1. Extreme Beer Fest. March 20 & 21, 2015 in Boston, Mass. Join us!
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. 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
66
poor

50 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 50
Reviews: 30
rAvg: 2.61
pDev: 22.22%
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: 50 | Reviews: 30 | Display Reviews Only:
Reviews by doktorhops:
Photo of doktorhops
2.08/5  rDev -20.3%
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.

doktorhops, Oct 01, 2012
More User Reviews:
Photo of rastaman
1.33/5  rDev -49%
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.

rastaman, Aug 17, 2004
Photo of CrazyDavros
2.58/5  rDev -1.1%
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.

CrazyDavros, Jul 29, 2009
Photo of emincems
3/5  rDev +14.9%

emincems, Aug 14, 2014
Photo of LathouXaris
3/5  rDev +14.9%

LathouXaris, Sep 15, 2013
Photo of Kulrak
2.17/5  rDev -16.9%
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.

Kulrak, May 29, 2004
Photo of foles
2.78/5  rDev +6.5%
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.

foles, Oct 01, 2008
Photo of Jake321
4/5  rDev +53.3%

Jake321, Nov 04, 2012
Photo of rec
2.23/5  rDev -14.6%
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.

rec, Jan 21, 2007
Photo of pin
2.5/5  rDev -4.2%

pin, May 21, 2013
Photo of joecast
1.63/5  rDev -37.5%
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.

joecast, Sep 01, 2004
Photo of Raebies
2.05/5  rDev -21.5%
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 DaveFL1976
2.85/5  rDev +9.2%
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.

DaveFL1976, Jan 04, 2006
Photo of bicorrea
4.5/5  rDev +72.4%

bicorrea, Jul 26, 2014
Photo of rjimlad
2.9/5  rDev +11.1%
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.

rjimlad, Dec 27, 2007
Photo of Macca
2.6/5  rDev -0.4%
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!

Macca, Nov 05, 2010
Photo of WHROO
2.4/5  rDev -8%
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.

WHROO, Oct 26, 2008
Photo of nitrofenix
3.5/5  rDev +34.1%

nitrofenix, Nov 19, 2014
Photo of soju6
2.63/5  rDev +0.8%
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 adityashekhar
2.5/5  rDev -4.2%

adityashekhar, Jun 16, 2013
Photo of magpieken
2.5/5  rDev -4.2%

magpieken, May 25, 2013
Photo of Parrotshake
2.48/5  rDev -5%
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.

Parrotshake, May 26, 2009
Photo of spycow
2.5/5  rDev -4.2%

spycow, Sep 28, 2014
Photo of vancurly
2.58/5  rDev -1.1%
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.

vancurly, Aug 12, 2006
Photo of laituegonflable
1.83/5  rDev -29.9%
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.

laituegonflable, May 18, 2009
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Beez Neez from Matilda Bay Brewing Co.
66 out of 100 based on 50 ratings.