1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

The Tanner's Jack - Greene King / Morland Brewery

Not Rated.
The Tanner's JackThe Tanner's Jack

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
78
okay

147 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 147
Reviews: 111
rAvg: 3.37
pDev: 16.62%
Wants: 3
Gots: 1 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Greene King / Morland Brewery visit their website
United Kingdom (England)

Style | ABV
English Pale Ale |  4.40% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: pezoids on 08-02-2002)
View: Beers (56) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 147 | Reviews: 111 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Dogbrick
1.25/5  rDev -62.9%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Note to self: Do not buy a single bottle of beer in a clear bottle when the age of said bottle is not determinable. Clear orange-amber color with a thin light tan head and minimal lacing. Skunky dish rag smell. Light body, and possibly some hops under the gag-inducing sour skunk-barf flavor, but I did not care to investigate further. The finish, at least for me, involved spitting it out. I will be gunshy about this beer for a long time.

Photo of Beerandraiderfan
2/5  rDev -40.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Another clear bottle, another liquid that doesn't look particularly appetizing. Poured, it stirs up some bubbles into the orange and brown beer. Aroma was skunky again, oxidized old wood, musty basement Newcastle brown ale stuff going on.

Still had a musty taste, and furthermore, one absolutely devoid of hops. I mean, I get it, its a traditional english pale, but dammit man, I've had kool aid hoppier than this. Just tasted like fetid swamp water that people threw old tin cans in, because it had that kind of metallic off flavor on top of the staleness. How it packed that much bad flavor into a thin body, I have no idea. Even some mild bad sour notes that might be purely accidental or a result of the clear bottle, who knows. Nothing about this beer was good, way too expensive for crap. BMC all better than this. Have you had an MGD lately?

Photo of Kyroqz
2/5  rDev -40.7%

Photo of Chopman50
2/5  rDev -40.7%

Photo of boyessen
2.05/5  rDev -39.2%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Received this in a beer of the month shipment.

Little malt in the smell but a skunky scent overtakes the malt quickly.

Tastes similar to the smell but not quite as skunked. Less skunk flavor as I finished the bottle, little more malt and caramel, still can't find the hops.

Very lightly carbonated, with a very smooth mouth feel

Photo of DoubleJ
2.15/5  rDev -36.2%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Who wants to make a bet this beer has skunked hops? It comes in a clear glass and I have no idea how long it's been inside the refrigerator at the store I purchased this single at.
The moment of truth will be revealed:

Yeah, they smell a little skunky to me. Whoever bet they would will have the honor of reading my review, and losing bets will be blinded if they continue on from here. On to the beer:

A light orange amber color sits in my pint glass with a average head and retention. You already know there's a little skunk in the aroma, and sadly I can't pick up anything else besides stale cardboard. The taste...spicy hops, and...anyone, anyone? There's a light edge of diacteyl. There's barely anything else in the taste unless you count water as a flavor. The taste isn't bad, but the amount of it is. Maybe I should of expected this at 4.4 ABV.

You should let it warm up, as the taste starts to improve.

Photo of SteveO1231
2.25/5  rDev -33.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

AP - From a clear glass bottle, no freshness date. Pours a dark copper this a thick tan head. moderate carbonation. Some black sediment at the bottom of the bottle.
AR - Mostly dominated by the smells of roasted barley, some hints of caramel sweetness and even smaller hints of British hops.
Taste - Overpowered by toasted malts, giving it a taste of grain husks. Bitter finish of grassy hops.
O - I think that I might have gotten a spoiled batch, my friend had been raving about this beer and I found it really unenjoyable. Perhaps I shall get a fresher sample another time.
Cheers!

Photo of SurlyDuff
2.38/5  rDev -29.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A clear bottle? Come on, get with it.

Pours a rich copper amber, clear but with some little chunks/grit of yeast on the bottom. Offwhite head that falls away to foamy threads.

I'm getting some skunky nuttiness and bitter metallic hops. This suckers skunked, for sure. Why or why do they use clear bottles?!

Funk isnt as prevailent in the taste. I'm getting some caramel and metallic bitterness. Some creamy smoothness is hidden by the cold and carbonation i think. A woody and almost tobacco burnt finish. A very rough and unwieldy beer, and the skunking has to be taken in as an almost unavoidable feature...not just an off-bottle sort of thing.

Photo of Brenden
2.42/5  rDev -28.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I'm going to go against my usual policy and do a review of a beer that's clearly gone bad for one simple reason: because some genius decided it would be a good idea to bottle a beer in clear bottles then ship it overseas. Sure, it wouldn't be old or bad by default, but using glass bottles? That's just bad policy.

First off, let's note that this beer really is a beauty. The color is a clear, brilliant amber and activity is continuous. A nice, off-white crown between one and two fingers high sits thick and rocky, daring me to break it. It takes some time to dissipate to foam and when it does, lacing is in thick patches with few breaks between them, then, toward the bottom of the glass, the lacing's got legs creeping all over the place.
As soon as the cap's off, I know buying a beer in a clear bottle was a bad idea. It smells like hundreds of stoners were kicked out of Woodstock for smoking too much pot and they've been living in my kitchen ever since, or like someone loosed a labful of skunks genetically modified to continuously spray musk a hundred times more potent than a regular skunk's in my kitchen then set them all on fire, leaving them running and spraying in terror and panic to eke out the last miserable moments of their tortured lives. Also, they're fire retardant. There's also a touch of floral hops, a bit of caramel malts, and grains. But mostly hippies, genetically modified skunks on fire, that whole thing.
The taste seems like it may be a bit better at first; there's a big sulfuric character, and everything else seems light and faded, but grains, hops and malts are still here with floral, grassy bitterness. It does go sour very quickly, though, then is a funky mix of bitter and sour that's just bad.
The mouthfeel seems like it might be good under normal conditions. Now it's a little thin and somewhat slick, though it's got a good smoothness and it does get fuller in my mouth.
Maybe it's good. I wouldn't know.

Photo of joecast
2.45/5  rDev -27.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

hmm. an epa in a clear bottle?? a take on specked hen perhaps? well, something like that.

i was a bit unsure of picking this up with the clear bottle, and no discernible dating, but i was feeling adventurous.

pours nicely into a pint glass. clear amber and a decent sized white foamy head that settles to a slight lace.

strong floral and malty sweet/honey aromaare the main players on the nose. a bit of tartness lying underneath that distracts a bit. lightstruck or skunked? not sure, but there is a little something there.

mostly malt sweetness in the taste. yeah. as it warms a little it gets cloying. a bit of an off taste as well. buttery. if there are hops in here, they're past their use by date.

lately ive been avoiding beers i wasnt too sure of. now i remember why.

Photo of pin
2.5/5  rDev -25.8%

Photo of greybeardloon
2.63/5  rDev -22%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

No clear date.

A: Fairly dark for a pale ale. A nice head with decent retention.

S: Faint soap, something else...leather, or is that just suggested by the label? Maybe a touch of sulphur.

T: Subdued caramel malt, some metal and the quickest flash of toast. Hop bitterness on the finish, but no hop character, nothwithstanding the label's promise to the contrary.

M: A bit thin.

O: A dud, but at least the abv is low.

Photo of DukeofAle
2.63/5  rDev -22%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

I had high hopes for this one but was somewhat dissapointed. Color was very nice and apperaed totally clear - obviously not bottle conditioned. The nose was just average. Body somewhat thin. Too light on the finishing hops for this style in my opinion. Not a bad ale, but lacks charactor - nothing about this beer stands out. There are far too many better examples of this style to waste money on this one. A weak example.

Photo of BlackHaddock
2.65/5  rDev -21.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Clear 500ml bottle drank a week before its best before date.

Poured into a Batemans pint sleeve glass. Clear, bright, teak brown or red wood in colour depending on how it caught the light. The off-white head soon went to just a collar.

Toffee aroma, mixed with caramel and some malts, nothing spectaclar.

The aroma wasn't anywhere in the taste, which was tinny and metallic. Very dry in the mouthfeel and aftertaste for such a good smelling beer.

No redeeming features apart from its looks, a fizzy beer that I'll not be trying again.

Photo of TheDM
2.68/5  rDev -20.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

This brew poured a small head of fine and medium sized off-white bubbles with a transparent semi-cloudy amber body. Ot has a hoppy skunky kind of aroma. Its flavor starts with an initially mild bite that soon mellows into a more spiced taste. The flavors are mild at best and most are overridden by its tingly mouthfeel. There are some spices and malt, but not much. A bit thin on the taste for my liking.

Photo of beerthulhu
2.75/5  rDev -18.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Packaged in a clear bottle.

A: Pours a moderate amber-orange color with a thin head.

S: Skunky aroma is first detected on the nose. not much beyond that.

T: Labeled as a flavorsome and well hopped ale, both of which I fail to detect. watery and thin hopping.

M: Mouthful is light and watery, with almost no malt character, and a slight skunkiness in the background.

D: A funky bland palate with bad drinkability.

Photo of Jim_DemonDeacon
2.75/5  rDev -18.4%

Photo of oriolesfan4
2.75/5  rDev -18.4%

Photo of Horbar
2.75/5  rDev -18.4%

Photo of DirtyPenny
2.78/5  rDev -17.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured from the bottle into my Magic Hat Wacko glass.

A: Bright orange. A minimal beige-ish head disappears within seconds.

S: Like a skunk hiding in grass. Kind of to be expected with the clear bottle I suppose.

T: Surprisingly not bad. Skunkiness on the nose was actually fairly minimal on the palate, but increased as this approached room temperature. A pretty one-note brew otherwise. Brown bready malts are prominent, with just a touch of floralness.

M: Light and fizzy without much else interesting going on.

O: This sure was a beer. Without the review I doubt I would even remember this in a week. Even now I anticipate someday going through my reviews some day when I'm 90 years old and arthritic and saying "Wait, I don't remember that." To be fair, I'll probably say that about a lot of things at that age.

Photo of BlaiseDemon
2.83/5  rDev -16%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Not completely unpleasant but after being spoiled by some other quality English ales recently I was a bit disappointed. The clear glass bottle piqued my interest because it has a pleasant copper color, reminiscent of one of my favorite session brews, Bass Ale. Perhaps that was its undoing, it had too much light exposure, hmm. The smell was expected for the appearance; a sort of leathery hoppiness. The taste was a bit too clean for me, the quality was just not there. It was like a purified water beer. Carbonation was average but not impressive and the leather aftertaste was just too much for my palate but I would not completely discount it for future tastings.

Photo of ThreePistols
2.88/5  rDev -14.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Clear amber with an orange tint.

Flat white foamy head that quickly disappeared.

Carmel sweet butterscotch nose.

Medium bodied, sweet malt grassy taste. I expected more, I found this beer to be uneventful, with nothing really outstanding. With that said, it is just an okay beer.

Mouthfeel was slightly creamy and easy to drink.

I would rather drink an Old Speckled Hen.

Photo of wchesak
2.9/5  rDev -13.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

got this in a beer of the month 6 pack from local beer store

A - orangey amber, with a fingers worth of head that dissipates quickly, without leaving any lace

S - lots of caramel, hardly any hops

T - follows the caramel route with a hop background, but neither stand out, giving it some balance

M - decent enough carbonation

D - would be good as a session beer, however there is nothing spectacular to draw me back to getting it again, will stick with London Pride if I want an English pale

Photo of motleybrew
2.93/5  rDev -13.1%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

A good looking beer, no doubt. I like the color (golden orange--jus a bit darker than the label) and clarity, and the white froth. Admittedly I like less hop and more malt, but this obviously proclaimed hop -- and delivered. Strongly hopped, skunky...but not skunky-harsh like a moosehead. Interesting to me because of the description of it being a beer in the tradition of being served from leather tankards...i am not sure if this meant more like a beef beer or what.

the curious thing to me was that there was the strong hop intro and the wee hop afterward, giving way to a few interesting complexities if one is patient. The smell was not so much vomit as a skunky beer can be, but perhaps a little mellower leather...

in all, not an expensive or great beer. Not one I'd bother with again...but i'm a malty guy. Could please a more hop palette!

Photo of Bamabrew22
2.98/5  rDev -11.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5

This was a simple, English ale. Poured a delicate amber into a glass with barely any head at all. Smell was of old leather and barley. Taste was good, but not great; spicy, fruity notes with a hint of malty sweetness. Overall, a good English ale, but not as good as others out there.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
The Tanner's Jack from Greene King / Morland Brewery
78 out of 100 based on 147 ratings.