Dismiss Notice
Subscribe to BeerAdvocate magazine and get 12 issues / year of fresh beer content delivered to your door each month.

Already subscribe? to manage your subscription.

BrewDog / Three Floyds Bitch Please - BrewDog

Not Rated.
BrewDog / Three Floyds Bitch PleaseBrewDog / Three Floyds Bitch Please

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
78
okay

95 Reviews
THE BROS
-
no score

(Send Samples)
Reviews: 95
Hads: 238
rAvg: 3.36
pDev: 14.58%
Wants: 52
Gots: 81 | FT: 2
Brewed by:
BrewDog visit their website
United Kingdom (Scotland)

Style | ABV
American Barleywine |  11.50% ABV

Availability: Limited (brewed once)

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: AgentMunky on 04-29-2011

This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

No notes at this time.
View: Beers (107) | Events
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 95 | Hads: 238
Photo of OneBeertoRTA
1.25/5  rDev -62.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

Not sure why I picked this up. May have been the cute little bottle and my failure to read any reviews before trying.

Anyhow...

Poured bottle into nice mini tulip. The smell is something I can easily describe; Huntington beach sea water the first day after a record rain storm.

I'm almost afraid to try it after the smell.

Taste is well... I can definately get the Scotch and a little Peat. The abv isn't well hidden but I wouldn't call it overpowering. A lot going on which each sip and I'm not sure what's going on.

Good thing this was a mini bottle so I don't have to muscle through a bomber. (601 characters)

Photo of ehammond1
1.6/5  rDev -52.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Bottle (2011)

Stone Brew. Co.
Escondido, CA

Deep auburn in color with a quickly disappearing light khaki colored head. This doesn't leave much more than a few clinging bubbles to the glass.

The aroma is terrible, though in all fairness, the taste was worse. The aroma is a combination of burnt wood, rubber, campfire, a drag strip, and burnt sugars.

The flavor is awful. A few of the descriptors I heard friends offer in defense of this beer:
"Burnt tire"
"Burnt rubber"
"Campfire deliciousness"
"Huge tobacco note...yeeeeaaah"
"Disgusting"
"Perhaps the worst beer I've ever had"

Medium bodied with low to moderate carbonation.

Disgusting, vile stuff. (657 characters)

Photo of Phyl21ca
1.63/5  rDev -51.5%
look: 4.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

Bottle: Poured a deep clear amber color ale with a nice large foamy head with good retention and good lacing. Aroma of wood and sickening sweetness doesn’t make for an interesting aroma. Taste is like crunching into an old scotch barrel that has bathed in sugar, i.e. not an interesting proposition. Body is about average with good carbonation and no apparent alcohol. I finally drain poured half the bottle after I couldn’t take any more of the bad scotch ester and the sickening sweetness. (495 characters)

Photo of chugalug06
1.68/5  rDev -50%
look: 4 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Large tan foamy head rises form a very dark redish brown brew.

Smells like a tire. Way too much smoked malt. Too much peat too.

Taste is like licking a tire. Bitter and over whelming, in a bad way. Syrup-y and way too thick. No hops are present. Way too much peat, BLAH! Nice carbonation.

Horrible mess!!! This is the last 3 Floyds Collab brew I'll buy. I paid $12 to drain pour.. This brew is awful, if you feel other wise BM me and we can discuss it's upside. How would either brewery want their name attached to this brew?? (531 characters)

Photo of AgentZero
1.74/5  rDev -48.2%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

I'm going to assume the name of this beer is a reference to one of the kickass raps of my time by Snoop Dog. Listen to "Bitch Please 2", it's da shiznit. The beer unfortunately, is an insult to the song.

A - Reddish colored beer with an off-white head that faded to a slight ring and left some minor stick on the sides.

S - Well BrewDog has done it again! Albeit, this time with a hand from FFF apparently. Smells like vulcanized rubber and exceptionally cheap, peaty Scotch whiskey. Horrible. I think there might be some hops in there.

T - Tastes just as bad as the nose, except you can throw some permanent marker and iodine into the tires and peat. I don't know how BrewDog (and now FFF I guess) keeps throwing this stuff into bottles because it sucks so bad.

M - Medium bodied, a little dry, moderate carbonation.

O - I don't know why people keep doing this. All it does is piss off the consumer and makes me not want to by things from BrewDog. Bitch Please pour this down the drain. (993 characters)

Photo of SpdKilz
1.84/5  rDev -45.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Picked up at my local Binny’s for wayyyy too much money ($12 for a 12oz…sheesh).

Appearance – Pours a murky brown into a tulip with about a finger of off white head that dissipates quickly leaving little lacing.

Smell – Booze, booze, booze. Slight dark fruits and sweetness.

Taste – Holy crap. What is this. Seriously this is disgusting. This is heavy peat and smoke. Rubber, etc. I took one sip and almost gagged.

Mouthfeel – Medium bodied, decent carbonation.

Overall – Drain pour. This is one of the worst beers I’ve had in a while. Ugg. (562 characters)

Photo of brystmar
1.96/5  rDev -41.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

How do you soil the Three Floyds name? Collaborate with Mikkeller and/or BrewDog!

Ugly pour, dirty brown with mild head. Smells godawful... So much peat; reminiscent of licking the underside of your hiking boots after spending a week in the forest. Taste isn't much better, with smokey peat malt and dirty socks everywhere you turn. Perfect beer to unclog your drain. (368 characters)

Photo of MasterSki
1.99/5  rDev -40.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Thanks to Chris (spycow) for sharing this one. Served in a Hair of the Jester King snifter.

A - Quick-dissolving light tan foam settles to some wisps and a thin collar, but no lace. Transparent bronze body.

S - Iodine, peat, smoke, black permanent markers, rubber, oak. Smells like a poor quality scotch whisky.

T - Burnt paper, oxidation, cardboard, tar, rubber. I'm not sure what the base beer was, but it isn't home and can't come out and play as it's been obliterated by peat, salt, and wood.

M - Medium body, moderate carbonation, tannic and dry texture, and plenty of warming alcohol.

D - Terrible stuff. I choked down enough to take notes then poured out the rest. If I wanted cheap scotch I could get better value skipping the middle man and just buy a 750ml bottle at the supermarket.

Attention brewers - if you feel the need to age your beers in Whisky barrels, make sure the beer has sufficient flavor to survive the process. Or sell the finished product in 1oz servings like actual whisky - your choice. (1,021 characters)

Photo of Sean9689
2.11/5  rDev -37.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

Thanks (?), Chris! Bottle into Darkness tulip.

A - Pours a darker reddish color, off-white head, thin collar, wisps.

S - Alcohol right up front...too much and overly hot. Musty, with notes of vomit, no real sweetness or dark fruit presence. Just a real mess...ugh!

T - Again, more disaster. Lots of alcohol, pretty much no sweetness, very bland and hot. This beer is not good and tastes like a really really cheap scotch of some kind.

M - Medium, light carbonation, don't want to finish.

O - Bitch, please don't give me anymore of this beer! Horrible. (556 characters)

Photo of JohnGalt1
2.24/5  rDev -33.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

$12... Waaay too expensive... too expensive from the brewery and too much markup from the bottleshop.

Poured into my HotD goblet while boxing bottles for trade.... tan head with decent lacing and retention.... the brew is hazed light walnut.

Nose is full of headache acetone and burning rubber... smells like somebody put a palate of Converse on a campfire. Uncapped "Sharpie" markers .. Jesus... Really?

Flavor is making me squint... burning latex.... burning tires... Phenols that should NEVER be in any commercial beer... terrible superglue notes...

Christ.... seriously... I can handle Peaty Scotch, but this is a Train Wreck like nothing else. If you like sniffing Glue, then go at it.

3.5/2/2/2.5/2.5 (711 characters)

Photo of kojevergas
2.27/5  rDev -32.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

11.16 fl oz brown glass bottle with standard pressure cap served into N'Ice Chouffe beer flute in low altitude Los Angeles, California. Reviewed live. Expectations are high; I think this is me first beer from Three Floyds. Cost was 11.99 USD in Orange County.

A: Pours a one and a half finger head of nice cream lacing, good thickness, and great retention for the high ABV. Colour is rather dark caramel-copper, but when it pours it looks much lighter.

Sm: HEAVY whiskey, with a good dose of peat in there as well. It certainly grabs me, right from the first whiff. Caramelized malt also makes an appearance. It's musty, with light hints of what could be dark fruit esters. It's a bit bready as well, which is strange but likable. I'm intrigued and excited to try it. Moderate in strength overall.

T: Heavy peat on the open, which is a terrible start. The whiskey is in a tone buried deep in the profile. The result is less than desirable. The peat just savages all the other flavours, gutting the beer. I get some terribly balanced hops and caramelized malt, but only after searching past the awful aquarium peat note. This may be the worst barleywine I've ever tried. The balance is certainly wretchedly abysmal. I don't know what they were thinking, but this downright blows.

Mf: Spontaneously coarse from the peat, and pretty wet. Doesn't at all complement the flavours or style.

Dr: To say this was a disappointment is an understatement. It's a total ripoff of a failed barleywine. Sort of a failed collaborative experiment. It was irresponsible that this was ever released. I expected far more from my first three floyds beer. In its defense, the alcohol doesn't come through a whole lot. (1,704 characters)

Photo of womencantsail
2.39/5  rDev -28.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Pours a clear amber color with an off-white head. Smoke, peat, and booze are the best way to describe the aroma. Some caramel, toffee, and bready malt. It's actually decently fruity, as well. The flavor almost choked me. Wood, peat, smoke, and alcohol are just dominating. The fruit and malt flavors are not really allowed to be on display here. Just awful stuff. (363 characters)

Photo of PatrickSwayze
2.44/5  rDev -27.4%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A: Pours a deep merky amber.

S: Overripe fruits and oranges are in the background completely dominated by a weird smokey scent.

T: Strangest beer that has ever touched my lips. Zero whidkey notes could be detected do to the intense unique smokey flavor that kills every other flavor that you would expect to be present in a barley wine type beer

M: Very thin but respectably dry. My mind had a hard time processing this beer.

O: I like some weird outrageous beers but this one struggles to find it's identity in any particular style. The flavors do not complement each other in the slighest. 14 bucks for this beer was a huge waste. Please BrewDog hook me up with something good since i freakin love all your other beers. (725 characters)

Photo of jgasparine
2.45/5  rDev -27.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

A- Poured from the bottle with a thin light-tan head, which quickly receded. The body was a ruddy brown color with no visible signs of carbonation. No lacing, but it's got some legs.

S- A moderately strong nose of thick malts, and pine resin hop aromas. There's this weird synthetic chemical note in there as well. Strange.

T- Big malts are met with a slightly peaty scotch note, before being overtaken by these huge solvent and hop flavors. Solvent flavor could possibly be due to higher alcohols. Hop bitterness kicks-in towards the finish, with big resiny flavors coming through. The peat from the scotch re-emerges once again with that chemical note for a sustained, nasty finish.

M- Big, chewy body. Soft carbonation. Hot with EtOH. Low astringency. A nice body.

Overall- Highly disappointed with this one. It's all over the place with incongruous flavors. Sadly a drain pour. (885 characters)

Photo of TMoney2591
2.47/5  rDev -26.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.25

Served in a Duvel tulip glass.

Man, what I wouldn't give to be able to order one of these from some nice young lass at a bar... Anyway, this stuff pours a clear ruby-amber topped by a finger of liht khaki foam. The nose comprises burnt toffee, peat smoke, booze, light vinyl, and pine resin. The taste brings in more of the same, with the combined forces of booze, peat, and resin forming a horrible gauze-dipped-in-gasoline-and-set-on-fire flavor that makes it nigh impossible to drink easily. The body is a straight medium, with a light moderate carbonation and a drying finish. Overall, the peat was just too strong in this beer. I'm a fan of the smokier Scotch brands out there, but this just overdoes things in the worst ways. (732 characters)

Photo of hoody711
2.54/5  rDev -24.4%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Having recently moved from Chicago (great beer) to Houston (terrible beer), I pounced on this bottle when I saw the FFF skull. Little deflated when I got home and looked up the ratings. Oh well, for a dollar an ounce, it has to be good, right? And everyone else is wrong?

A - poured into my tulip, moderate vigor. (That sentence reeks of pretense.) Anyways, deep indian red, almost just plain brown. It's the color of the bottle, actually. Half a finger of head that sticks around. Pretty beer.

S - boozy. Then more boozy. Yeah, 11.5%. It's almost chemical. Are there spices or anything else in this? I can't get past the above. Apparently this is peat? Kind of unpleasant. Makes me not want to drink it. But you know, for science...

T - hmm, it's interesting. Rich and malty at the front, smooth and nice. Then morphs to kind of a chemical vegetableness, then there's the alcohol that just can't stay quiet, and it leaves just a huge burn on your palate. Doesn't really scream "have another sip!" Yikes. I'm biased against this type of beer, but this is rough.

M - starts nice and velvety, coats the palate, and definitely warms you up. If you can get past the taste, it's pretty good in this category.

O - no thanks. I like weird and adventurous beers, but this is a little too crazy and totally unbalanced. I'm not drain-pouring, but only because it cost me $12 for a bottle. Moving on quickly after it's gone.

Edit: 25% below the mean. Rough times for me. You guys have better appreciation than me I guess. In good conscious, however, I can't change any of the ratings. The taste and smell are just way too disagreeable. (1,630 characters)

Photo of ThreeWiseMen
2.54/5  rDev -24.4%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a Delirium Tremens tulip.

Appearance: A sticky white crown retains well atop a murky auburn body. Modest lacing lines the glass walls, while the tulip's etched bottom creates a silky, eye-of-the-hurricane aesthetic atop the brew. Shades of copper and brass shine illuminate the edges. A classy looking beer, no doubt about that.

Smell: Raspberry, leafy hops, and caramel duke it out with whiskey and coarse char. The aroma immediately reminds me of a spent hookah bowl. I get that this was meant to be smokey and peaty, but this a bit much.

Taste: Holy smokes! That whole spent hookah analogy is even more applicable in the taste realm. Jesus! Whiskey, peat, cranberries, grapefruit, and prunes also find their way to the palate, but so does a pile of soot. While intriguing and certainly flavorful, I'm not a fan of this one.

Mouthfeel: Heavy, warm, and malty, but still with a good deal of balance. Subtle carbonation allows the beer to float across the palate, and the finish provides a pleasant amount of dryness. No complaints here.

Overall: If it weren't for the overwhelming smoke flavor, this might be pretty good. The whiskey addition feels pretty strong as well, and could probably use some dulling also. Lots of complexity, just a lack of cohesiveness between the flavors. (1,301 characters)

Photo of beermaker1
2.56/5  rDev -23.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Bought this at Specs in Beaumont tonight. Couldn't wait to try it it. Should have. I am being kind with this review. It actually sucked. Reading the other reviews, I must have got a bad bottle.

A: nice foamy white head that shrinks quickly. The beer is a mahongany brown, clear. Good lacing.

S: Nice peat aroma. Slight vanilla undertone. Complicated and complex.

T: I was unpleasantly surprised. Very odd off flavor. I think this is a bad bottle. I get the peat, some bourbon and some oak. Then it all goes to hell. Could not finish this beer.

M: Typical, lighter mouthfeel then you would expect from a 12% beer.

O: There is way to much going on in this beer. This is pallet overload. I would not buy another one. But since I bought 2, I will age this several months and hope for the best. (794 characters)

Photo of dauss
2.83/5  rDev -15.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Presentation: Appears to be a 12oz. bottle, but the label says it is only 11.16 Fl. Oz. Batch: 096. Best Before: 19-03-16.

Appearance: It is a murky dull brown color. Really a bad looking beer, but when held up to the light and directly looked at from opposite the light source, it is a deep amber with intense ruby highlights, and actually quite bright. Odd that it could be so extreme with the appearance. A small white tan head forms and has excellent retention.

Smell: Wow, that is a ton of peat. It's like someone poured a glass Lagavulin or Ardbeg. It's got some high alcohol bite to it as well, burning the nostrils with the high alcohol content. It's just boozy, but not hot or solventy. That peat just overwhelms everything and not much else can be picked out from the aroma.

Taste: Definitely a lot more peat here as well. Deep and intense smokiness, but lacking the malt sweetness I normally associate with a barleywine. A brief but moderate bitterness lingers on the palate and a dry finish.

Mouthfeel: It's thin. Lacking that full bodied chewy malt character.

Overall: Just to preface, I love Islay single malts. Smokier the better. This beer however, it very lackluster. One dimensional with a lot of peat character. It's not that I don't like the peat, it is that there is no balance in the beer. Too much peat, barleywine character is weak and thin. (1,371 characters)

Photo of danieelol
2.84/5  rDev -15.5%
look: 5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

Appearance is brownish muscatel colour. I want to say it looks like Tokay although I’m not confident I’ve actually had Tokay before. Good resilient head and very nice lacing on this one.

Aroma seems a little muted and doesn’t open up as much as I’d hope. There is some chemically ethanol and smokey peat with a pruney malt backing.

Taste is peaty and smokey with some alcohol. There is some sweetness in there but it’s overwhelmed by the peat and alcohol elements. Now I’m usually one who complains of beers being too sweet but this one really would have been balanced a lot better with a bit more sweetness. There is now smokey ham in the taste with a bitter almost burnt finish.

Mouthfeel is medium with moderate carb and whiskey/alcohol bitterness.

Well I’m glad I’ve tried it but I found it difficult to drink and finish. Barleywine categorisation is very misleading in this case. This is a unique beast and rauchbier and Scotch lovers will probably enjoy it. That said, drinking it for me was not a particularly pleasant experience and I do feel the base beer did not come through very much and there was not a huge deal of complexity here. Also; very costly. (1,184 characters)

Photo of AdvocateFan
2.86/5  rDev -14.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours a burgundy brown with an off white head that holds its own at the edges. Smells of peat and Scotch, that’s for sure. There’s some rich caramel in the background. Scotch, Scotch, Scotch. Peated smokiness. Some stinging hoppyness on the nose too, blended with the alcohol, it’s really quite menacing. Wow. This is challenging. It’s not entirely unpleasant, but it’s pretty rampantly "out there." On the palate, the Scotch is very prominent, fades a bit to let some caramel malt sweetness rise, then rises up again in a smoky, scotch-y finish. Notes of charcoal. The alcohol is barely felt or tasted, which is surprising at 11.5% ABV. Smoky, band-aid-y phenols. Overall, it tastes like an adulterated scotch. That being said, and in all seriousness, I’m not a big Scotch fan, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that I’m not digging this. However, I read the label, and in my American mind, the bit about being aged in Whisky barrels sounded good. Stupidly, I was expecting Bourbon Whiskey and I got Scotch Whisky… should have known,totally my error… I can’t ding this one too badly for that mistake on my part. I do have to give credit for being pretty well balanced despite the massive alcohol and the “unsuppressable” notes of Scotch Whisky with beer. That being said, I have not yet had a hoppy beer that tastes good with Scotch barrel aging. Efforts should probably stop. This is a pretty challenging beer. However, pairing with a strong blue cheese stuffed inside green olives made for a really nice experience. I don’t think I’d drink this again without that kind of pairing. On its own, it was just a bit too outlandish for me. The $12.99 for a 12-oz bottle just sets one up for disappointment as well. (1,737 characters)

Photo of Jeffo
2.86/5  rDev -14.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 3

Got stranded in Amsterdam a couple weeks ago and found myself in De Beer Temple most of the evening. This one sounded interesting.

From a bottle into BrewDog stemware
Collaboration with Three Floyds

APPEARANCE: Pours a one finger, medium-thin looking, off-white head with decent retention. Bistre brown in color with no carbonation evident. Head fades to a light wisp and clings to the sides of the glass. A splotchy wisp remains and leaves some nice lacing down all the way down.

SMELL: This is a peat bomb. Lots of smoke and scotch barrel with notes of leather as well. This is basically a one-dimensional peat beer.

TASTE: Follows the nose as well. Some smoke and leather notes in there, but this is all peat all the time. Lots of peat and scotch barrel, with a touch of caramel sweetness on the swallow, if I really go looking. Bold and relentless aftertaste of smoky peat and boozy scotch. Flavorful but very one dimensional. Peat and more peat.

PALATE: Medium body and medium carbonation. Very, very creamy and smooth on the palate, goes down smooth and finishes slightly mouth-coating. Medium weight, but it’s very creamy and smooth, which is its saving grace a little.

OVERALL: Not sure what to say about this one. If you’re a scotch and peat fan, you will love this. Otherwise, you will hate it. It’s very flavorful and the feel is great, but it’s not very complex or interesting really. Too much barrel and not enough barleywine. The first half of the glass was alright, but then it started to get old pretty fast. Glad to have tried it, but won’t feel the need to revisit. (1,605 characters)

Photo of StonedTrippin
2.86/5  rDev -14.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

nope. this is a hard miss. it pours a fine enough looking dark dark brown color, minimal light passing through, and a decent bubbly tan head. the nose is disgusting though. it smells like dry erase markers, straight up. maybe some cig butts too, but man, i cannt get past the dry erase marker smell. its smells like poisin. the flavor is only marginally better, some tobacco notes and some bitter burnt malt, but still that marker vibe. feel is irrelevant at this point, but its got decent carbonation and a full body. nothing but marker and booze, how did they create this? its terrible, one of the worst craft beers ive tasted in a long long time. huge letdown for my first 3 floyds product. never again with this thing. (722 characters)

Photo of lancecenter
2.86/5  rDev -14.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

This was just ridiculous.

A - Amber color with two fingers of head and decent lacing.

S - Smoke, oily hops, alcohol. Mostly smoke. A lot of smoke.

T/M - Smoke, burnt rubber, scotch.

O - This is just an onslaught on the palate. It would be worth the try for $1.30, but not for the $13.00 I paid for it. (307 characters)

Photo of broken22
2.88/5  rDev -14.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Bitch please pours out a nice dark amber color. While pouring a head forms but not aggressively. The head is a tan colored with tight micro bubbles and fades away to just an island patch and a subtle cream slick over the entire surface. The beer smells nice and smokey. The smokey smell of the beer is quite dominating and I cannot detect much else. The flavor is much the same in that it is completely dominated by the smoke. It's like drinking a camp fire. I was hoping for some alcohol notes or something other than just smoke. The mouthfeel is medium bodied with a moderate amount of carbonation.

Overall I like the beer but it did not turn out as I was expecting. I think that the aging was a useless time since any subtle flavors that would have been left by the barrels are completely wiped away from such a strong smoke. There are so many other good smokey beers out there that are less then half the price of this single I purchased this for. If you want to experiment try it and if you think its a little pricey skip it as you're not missing much. (1,059 characters)

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
BrewDog / Three Floyds Bitch Please from BrewDog
78 out of 100 based on 95 ratings.