1. BeerAdvocate on your phone?! True story. Try the beta now.

Fat Tire Amber Ale - New Belgium Brewing

Fat Tire Amber AleFat Tire Amber Ale

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
82
good

5,478 Ratings
THE BROS
82
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 5478
Reviews: 1753
rAvg: 3.6
pDev: 15%


Brewed by:
New Belgium Brewing visit their website
Colorado, United States

Style | ABV
American Amber / Red Ale |  5.20% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: kbub6f on 10-07-2000)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Reviewers | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Fat Tire Amber Ale Alström Bros
Ratings: 5,478 | Reviews: 1,753 | Show All Ratings:
Photo of harrymel
harrymel

Washington

2.7/5  rDev -25%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Reviewed: 06/27/10
Poured from bottle to Standard pint glass.

A: the color of ambered tree sap. absolut clarity. Partial ribbons.

S: Good balanced maltiness with touch of citrusy hopping.

T: Lots of caramel malt on this one. otherwise, nada.

M: medium carbonation accents light body (for an amber).

D: Would not suggest as an amber.

Serving type: bottle

12-20-2010 07:02:37 | More by harrymel
Photo of totallyrelaxed
totallyrelaxed

Arizona

2.7/5  rDev -25%
look: 3 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 2.75

A- A nice pink-tinged copper. Looks pretty decent actually

S-Almost vegetable hops with a slightly charred biscuit note

T-Once again vegetable hops with a malty backbone

M- Light almost watery

O- I will admit that I simply have never liked this beer. Had a couple left in my fridge so I thought I'd give it another try.It just doesnt taste pleasant to me. Its off putting with that dry vegetable hop flavor Its just meh...

Serving type: bottle

03-03-2013 08:35:24 | More by totallyrelaxed
Photo of charlesw
charlesw

New York

2.68/5  rDev -25.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Staight-up average amber. I mean, it seems to hit all of the criteria for a red/amber ale - but it just doesn't do any more than that for me.

Lightish amber color, very clear, thin, creamy head - which doesn't last. You can just taste the malt and caramel - but only just. A bit light in the mouth - not like it's overly carbonated or anything, it just doesn't have enough body to it to suit me. I guess I'd call that medium body :) Just a hint of hop bitterness.

Hmm. Part of why I give this such a poor review is that I did side-by-side tests with this and 5 other ambers. There was one that was simply terrible, but other than that one, this one was at the bottom of everyone's list of favorites out of those sampled...

Serving type: bottle

02-28-2004 20:22:36 | More by charlesw
Photo of woemad
woemad

Washington

2.68/5  rDev -25.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Had this on tap in the bar at Denny's near Spokane International Airport (I work there - me and my coworkers went to Denny's because it was the closest open place at midnight). I'd never had it, and the remainder of the on tap selection was peopled with the usual suspects.

My pint was a pale gold color, with a miniscule white head. It reminded me of the disappointing Fish Pale Ale I'd recently had. There was no lacing to speak of.

Smell was rather weak. It mostly consisted of a vague malt sweetness. I detected a slight citrus note that might have been hops, but it was hard to say, it was so slight.

Taste wasn't much of an improvement on the smell. Very blandly malty, with a tiny bit of hoppiness at the end that provided for a little crispness. It didn't taste gross, it was just very, very bland.

Mouthfeel was a little thin, but then again I sort of thought it would be.

This is drinkable in repeated pints because it is very undemanding, though I personally found it too bland to be interested in more than one. This seems to be very popular amongst those who have very little experience beyond the big 3, so I guess it could be a decent gateway beer. I was once talking about beer with my brother. He says his fiance's favorite beer is Fat Tire, then added, "She's not really into flavor." From what I understand, New Belgium uses the profits from this to finance their other, far less commercial beers, so in that light, I'm glad to have helped keep them in business. However, unless I find myself in another place where this is the best choice, I see no reason to have another.

Serving type: on-tap

04-11-2004 21:55:32 | More by woemad
Photo of clvand0
clvand0

Kentucky

2.68/5  rDev -25.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

I've heard good and bad things about this beer, so I'm interested. Pours an amber color with a small white head that quickly dies off. The aroma was stanktastic. Actually it just stank. Smells like socks. Some malts there, but mostly socks. The flavor was sock-like too, not that I know what socks taste like, but it's what they should taste like. Tastes bready, but extremely thin. Uninteresting. What's all the fuss about? This beer is below par.

Serving type: bottle

10-25-2004 13:10:25 | More by clvand0
Photo of Greggy
Greggy

Minnesota

2.68/5  rDev -25.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Appearance: Poured into my chalice glass, I got a nice 1.5 finger head, that receded rather quickly into a thin lace. The lacing on the glass wasn't ovely impressive but it remained in suspension. The beer had a light copper color and nice clarity.

Smell: Not a ton going on in the nose department but I did pick up some light caramel, a distinct breadiness/biscuit, an uber light hopiness and some malt. I was expecting more, to be honest.

Taste: A very light bready or biscuit tast lingers on the palette but isn't identified, by me, in the initial sip. There wasn't much I could pick out of the taste as it seemed rather 2 dimensional.

Mouthfeel: Smooth feel and lightly carbonated.

Drinkability: In Minnesota, these are only available in 22oz bomber bottles. So drinkability for me means, 22 oz at a time. It is ok and beasts out any macro you throw against it, but I could easily think of many other brews to drink intead of it.

Notes: I found this to be quite over-rated and I was quite shocked. This is pretty popular stuff in Minnesota but I think it may be because of the demand giving it some real hype that, in my opinion, it didn't live up to.

Serving type: bottle

01-28-2008 01:22:39 | More by Greggy
Photo of jrallen34
jrallen34

Illinois

2.68/5  rDev -25.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I drank this from a 12oz bottle into a pint glass.

The beer pours a very clear amber with not much head or lacing.

The aroma is a little rye and skunk.

The taste is bland and has a rye taste that is not appealing.

The feel is ok, but bad drinkability.

Overall, nothing special. Before I knew anything this was a go to beer. Now that I know lots, I can not drink this beer at all.

Serving type: bottle

01-31-2010 03:09:10 | More by jrallen34
Photo of eternalcow
eternalcow

Texas

2.68/5  rDev -25.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.75

To me this is a thoroughly average beer. I can't find much fault with it, but I also can't find much to recommend it.

Due to the brown hue of the bottle, color is difficult to determine, and I don't have any beer glasses. I know, some beer drinker I am.

Aroma to me is tangy, maybe a little citrus.

The flavor bears the same citrus notes, and is light on hops. It leaves a slightly woody aftertaste which to me is actually better than the beer itself.

The mouth feel is light, which I know is standard fare for this kind of ale. Unlike other pale and amber ales I've tried though, Fat Tire doesn't have anything in its flavor to balance out the light texture, so the beer tastes almost watery.

Let me hasten to add that I tend to favor dark beers, and these criticisms might just be a matter of preference. But I've had other amber ales that I prefer to Fat Tire.

Serving type: bottle

08-04-2013 01:54:40 | More by eternalcow
Photo of dwarvenfriend
dwarvenfriend

Montana

2.65/5  rDev -26.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

A-Pours a nice head with a nice bit of lacing. Soft golden honey color with a bit of murkiness.

S-Has that yeasty, bread bread smell that overwhelms anything else. Slight hops with almost no malt.

T-The New Belgian yeast continues to dominate, the soft malt comes in more for this one, but even then, this beer doesn't scream amber to me.

M-Very pleasant, soft but complex flavors that allow the beer to sit well.

D-Fat Tire is a beer that I believe is brewed to be drinkable while not being overly impressive in flavor.

Serving type: can

08-21-2010 03:14:57 | More by dwarvenfriend
Photo of BerkeleyBeerMan
BerkeleyBeerMan

California

2.65/5  rDev -26.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Appearance: The beer pours as transparent rusted honey. The head is uneven with patches of bubbles. This is way too carbonated and in my opinion the appearance doesn't hold up well in the amber category.

Smell: The ale smells like warm biscuits smothered in butter. There are hints of cinnamon and nutmeg. I am thinking of excess and lack of subtlety when I taste this beer. I feel the brewers were exuberant about making something original in taste but forgot to take quality into consideration.

Taste: My immediate impression is of soggy graham crackers sprinkled with nutmeg and ginger. It leaves a peanut butter aftertaste in my mouth There is no balance in this beer. The spice flavors are overpowering and artificial tasting, while the hop languish in the mix. Fat Tire is extremely dilute. I don't want to drink any overly carbonated craft brews again. I have had good New Belgium beers before.

Mouthfeel: The mouthfeel is watery, bland, and forgetful.

Overall: I like some New Belgium beers, but I find it hard to understand why Fat Tire is so popular. I don't understand the hype.

Serving type: bottle

03-22-2011 10:42:41 | More by BerkeleyBeerMan
Photo of jdm
jdm

Texas

2.63/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

pours a one and a half finger head and a light copper color. the head is creamy white and fairly dense. earthy, musty smell that is not very appealing, like a cross between tea and fresh mud. heavy on the mud. substantial mouth feel. the slick hangs around a bit. medium carbonation. i taste the mud as well. at least it is sweet mud, as there is ample evidence of malt along with it. i am not getting past that aroma. this just apparently is not my beer as i have read a sampling of other reviews but cannot agree. ps; i know i have a distaste, or should i say dis-smell, for fuggles as an aroma hop and i am pretty sure that is what is going on here with the earthy aroma, so if you don't have this personal dislike, disregard the above review.

Serving type: bottle

10-14-2005 03:26:04 | More by jdm
Photo of thaichile
thaichile

New Jersey

2.63/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours a clear amber with a nice poofy white head. Nose is malty and bread. Flavors are thin, but very typical amber. Slight bitterness and missing that rounded, fruity, slightly hopped, smoothness. Mediocre at best. Thanks to jhammerly for the bottle.

Serving type: bottle

07-08-2006 18:29:32 | More by thaichile
Photo of JimBird
JimBird

Texas

2.63/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Borderline blonde-amber (lighting was a little low, granted) with a fizzy but rapidly dissipating head.

I must say, I was not too impressed with the smell, and it tasted like a watered-down IPA.

It went down alright, a little watery, but overall, it was drinkable.

Serving type: bottle

05-04-2009 02:22:18 | More by JimBird
Photo of Minkybut
Minkybut

Virginia

2.63/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I poured this beer into my tumbler at 50 degrees. The beer was a dark gold sorta color. The beer poured a off white head that was really nice. The smell was terrible like rotten fruit or something. The taste was watery with a bunch of clashing horrible flavors banging each other. I will never buy this beer again

Serving type: bottle

03-30-2010 21:13:40 | More by Minkybut
Photo of Jesse13713
Jesse13713

Ohio

2.63/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Appearance - Thanks to Chuck's for this. A nice carbonated tangerine orange. Bubbly with life. A thin soap-like head that laces to the glass nicely.

Smell - The morning smells of fresh, light citrus fruits. A bit of orange and lemon. Not too strong of a smell.

Taste - I must admit that I am a little let down by the taste. This is a very average amber ale. No unique or outstanding flavors really shine here. A bit of citrus and lemon with red ale properties. Decent.

Mouthfeel and Drinkability - A flat and carbonated mouthfeel. Light-bodied and appears a bit tasteless at times. Not dry, but not succulent either.

Serving type: bottle

11-08-2011 04:56:48 | More by Jesse13713
Photo of hreb
hreb

Washington

2.63/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

12oz bottle dated best before 01JUL12. Served in pint glass. Beer is a medium orange amber with lots of fizz but very little head. Aroma is of biscuity malt/yeast.

Flavor is pretty flat, however. A little bit bitter, a little bit chalky, a little bit skunky/lagery. Highly carbonated on the tongue. I don't appreciate any Belgian inspiration here. The strongest flavors are of toast and biscuit, with an underpinning of nondescript hops, neither floral nor citrusy.

Highly overrated IMO, and not nearly as good as many others from New Belgium.

Serving type: bottle

05-11-2012 02:40:38 | More by hreb
Photo of xymyl
xymyl

Arizona

2.6/5  rDev -27.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Has this beer changed that much or is it just me? I don't remember it being anything exciting or interesting. I remember a light beer with some balance from caramel malt. Now it is somehow less. I used to be able to drink it, now there is no point.

The last glass of this I had was light and overly citric, grapefruits and lemons. Beyond that it didn't taste like much of anything. Dried out a bit on the finish.


Light in body, not very good, a bit sad. I guess I'll have to try this one more time, but not unless I get it free.

Serving type: on-tap

03-17-2007 23:00:45 | More by xymyl
Photo of Black7Blue
Black7Blue

New York

2.6/5  rDev -27.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I have heard things about Fat Tire. I heard it was great. I'm gonna find that person and ask them what was wrong. I was very unimpressed with this brew. It looked great after the pour, but the taste was weak. It had no real special taste to it. The beer went dwon easy, but it struggled to make it past my mouth. I'm not a slammer of beers, so I'm gonna say i got a bad batch and I'll have some when i want to encounter this again. Until then, I'll can just say this Fat Tire was flat. (Pun, I know. Don't hurt my karma, it's all I got left in this world.)

Serving type: bottle

11-29-2007 22:23:43 | More by Black7Blue
Photo of grannaniwa
grannaniwa

Massachusetts

2.6/5  rDev -27.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A little bit of tire/rubber on the nose on a base of malts. Color is a good-looking amber, tending toward golden.

Mouthfeel starts pretty flat, and then picks up from the carbonation. Not much to the taste experience. Some of the same rubber undercurrent. A little bit of bitterness on the second half. Ends with biscuity malts. Flavors start to come together a little more on subsequent sips, but flits away a little too quickly for me. Aftertaste feels like it is stuck in my throat.

Overall: B-

Serving type: can

04-04-2012 01:34:20 | More by grannaniwa
Photo of SheepNutz
SheepNutz

Kentucky

2.58/5  rDev -28.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

12oz. bottle poured into a nonick pint glass. It pours a medium copper color with three fingers of head that die off to a small collar fairly quickly. There is a good amount of lacing left on the glass. The smell is fairly grassy with some hops present, and a good dose of maltiness. Fairly balanced, but just a little light. The taste is very grassy, a little flavor of rice, even though I doubt it's used in the brew. Fairly malty, but tasted adjuncty. The mouthfeel is fair, a little light. The drinkability suffers some from the taste, but isn't too bad. I expected more in the taste from New Belgium. I don't know why this has suck the cult following that it has.

Serving type: bottle

07-24-2004 00:09:25 | More by SheepNutz
Photo of Dmann
Dmann

California

2.58/5  rDev -28.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I was quite unimpressed by this beer concitering it has gotten so muc hype over the years. It poured a nice amber color with a nice head that faded quickly and left little to no lace down the glass. The smell is nothing special, some sour citrus and stale bread scents float off of this brew. The taste was not to good either and was plagued by an overly-woody, oak like flavor that was not all that pleasing. This is not a beer I will be revisiting.

Serving type: bottle

11-15-2004 11:07:43 | More by Dmann
Photo of alehopman
alehopman

Wisconsin

2.58/5  rDev -28.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

22 oz. bottle poured into nonic glass, amber color, above ave. carbonation, 2 finger, then 1 finger long lasting head w/lacing. Smell was harsh/metallic, earthy hop to the extreme (normally favor this aroma/flavor), not exactly saying drink me. Some sweet malt up front, metallic taste returns, unpleasant hop finish. Some fruitiness as it warmed. (harshly bitter, no detectable flavor otherwise) No unique flavor components of any sort, overall. All over the board, ave drinkability. Very dissapointing, more so if this is allegedly in the Belgian style.

Serving type: bottle

09-30-2006 19:57:33 | More by alehopman
Photo of dotsonjamesg
dotsonjamesg

Arkansas

2.58/5  rDev -28.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Poured a 12 oz bottle into a wine glass

A: Carbonation is high and was a little difficult pour the first time, almost spilled.

S: Smell is earthy, bread-like, big malty character too with a tinge of hops.

T: Strong earthy and biscuit like tones. I am not a fan of the big malty flavors of this brew. I know American Amber tends to have that, but I think they went a little overboard with it. Its not a bad beer but I wont drink it if I can avoid it.

M: Carbonation is pretty high and tingles my taste buds. The brew was kinda thick, just as an ale should be.

D: It becomes more drinkable as it warms but the taste alone just puts me off.

I just can't understand why some people have come to define this brew "godsend." Some may say if I don't like the style then I shouldn't have reviewed it. I defend my review in the fact that I have an open mind to every brew and that every good beer deserves a good shot. I have indeed found a few American Amber Ales but I think Fat Tire Amber Ale appeals to a certain characteristic, and only that characteristic.

Cheers.

Serving type: bottle

02-09-2009 00:26:40 | More by dotsonjamesg
Photo of avaldivia
avaldivia

California

2.58/5  rDev -28.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Tasted at the Whole Foods in Novato, in their tasting area. Poured into a small pint style glass.

A: Nice hazy amber color. Good head with good lacing. Looks is all this beer really has.

S: Very faint. i could hardly smell anything. What I did smell was a light caramel sweetness and not much else.

T: Bland. All the flavors sort of meld together and become muddled. Very light.

M: On the lighter lighter side. None of the palate coating caramel maltiness that I enjoy..

O: This is a good beer to give people to introduce them to craft. It will not overwhelm anyone with flavor.

Serving type: bottle

08-09-2011 07:36:24 | More by avaldivia
Photo of GeoJ
GeoJ

Virginia

2.58/5  rDev -28.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Big foo-fraw about Fat Tire going on sale in the Richmond VA area - Decent sale price at Martin's Supermarket as a promotion. Two 22oz. for $6.00

Poured into a pint glass. Appearance does not strike me as an "Amber Ale" - More of a golden wheat color.

1-finger head that disappears quickly - minimal lacing.

The only way I can honestly describe everything else about this beer is that I'm not the slightest bit impressed, considering the amount of hype it has gotten. Fairly boring brew that for the life of me tastes like nothing more than *slightly* better version of a run-of-the mill adjunct lager. Smooth drinkability, but it also has a lingering, metallic aftertaste that I personally can't abide.

Not that it's truly offensive or "bad" ... it's just ... meh.

Serving type: bottle

08-26-2011 01:31:08 | More by GeoJ
Fat Tire Amber Ale from New Belgium Brewing
82 out of 100 based on 5,478 ratings.