Sans Pagaie - The Bruery
Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
Ratings: 553 | Reviews: 97 | Display Reviews Only:
2.4/5 rDev -42.3%
750 ml poured into a snifter with a hazy pinkish orange color, reminds me of....oh just a little vomit, giving a thin white head that falls to nothing almost immediately without any type of linger. The nose is sour upfront with light sour cherries, lemony zest and a touch of something sweet in the back. The taste is just dominated by vinegar and an acidic presence that is just off putting. The beer needs more cherries and something else for balance. A thin layer of cherries, oak and lemon work against too much bacteria for sure (lactobasillus?) without any type of structure...now that I've had mother funker, oui oui and now this; I'm starting to gather a typical vinegar presence from the bruery wild stuff that is uninviting and narrow. There is a minimal amount of carbonation and the mouthfeel is medium with a very dry finish. Overall I wanted to like this beer but the truth is, is that's it's a terrible kriek and needs to go on home. A sour, acidic, vinegar, light cherried mess that looks like chunkless vomit. $20 are you fucking serious? I'd rather eat a bag of shit.
07-05-2012 22:08:53 | More by JayAre46
3.21/5 rDev -22.8%
Finally got to crack open this offering from the Preservation Series that I signed up with a friend. Poured out of a 750ml bottle into a teku glass. No freshness or bottling date, although the label in the back states that it's best consumed fresh? Huh? Sours SHOULD have a long shelf life, last time I looked.
Pours a delightfully rustic yet slightly murky and ugly shade of pinkish, tomato juice reddish, brown. Very hazy, and not much clarity or shining qualities that I usually admire in the style. There's an initial fizzy, white head, but it eventually dissipates to about a thin ring which soon vanishes altogether. Not too many legs. No lacing at all. Not horrible, but not too pretty.
The aroma is a slight step up, but is not without its bizzarre elements in midst of the good ones. First, the pros: there's an elegant, mellow fruity flavor that melds well with the oak to create a slightly acidic, soured phenolic quality - although where the cherries are, is beyond me. Rather, I get big citrus notes (almost soapy), apricots, grapefruit, and woody, faded sweetened tannins. Then, there's the ugly: tomato puree, cabbage, and basil immediately vanquishes these flavors in a strange manner, although less horrible than you'd imagine. Why is this happening? And seriously, where's the damn cherries?! I admit I am fascinated with the tomatoey notes, but I really am not looking forward to trying it.
Right, the flavor does take things a step up, although not as much as hoped. There's none of the vegetal notes to be found, and instead, there's an initial burst of soured, dried fruits (especially apricots, definitely raspberries - although no cherries), which soon meld with the wood to turn into a highly acidic yet overall creamy finish. Vinegar and vinous qualities soon follow as well, and eventually turn into a lactic acidic complexity that bittered yet slightly saline in nature. Definitely good in terms of texture, although pretty weak in terms of body, which comes off as thinned and grainy as you'd never expected. Not too much restraint in terms of battling the sour yeastiness and woody tannins - disappointing in feel, and perhaps too much of the cherry skins screwed up whatever they were trying to go for here.
This is a poor way to start off the series, and I'm starting to lose faith in this brewery. Not really the worse wild ale I've had, but I've heard these guys can do better than this. It's drinkable, but many factors I mentioned above do not make this wholly memorable. Not a bad way to start off a meal, but could use some serious pruning, especially if The Bruery is supposed to be composed of barrel aging geniuses, and whatnot.
07-06-2013 03:54:21 | More by magictacosinus
3.28/5 rDev -21.2%
A: Pale pink, syrupy and a bit thin bodied.
S: Yeesh, solventy character that reminds me very much of nail polish remover. Its hard to pinpoint where the lactic acidity ends and the harsh acetic stuff begins, I can imagine that the base beer was better at some point.
T: Taste is nicer than the aroma, but the solventy nature of the nose really ruined this beer for me.
M: Medium syrupy with surprisingly weak carbonation
11-24-2013 22:12:27 | More by mattsander
3.3/5 rDev -20.7%
Reddish-amber pour with a thin fizzy head that retained as a small ringlet, leaving a few spots of lacing on the glass. Sour aroma, funky and cheesy, essence of tart fruits, lactic, some candy-like sweetness. I like sours just fine, but this one was way over the top. Big sour/tart hit up front, cherry/cranrazz/lemon, Sweet Tarts, lactic and acetic, some leather and cheesy funk in the background, but the sourness and acidity pretty much just overtook everything. Mouthfeel was on the harsh side, this was an almost instant palate wrecker, body was medium, overall came off too green and unbalanced for me. I thank whoever shared this bottle, but I definitely wouldn't pay the [most likely] overblown Bruery mark-up for it.
When blended with the somewhat lack-luster Cpt. Lawrence Barrel Reserve Raspberry and a dash of Rubaeus, it actually turned out pretty good!
07-04-2013 14:51:11 | More by Rifugium
3.4/5 rDev -18.3%
750ml brown glass bottle with standard pressure cap and appealing label served into a New Belgium stem-goblet in me gaff in low altitude Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California. Reviewed live. Expectations are pretty high; historically I haven't liked The Bruery but I've been realizing recently that their stouts and sours seem to be the exceptions to The Bruery's overcharging-for-garbage modus operandi. I'm a big sour fan, so I'm excited for this.
Served a bit warmer than refrigerator cold. Side-poured with standard vigor as no carbonation issues are anticipated.
Not paired with food.
A: Pours a one finger white colour head of fair cream, decent thickness, and above average retention - though the ABV is quite modest. Body colour is a dull muted orange-red. Maybe tangerine to get pretentious. Nontransparent and opaque. No yeast particles are visible. No bubble show.
Sm: Sourness, bacteria, wild yeast, fermented fruit, fruit skin, light oak. I look for cherries but cannot find them; I just get vague fruit. Then again, me nose is broken. A moderately strong aroma, though it lacks the assertiveness and obvious acidity of most good sours I've had. No alcohol comes through.
T: Bright fruit and fruit skin merged with sourness and a light tart kick. Not sour enough nor tart enough to really satisfy me, but it's a pleasant beginner's sour I suppose. Some pale malts. An oak undertone. The finish has a resurgence of tart sourness accompanied by a luscious malty crispness that I quite fancy. I wish the entire body were as flavorful as the finish. No alcohol is detectable. The fruit is curious; it's not at all cherry - at least not in a kriek sense - but I'd hazard to allege that it's sort of peachy. What cherries were used? Unfortunately, it's worth noting that it's just a bit watery, which really wrecks the build. In spite of that transgression, I'd still call it a mostly balanced beer - albeit a somewhat muted one.
Mf: Smooth, wet, and a bit undercarbonated. Good thickness. Supports the flavours by not intruding, but it adds little to the beer.
Dr: A drinkable beginner's sour, but probably not worth its high pricetag. There are better sours from this brewery at around this price, and I'd see no need to get this one again. Not worth seeking out; its flaws ultimately make it a disappointment. Maybe I was wrong to start being so optimistic about The Bruery.
01-03-2013 06:24:41 | More by kojevergas
District of Columbia
3.4/5 rDev -18.3%
Appearance: Reddish pour, decent head, I new I was in trouble when it wasn't red enough.
Smell: Light cherries, vinegar, light funk
Taste: Light tart cherries, vinegar, slight funk, bit of oak. Needs more cherries
Mouthfeel: Very aggressive carbonation, makes it feel a bit light.
Overall: Not really that impressive, I was impressed with the apricot version and was hoping this would be its equal, alas it is not.
05-15-2012 18:30:57 | More by craytonic
Sans Pagaie from The Bruery
93 out of 100 based on 553 ratings.