through.

Again, I'm really put off by this beer. It's just all wrong.

Photo of BeerNutta
2.1/5  rDev -18.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Beez Neez... What can i say. Pretty bland. For something that claimed to be a honey wheat beer, the flaver was very weak. Also considering that it is a local beer, it was pretty expensive.

Cant express the blandness of the drink. Might as well be drinking soap water. At least it would be cheaper. Might also be more interesting.

Photo of lacqueredmouse
2.1/5  rDev -18.9%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

I'd been drinking Kilkenny Draught all night, and thought I should try something different. Despite the fact that I'd tried it from bottle and disliked it I ordered a half-pint of Beez Neez (they didn't sell it in pints, they said, and it still cost about as much as the pints of Kilkenny I'd been drinking - ridiculously overpriced - I guess if they charged $10 for a pint of this someone would click).

I took it back to our table. "Ooh," said one of my friends, "I know some people who really rate Beez Neez". She tried it and then decided that "some people" need a serious re-education.

Ok. So what about the beer? It had a very standard lagery kind of look to it. Amber colour, maybe a little orange. No head.

It smelled like bad lager. Maybe they tried to distill VB or something and mix in honey. (The honey comes later, you couldn't actually detect it in the smell). Wet paper and bad yeast.

The taste was slightly better, in that it didn't actually make me want to retch blood. But it was just bland as all hell. Watery, flavourless, oh yes, except for that sickly sweet residual honey flavour which caught on the back of your tongue. Mouthfeel was almost non-existant. Like drinking filtered water (even tap water has more character).

Sigh. I've been really disappointed in Matilda Bay. They seem to make all their beers taste the same, and that's bland. Not impressed.

Photo of dansmcd
2.66/5  rDev +2.7%
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.

Photo of doktorhops
2.09/5  rDev -19.3%
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 aBeeraWeek
2.41/5  rDev -6.9%
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 philphilphil
2.71/5  rDev +4.6%
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.

Photo of diablo14
1.43/5  rDev -44.8%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

the brewer should have let this idea through to the keeper as they clearly lack the skill to pull off a honey wheat. this beer has no idea what its doing. and even now that matilda bay is doing this beer, it still hasnt gotten any better.

has a rich honey color and foamy head that looked pretty good, but i could also tell it lacked body and had far too much carbonation. this later proved to be the case. would you beleive this smelled like honey? there was some hops hanging around, but nothing thats worth getting excited about. really this tasted like a bad lager with a spoonful of honey in it. no balance, no backbone. it was pretty crisp, but also had a cloying finish that suggested the presence of citrus hoppiness on the nose, but i couldnt have found it in the flavor with a telescope. too fizzy, too much honey, not enuff sweet flavors from the wheat and not full enuff in body.

i find beers like this laffable. they take themselves so seriously and end up nothing more than an embarrassing joke. if i was these fellows id be going back to being accountants or lawyers or whatever it was they did before getting into this venture, and leave the brewing to someone who knows what theyre doing.

Photo of heygeebee
2.83/5  rDev +9.3%
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.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Beez Neez from Matilda Bay Brewing Co.
65 out of 100 based on 54 ratings.