White Chocolate - The Bruery

Not Rated.
White ChocolateWhite Chocolate

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
91
outstanding

134 Reviews
THE BROS
-
no score

(Send Samples)
Reviews: 134
Hads: 1,042
rAvg: 4.1
pDev: 5.12%
Wants: 471
Gots: 364 | FT: 52
Brewed by:
The Bruery visit their website
California, United States

Style | ABV
Wheatwine |  14.75% ABV

Availability: Rotating

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: womencantsail on 08-07-2012

The primary component of our "White Oak" ale is a 100% barrel aged wheat wine that we affectionately refer to as "White Oak Sap." Essentially a "summer" barley-wine style ale, but made with a wheat heavy grain base, White Oak Sap is aged in used bourbon barrels for nearly a year and comes out rich in flavors of coconut, honey, caramel and vanilla. To compliment the already rich flavors of the beer, we've added cacao nibs and vanilla beans to give this beer the delicate flavor of white chocolate...hence the name.
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 134 | Hads: 1,042
Photo of SlothB77
1/5  rDev -75.6%

Bottled 8/8/2014. Infected bottle.

I am a preservation society member for 2014 living in Virginia. I have the beer shipped to my sister who lives in California. Then a very kind family member who lives on the east coast, but not in Virginia, brought this bottle back to the east coast. Then i picked this bottle up. That's a lot of work to get this beer. I paid $30 plus shipping, minus the preservation society discount for this beer, plus all that additional work for me and other family members. I expect better quality control from The Bruery than the infected bottle I received.

The beer tasted like funky bourbon. Extremely carbonated - made my tongue tingle. No chocolate, no sweetness, no vanilla. Just very disappointed. I could drink the bottle and didn't get sick or anything. But didn't taste as expected.

I am sorry, but given the effort taken to get this bottle, I am not going to give a 4.75 score to an infected beer when I am expecting something else. I appreciate the efforts of The Bruery to avoid contamination by splitting their sours off as Bruery Terreux. Hopefully I can try a non-infected White Chocolate soon. (1,152 characters)

Photo of dropbombs25
1.43/5  rDev -65.1%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Terrible. No white chocolate, no vanilla, no cocoa, no bourbon. Sour and tart. A huge disappointment. I've had an infected cacaonut and this wasn't as god-awful but it wasn't good. Most expensive drain pour I've had yet. It took me a long time to land this and it was beyond an epic disappointment. Given the choice of bein forced to drink this or my own urine, I'd pick urine. Uhh (381 characters)

Photo of cpetrone84
2.05/5  rDev -50%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.75

Pour is a transparent dark amber with a foamy white head. Nose is a fair bit of bourbon, heavy wheat base and odd caramel malt, muddled and dirty with a hint of coconut and notes of milk chocolate. Taste is extremely sweet and not integrated at all. The bourbon is lighter, notes of apple juice and some overly sweet caramel. The chocolate and nib notes are extremely out of place and don't fit in at all. There is tons of sugar, hints of booziness through the softly carbonated finish. The body is big, soft palate and creamy. (527 characters)

Photo of Jeffo
2.31/5  rDev -43.7%
look: 2 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Received a few of these from good trading partners over the last little while. Cheers for thinking of me fellas!

From a 750 into a snifter

APPEARANCE: Pours a thin, one finger, loose looking, white head with lousy retention. Fead dissipates quickly to a ring and a light, faint wisp. Hazy amber in color with high levels of carbonation. A half ring remains until the end but leaves no lacing down the glass. Color is fine, but the head could use some work.

SMELL: Toffee, caramel, vanilla and some nice bourbon notes on the nose. The combination definitely results in what could be interpreted as white chocolate, which is interesting. Some sweet cream and milk chocolate complete the package. Not sure if I like this, but it is definitely well executed.

TASTE: Some toffee, wheat flavors, bourbon and vanilla up front, with some oak, sweet cream and more bourbon barrel at the swallow. Not as bold as hoped, and artificial tasting as well. Doesn't quite live up to the nose at least. Some white chocolate flavor lingers after the swallow on top of a boozy and somewhat boring base beer. A milder and short-lived aftertaste is boozy with some bourbon and artificial white chocolate flavors. Flavor falls off quicker than expected. Not impressive at all.

PALATE: Lighter body and higher levels of carbonation. A little fizzy and airy on the palate, unfortunately, goes down rough and is harsh and abrasive at the swallow. Finishes quite sticky as well. Pretty tough going to say the least.

OVERALL: How does this get a 4.19 on this site? I understand that people like The Bruery's high abv booze bombs, and there are some good ones, but this is definitely bottom of the barrel in that department. While the nose showed some promise, this was artificial tasting, boozy, muted, and the feel was light and harsh, making it difficult to choke down my 6oz glass. Fruet was leagues better than this, proving that The Bruery can make high quality booze bombs. This was a complete disaster, however. Drain even had a tough time with this, and she's dealt with some doozies in the past. I'm glad you boys were thinking of me when this came out, so I greatly appreciate the bottles gents. Can't win 'em all. (2,207 characters)

Photo of champ103
2.33/5  rDev -43.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 1.75

Pours an opaque cloudy orange color. A white head forms, but recedes to nothing with no lace.

Forgoing my usual review outline, I have know idea how to rate this. My first bottle was sickly and cloyingly sweet with bitter chocolate. Taste basically the same. Though recent bottles have yielded and out of whack, pungent and acidic sourness. The feel is supper thick, and overly resinous. Hot alcohol all the way through.

Every time I have had this, it has been a chore to put away a few ounces. Not something I have ever remembered enjoying. Non infected bottle or not. A poorly made beer. (591 characters)

Photo of JOrtt
2.89/5  rDev -29.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

Appearance: When I looked at it, I thought man this one is going to be good. It has a nice deep barrel amber color to it with no head (it exploded out of the bottle when I first opened it up).

Smell: Little bit of bourbon but nothing else. Was expecting vanilla, caramel, etc... but nope

Taste: Sour, not very good. Was expecting something different. Maybe it was the wheat wine, I don't know. Didn't have previous editions, so I can't compare. Not happy with it though.

Mouthful: Extremely carbonated. As I stated, popped the cap and it gushed (more like exploded) out of the bottle. This left about 3/4 of the bottle left.

Overall: Not what I expected. I love The Bruery (I belong to the Preservation Club) and I saw this online to purchase. Bought two bottles, received next day shipping and cooled to 55 degrees. First bottle I thought was a fluke. Saw all these posts and deceided to pop other bottle. Won't buy again. (928 characters)

Photo of kojevergas
3.05/5  rDev -25.6%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 3.75

Served on-draught into a 50cl brandy stem-snifter at Beer Belly in Koreatown last week. Expectations were high. 14% according to their menu. Cost was $7.00 USD. Reviewed from notes.

A: Pours a one finger head of milky beige colour. Recedes quite fast; retention is a scant one minute at best. Forgivable given the insane ABV. Decent creaminess and thickness.

Body colour is a murky caramel-peach. Nontransparent. No yeast particles are visible. No bubble show.

Okay overall, but not unique or special.

Sm: Surprisingly timid. No alcohol is detectable - which is shocking. No yeast is detectable. Maybe some fermented peach? Caramalt. Tropical hop notes. Light vanilla/creme brulee character. Light malty sweetness. A surprisingly mild aroma for the style and ABV. Not off-putting, but not appealing either. There's little going on here to get excited about.

T: Sweet. Floral hops. Some cream. Peach fruit - as murky and unevocative as it can possibly be. Some alcohol does come through, but it's not boozy or hot. Malty body is indistinct and forgettable. Some generic caramalts. Restrained unremarkable vanilla. Balance is muddled and far from ideal. Kind of a mess, actually. There's some complexity, but no subtlety. I'm underwhelmed and disappointed. Some light white chocolate does come through, but it's hardly well integrated and there's nowhere near enough to justify naming the beer after it.

Mf: Smooth and wet. On the thicker side. Adequately carbonated. Not crisp, soft, oily, or harsh. Suits the flavour profile in a general detached careless sense. The texture certainly doesn't feel custom-tailored to the flavours. Unrefreshing. Pretty good presence on the palate. Pretty good body.

Dr: Quite drinkable for the ABV - I'll give it that. But boy am I sincerely disappointed; I'm shocked people pay a membership fee to buy beers as mediocre as this. Definitely not worth trading for. Severely underwhelming. I honestly wouldn't order this again. I hope it's better in bottled form. It hides its ABV well, but beyond that I really don't understand the appeal. I can't believe this is even talked about as a great beer. But in the words of a wise comedian, it'll get you drunk.

C+ (2,207 characters)

Photo of Brabander
3.06/5  rDev -25.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I got this beer at the Zeebra Extreme Beerfestival in Holland on may 4th 2013. Zeebra was held for the first time with lots of very very very great beers and i wished i could say 'like this one'. But this was a very disappointing beer.

Poured in a Zeebra glass, a small tasting glass. I expected much more quality when i look at the others in this family.

Almost no head and carbonation. The white chocolate was there but not the same as i got in the Chocolate Rain. Pity cause this beer could have been made much better. Glad to have it though because i love the other Bruery beers (exept the sour ones)... (610 characters)

Photo of macrosmatic
3.43/5  rDev -16.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Thanks to eyebereej for sending this bottle! Reviewed from notes. Poured from 750 mL bottle into a Russian River snifter.

A: Pours a hazy deep gold, with a thin white head that fades fast despite lots of visible carbonation.

S: Big barrel presence, fairly boozy, with vanilla, oak, and a restrained cacao with a noticeable sweet bready malt.

T: Barrel flavors lead the way here as well. Then vanilla, booze, wheat, malts (caramel, and more
toffee shows up as the beer warms slightly). A bit grainy, and the cacao is still a bit more subdued than expected. Overall stays sweet into the finish.

M: Sticky mouthfeel, a lighter body than expected, and the alcohol is quite noticeable but still doesn't seem overly hot. Low carbonation sensation despite all the visible bubbles.

O: I don't know that I'm going to be able to explain this one. It just really didn't do it for me. I think the amount of maltiness didn't stand up to the treatments, and it's just too sweet to drink much of. It lacks the heft of a nice barrel-aged barleywine. I was really looking forward to this beer, and just came away disappointed. In general, I'd be tempted to give it a second go, but at this price point I don't know that I will. (1,215 characters)

Photo of Phyl21ca
3.45/5  rDev -15.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Bottle: Poured a golden amber color ale with a nice large foamy head with good retention and some lacing. Aroma of white chocolate is actually surprising with some residual sugars and some vanilla. Taste is also very reminiscent of white chocolates with some vanilla and quite a bit of residua sugars. Taste is quite over-the–top so it is probably best to drink this in small doses. Body is about average for style with good carbonation with no alcohol being easily apparent. Interesting experiment for sure but not something I would seek on a regular basis. (560 characters)

Photo of Arbitrator
3.48/5  rDev -15.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

Chilled bottle into a glass, shared at a gathering of 15 or so people. The perfect size for this dessert in a bottle.

A: Pours a hazy, golden-orange body with a pinky finger of off-white head. Decent retention, but no lace.

S: Vanilla, sherry-esque oxidation, butterscotch, cream, bourbon. This is what Creme Brulee set out to do, but shat the bed on. It's a dessert in a bottle, as I said above.

T: Vanilla-drizzled cheesecake, butterscotch (this is really the biggest drawback for me), honey, bourbon-drenched waffles. There is a very light astringency in the finish that doesn't make a dent in the sweet flavors of the beer.

M: Despite being sweet, the beer isn't treacly, and it drinks relatively lightly for something of its gravity. It isn't quite on par with BT for being thick and viscous. Well-disguised ABV.

O: When the beer was announced, I was skeptical; I thought White Oak was horrendous, and taking a component of it seemed similarly destined for failure. I will concede that this was better than I had anticipated, but it was still not a great beer; as someone else remarked, "I'm a little sad that I have 14 bottles of it." I don't think I'm in the target market here. (1,195 characters)

Photo of Slikybump
3.5/5  rDev -14.6%

A good wheat wine and the fact that it's bourbon barrel aged helps obviously. The only negative is it's advertised as "white chocolate". The bottle I got tasted nothing like white chocolate or vanilla for that matter. The bruery has def put out better barrel aged beers in the past. (282 characters)

Photo of deford
3.5/5  rDev -14.6%

Couldn't say this was an outstanding beer. It did have a white chocolate taste in a strange sort of way. Bourbon and yeast on the nose. Very little carbonation. Something sweet on the pallet, not really cocoa but maybe toffee or something like that with a slight metallic edge that I didn't really enjoy. Overall a little odd...would like to try it on tap...might be a different story. (386 characters)

Photo of TheSamKuehn
3.58/5  rDev -12.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.75

750ml bottle courtesy of the one and only mhksucess . My west coast brother!! Served into a Bruery tulip glass.

Appearance: Looks good. Similar to appearance of '12 WC. Remember this is a BA wheat wine NOT a BA stout. A subtle pour created a very effervescent head, kinda like a 7up but faded fast.

Smell: A good wiff of the bottle once open: all tart green apple. No chocolate or sweetness. Uh oh. However, another big smell, this time from the glass: tart green apple almost entirely gone. Lots of super sweet chocolate, little tartness.

Taste: Front of the palate is mostly tart green apple. BUT, as it moves to the back of my palate I notice tartness fades and creamy, sugary white chocolate takes over. As I patiently wait and take small sips I'm noticing as it warms up to room temp it's mostly creamy, sugary white chocolate.

Mouthfeel: Couldn't ask for better.

Overall: Maybe it's something with the bottle? Once it's in a glass and sits for a while it completely changed and was enjoyable. People also need to remember that regardless of the name and description on the label it's still a wheat wine style beer. All said I will voluntary pick up a couple more of these as I suspect this will be really great with a year or two under its belt. (1,259 characters)

Photo of barleywinefiend
3.63/5  rDev -11.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

A: My bottle was a light gusher but when it was finished...Poured a light rusty like color with a dirty white cap, some lacing present vbut not much on head retention. Pretty fizzy, like overcarbonated head

S: Vanilla, oak, some faint cocoa. A wheat base is evident by smell and some booze stings the nostrils. A light bit of funk on their as well, a little bit of greenness almost

T: Another reviewer below sordove nailed it for me....boozey cream soda. You can tell there is a wheat base to it as a wheatwine because it sordove sticky sweet. Vanilla and oak tend to dminate for me, as does a little greennesss I would not desacribe as spoilage but young perhaps. I do believe this will go away in time. The cocoa is pretty tame. The finish is smoehwat hot, sweet, sticky with more creamcicle like flavor

M: Not as full as I expected, actually a bit overcarbonated making it feel thin and bubbly. Cloyingly sweet at times

O: I hope this beer rounds out and cleans up. Not bad right now but it has room for improvement, especially at the price point.... (1,057 characters)

Photo of mtomlins
3.72/5  rDev -9.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured from a bomber into a tulip glass and shared with friends.
Thanks to pushkinwow for the bottle!
2013 Vintage, poured 4/2014

Pours clear and golden color with minimal head and no lacing. The nose is light but heavy on sweet malt, caramel, toffee, vanilla and hot alcohol. The taste is very similar, a cloying mix of vanilla, caramel and overly sweet malt. It has a heavy body and minimal carbonation making it oily, silky and thick. Overall, an interesting brew that was just to sweet and unbalanced for me. (513 characters)

Photo of jeff1973
3.77/5  rDev -8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.75

Poured from a 750ml into a Bruery tulip. 2013 vintage. Released around 8/1/13, so around 3 mos old now. Bought from the Bruery for $29.99 ($25.50 w/ discount). Note: Bottle did not gush or explode when opened. Did have way to much wax on it.

A - Very cloudy apricot color. Looks like unfiltered apple cider. Not the most appealing. Eggshell head leaves minimal lacing.

S - Coconut, vanilla, butterscotch, white chocolate, tartness. Very pungent and a lot going on. Enjoyable.

T - The coconut, vanilla, and butterscotch are right up front. Then the tartness hits you. It is very subtle, not vinegary, more tart apple flavor. On the end you get the creamy white chocolate.

M - Body is on the light side of full. Doesn't coat your mouth, but has some substance. Has a slightly watery finish, not isn't the best.

O - Had the 2012 and thought it was much better from what I remember. Fuller body and lower tartness. Will open a 2012 in the next few days to compare. (966 characters)

Photo of Alieniloquium
3.79/5  rDev -7.6%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

750 mL bottle poured into a snifter. Batch 1. Reviewed from notes.

Appearance - Murky light amber body. Thin collar with a few bubbles on the surface.

Smell - Lots of vanilla and chocolate. Bourbon. Harsh booziness. Really does smell like white chocolate, though.

Taste - Bourbon and vanilla up front. Chocolate is very strong. The white chocolate flavor is still apparent, but not like the smell. Sweet with a hint of grain. Intense vanilla bean finish.

Mouthfeel - Harsh and boozy. Medium carbonation. You taste every bit of the ABV.

Overall - The white chocolate concept is spot on, but the vanilla is as intense as vanilla extract. (640 characters)

Photo of BEERchitect
3.79/5  rDev -7.6%
look: 3.75 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.75

Riding on the heels of Black Tuesday and Chocolate Rain, expectations are high for White Chocolate. But with a restructured recipe, this ale is like no other!

As the ale pours, its nearly champagne exuberance strikes the eye with its bright golden color, modest haze and racy carbonation. As a partly fizzy head rises, it falls nearly as fast- showing off its cotton white bubbles before they collapse back into the a with hardly a trace of lacing.

Honey-sweetened sugar cookies kick things off with a backing of tangy acidity, vanilla and oak. With an undertow of sourdough, white grapes and green apples- the mix of wheat and sweet takes on complex tangy scents. A finish of pepper, clove and cumin offer up an oddly placed balance to the sweet and tangy balance.

Its taste is complicates as the flavor of vanilla, heavy whipping cream and sugar cookie provide a whimsical creamy-sweet taste early. But the middle lacks much of that as the raw sourdough flavors weave in tart fruit, champagne and spicy flavors instead. Finishing on that dry, tangy, and sourish spice note, the ale challenges the palate with flavor combinations that have never been seen before.

But the texture of the ale is most confusing. Where promises of silk and cream is promised, a dry film coats the palate, just ahead of the acute pang of champagne carbonation and dryness sets in far too soon. Finishing with that spicy oak note, fleeting textures of powder dryness and spicy astringency offers final impressions.

If the ale could have finishes like it started, then the tart and spice would have offered enough intrigue and complexity to fit right in. But because of its misplaced dryness and carbonation, those spices and acidities are left on an island to fend for themselves. (1,765 characters)

Photo of Sammy
3.82/5  rDev -6.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 3.75

Light and thick appearance. Above average mouthfeel. Mild chocolate aroma. The taste is coconut and vanilla. the vanilla aligns itself with the flavour put in almond milk or soymilk tetra packages. This is a sipper, and I had to stop halfway in the bottle, from the extent of weight of the syrup, and the coconut. Extra point for being a wheat wine.
Bottle from Steve in Warren.
Follow up: gave a great spiciness to my slow cooked meat pot, 2 weeks after opening (462 characters)

Photo of emerge077
3.82/5  rDev -6.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.75

Thanks Chris for sharing this one!

Golden orange with bright clarity. Not much foam to speak of, it disappears almost immediately.

Smells very sweet, slightly woody, a little bit of chocolate. Pleasant though on the verge of diabetes.

Prickly alcohol heat, sugary sweetness. Viscous syrupy body. Chocolate and barrel flavors, not especially deep, more boozy than anything. Not really a high fan, though it lives up to it's name at least. (441 characters)

Photo of Phelps
3.84/5  rDev -6.3%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Bottle shared by ejyoung, poured into a Russian River wine glass.

Cloudy apricot. Very little head, just a thin white ring.

I feel like I just gained a pound by smelling this. Huge, sugary caramel, white chocolate, toffee. A soft hoppiness and a touch of overripe orange.

Translates directly to the flavor. Heaping scoops of caramel offset a little by fruity wheat and orange. Touch of vanilla. Smooth white chocolate interacts interestingly with the hops. Surprisingly clean finish.

Alcohol heat in the nose, like fire. Medium body, mild fizzy carbonation.

The drinkability of this is dangerous. I don't feel at all like I'm drinking a 30-proof beer. Sweet, sugary. Good for dessert. (691 characters)

Photo of Zraly
3.86/5  rDev -5.9%
look: 3.75 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured into a CCB snifter. Golden with a soft, white head. Nose smells of bourbon and chocolate; a nice counter-intuitive nose based on the appearance. When taking a big whiff, I fully expect something darker in my glass. So very cool, indeed, on that front.

The general flavor seems very bourbon-centric. Not that I am opposed to that; I love the taste of bourbon and really like most things put into a bourbon barrel within reason. However, I feel like some other aspects of this are overpowered by the bourbon. I get the vanilla -- which of course gets muddled in with the general bourbon quality -- and I pick up on some type of coconut-chocolate note. However, the white chocolate quality is a bit lost on me.

Mouthfeel is smooth and is incredibly easy to drink given the ABV. In this respect, this has some danger to it.

Good night cap. (846 characters)

Photo of illidurit
3.86/5  rDev -5.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

From the bottle at the Bruery tap room during RBSG 2012. Pours a murky brownish gold color. Aroma is boozy and unwelcoming, disjointed. Flavor is much better: lots of vanilla, thick and sweet caramel/honey. Not much alcohol, just delicious confectionary delight. In sample size, this is awesome. If only it smelled good. (320 characters)

Photo of sweemzander
3.88/5  rDev -5.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.75

750mL waxed bottle poured into a snifter. Thanks to Matt for sharing!

(A)- Pours a hazy golden orange color. Produced some white froth and lacing.

(S)- So sweet! I totally get the name of this beer with the sheer and pure mountains of white chocolate this has in the aroma. One of the few times the name really does fit how the beer truly is.

(T)- Again, the name totally fits this. A huge sweet and rich white chocolate profile. Really no other way to describe this other than an immensely sweet, liquid alcoholic white chocolate.

(M)- A mellow carbonation level meets and extremely sweet white chocolate profile. Damn is this sweet though. Almost cloyingly too sweet for me.

(O)- This is so sugary sweet, but damn it does it fit the name perfectly. Very interesting to say the least. Very happy we split this 5 ways. (823 characters)

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
White Chocolate from The Bruery
91 out of 100 based on 134 ratings.