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

Double Barrel Ale - Firestone Walker Brewing Co.

Double Barrel AleDouble Barrel Ale

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
83
good

1,611 Ratings
THE BROS
82
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 1611
Reviews: 636
rAvg: 3.67
pDev: 11.72%


Brewed by:
Firestone Walker Brewing Co. visit their website
California, United States

Style | ABV
English Pale Ale |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: BeerManDan on 08-24-2002)
View: Beers (63) |  Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Reviewers | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Double Barrel Ale Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 1,611 | Reviews: 636 | Show All Ratings:
Photo of DogFood11
DogFood11

California

1.93/5  rDev -47.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Poured into a pounder it formed a mediocre head that was eggshell white and left traces of lace. Brown body with medium to light carbonation.

A really odd tasting beer. I'm a category geek sometimes and I have no idea where this would fit in. It's kind of its own style so to speak. Has an odd woody backer that effects every pull. Roasted malts are somewhere between charred and roasted, creating a slightly bitter malt bill that is like drinking freshly cut dried kendling. Hops are a bit zippy although they have a tendancy to take a backseat with everything else going on. There is a sort of candied presence as well towards the beginning and lasts just for a brief second.

Notes: I really couldn't figure this one out. Not to say that complex and confusing can't be good, because it most definately can. This is just to much all over the map and the profiles are rather odd and don't blend well....Not for me.

Serving type: on-tap

08-27-2006 21:09:47 | More by DogFood11
Photo of Overlord
Overlord

California

2.08/5  rDev -43.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Wow. What a disappointment. I hear great things about the near mythical Firestone 10 (one of the White Whales here at Beeradvocate.com), and was eager to try this. I actually gave it a whirl in San Luis Obispo, and yipes.

Not much carbonation, perhaps a one inch head. Taste was ... strange. I almost want to say it tasted as though it was flavored with wood chips. Some caramel/malt overtones, but nothing really to balance it out or add complexity. I see that many reviewers note some faint hops ... I detected none. A thin, strange tasting beer that wasn't my cup of tea.

It looked pretty with a nice amber color, though.

Serving type: on-tap

09-19-2007 08:53:44 | More by Overlord
Photo of Padron4KM
Padron4KM

Arizona

2.25/5  rDev -38.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Jan 8, 2010
12 oz bottle, no freshness date.
Clear deep amber, thin half inch head that evaporates quickly. Zero retention and no lace.
Aroma is light and one dimensional. Even after heavy agitation the only aromas detected are caramel and bready malts.
Flavor is more complex, but not by much. Caramel sweetness with a clean hop finish.
Thin, watery and boring. While it is not on my buy again list, I wouldn't refuse one if given one

Serving type: bottle

01-10-2010 07:51:23 | More by Padron4KM
Photo of pintnhand
pintnhand

Washington

2.35/5  rDev -36%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I think this beer is way overrated. I have had a few red ales but this one doesnt make my list. I think they took the beer too far on this one. The taste is almost puckering. The taste leaves a very heavy unpleasent feel. At first it starts smooth but as the taste evolves it becomes less enjoyable. An ok appearance. I would term it as harsh.

Serving type: bottle

08-09-2007 01:32:53 | More by pintnhand
Photo of Tupperwolf
Tupperwolf

Washington

2.42/5  rDev -34.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a dark coppery brown color into my nonic with an off-white head that froths up to a proper size then dies slowly, over many sips, to a thin ring, leaving behind no lacing.

Smells are quick and extremely hard to define - there's just a little malty honey, but there are some seriously metallic scents that I just can't quite figure out. I think they must come from the hops, or the oak barrels, or something related thereto. Maybe a bit grassy - yep, smells like a hay bale or my uncle's barn.

The taste is equally hard to define, but its' very thin, and what's available to taste is somewhat unpleasant. A kind of metallic, brash flavor, almost like asparagus or raw vegetables - very coppery and one-sided. Not very balanced at all.

Mouthfeel has a reasonable amount of carbonation at first, which quickly dissappears and becomes very watery. Very thin for an ale.

This is drinkable in mad gulps, but it's just not living up to my standards. I really wouldn't even want to drink this with a meal. I had it at a friend's recommendation but wouldn't recommend it to another friend.

Serving type: bottle

01-12-2006 12:06:22 | More by Tupperwolf
Photo of maximum12
maximum12

Minnesota

2.42/5  rDev -34.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Donated by my most excellent compadre John after a beer tasting that I was out of town for.

Pours ambers with little head & some serious running carbonation. Smells is almost invisible to the nose; the barest hint of wood & malt.

Taste is kind of funky. I get the malty amberishness, just a bit of sawdusty wood, lots of watery thinness.

Mouthfeel is thin. Drinkability? Not after this one. I may finish, I may shift to something more appealing.

Serving type: bottle

09-11-2008 01:03:41 | More by maximum12
Photo of Exner83
Exner83

California

2.5/5  rDev -31.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I'm gonna have to agree with brother Jason Alström - It'd be hard to drink more than one of these.

I found it so smokey oaky--like a forest in my mouth! Finish is an acrid, arboreal dryness. I guess I'm a bare-bones malt and hops kinda guy, 'cause I haven't had this much fragrant wood in my mouth since... (insert terribly off-color gay porn reference here.) It's just NOT my thing. I want malt, people!

God forgive me for thinking a beer should taste like malted barley. Anyway, if you feel sucking on raw tree bark has run its course for you, put the branch down, and pick this up!

(And to think I washed this down with a shot of Grand Marnier. WHAT WAS I THINKING?!)

Serving type: bottle

05-08-2008 04:39:48 | More by Exner83
Photo of Darkmagus82
Darkmagus82

Virginia

2.51/5  rDev -31.6%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.75

Poured from bottle into a pint glass

Appearance – The beer pours a nice deep amber color with a two finger head of off white head. The foamy looking head has a good level of retention, slowly fading to leave a moderate level of foamy lace on the sides of the glass.

Smell – The aroma is heaviest of a caramel and toffee smells with some lighter notes of a grainy aroma. Along with these smells are some notes of a more bready nature as well as a little bit of a haylike smell.

Taste – The taste begins with a biscuit flavor with a light caramel sweetness. These flavors create a base for the taste with them remaining rather constant throughout. After the initial tastes, which are quite smooth, some tea and haylike flavors come to the tongue. These flavors, as well as a little bit of a grassy taste really take away from the smoothness of the flavor and add a somewhat off taste to the flavor profile. In the end, the mix of flavors that is left on the tongue, leaves one with a somewhat unpleasant tea and vegetal, bitter flavor to linger on the tongue.

Mouthfeel – The body of the beer is on the average side in terms of its thickness and creaminess with a carbonation level that is rather average. A thinner body and a higher carbonation would have likely been a bit better for the brew, helping minimize some of the more unpleasant flavors of the brew.

Overall – A bit too hay and grassy like for the style with a slightly off flavor profile that ends up creating a rather harsh taste. Not one I would recommend.

Serving type: bottle

12-31-2013 02:34:12 | More by Darkmagus82
Photo of charlesw
charlesw

New York

2.53/5  rDev -31.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Oh, I'd call this some sort of a darkish orange. Quite light for an amber ale. It had a moderately tall (1") darkish head (deeper than cream) that has very nice lasting power - a very nice and durable lacing.
It smells like rice beer. Bleh. Cheap and alcoholy, weak and thin. Ew!
The taste is ok, I guess. It's probably better than the Casco Bay, but that doesn't say a whole lot (LOL). I mean, sure, it's got a bit of malt to it and it's lightly sweet, but there's a weird bite right in the middle of the palate that prevents it from being good. The aftertaste is fine - no complaints - a nice and easy, lingering finish that doesn't spike on anything.
It's definitely too thin in the mouth for me to fully enjoy it. Oh well!
I'd drink it as a light alternative to an amber - maybe for a hot afternoon at the beach or something. As such it would be fine. In any other context, well, bleh.

Serving type: bottle

08-04-2004 21:39:06 | More by charlesw
Photo of justintcoons
justintcoons

Pennsylvania

2.53/5  rDev -31.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a pint glass.

A: Pours a golden amber with 1 finger of head that dissipates quickly leaving behind spotty lacing. Low carbonation and excellent clarity.

N: Bread and caramel primarily. There's really no hop aromas coming off of this at all save for hints of grapefruit.

T: Bread and grapefruit upfront followed with some caramel and toasted grains. Finishes with bread and grapefruit. Meh.

M: Medium bodied, smooth and clean.

O: I'm not impressed. This is a very mediocre EPA. The only good thing about this beer is how easy drinking it is.

Serving type: bottle

01-08-2012 17:08:10 | More by justintcoons
Photo of Direx
Direx

California

2.53/5  rDev -31.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A: Rusty, copper color. Head dissipates rapidly, tiny bubbly foam residue remains on glass after 5 minutes, but it's not much--very little on the surface of the brew itself.

S: Difficult to smell, really have to shove your face in the glass. No distinctive smell.

T: After I take a swig, I inhale very deeply to try to invigorate my taste buds (if that makes sense). I just... there isn't much taste at all, even after 4-5 swigs. Surprised this isn't a red lager. No residual taste after the beer is swallowed. This is a very boring beer.

M: Watery, light, crisp. Even my burps taste bland.

O: This lager (it's really a lager folks) is in dire need of ingredients. Quantity, quality, needs them both. This glass tastes empty and devoid of flavor. Nothing complex, little character.

Serving type: bottle

07-16-2013 04:59:26 | More by Direx
Photo of Phyl21ca
Phyl21ca

Quebec (Canada)

2.55/5  rDev -30.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Bottle (Courtesy of Presario): Poured a deep amber color with a medium head without much retention. Aroma of bitter hops is clearly evident. Taste is a bit one-dimensional with some bitter hops and caramel malt and a thin body. Seems to be lacking character to make it truly interesting.

Serving type: bottle

08-29-2005 14:56:05 | More by Phyl21ca
Photo of RenoZymurgist
RenoZymurgist

Nevada

2.58/5  rDev -29.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Poured a light brown with an almost offwhite head which subsided quickly leaving a little lace. The aroma was malty with a a healthy dose of fruity esters and reminded me of aromatic malt or some other mildly roasted malt. The initial taste was sweet with the hops playing a minor role in the flavor and bitterness. The majority of the flavor was of a clean blend of dry, roasted malts and sweeter pale malts with a touch of a citrussy and flowery hop flavor at the end. I think this is a little too close to the pale ale style for me while the brewery calls it an amber ale i like a little more malt complexity in my ambers than this one can provide. An average pale ale this brew makes a mediocre amber ale and the folks at Firestone should work on the recipe a little more.

Serving type: bottle

12-10-2004 08:19:03 | More by RenoZymurgist
Photo of BeerManDan
BeerManDan

California

2.63/5  rDev -28.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

I did not like this beer at all. From first sip to last gulp, all I tasted was a bitter no flavor beer. The bitterness was over powering to me. I'm not a big pale ale fan, but this brew really turn me off.

Serving type: on-tap

08-24-2002 21:52:33 | More by BeerManDan
Photo of wedgie9
wedgie9

Tennessee

2.65/5  rDev -27.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Tasted from a 12oz bottle.

Appearance - Pours a super light and clear amber color with a thin but long lasting off-white head.

Aroma - The primary aromas are of malts. Brown sugar and cereal also come through. As the beer warms, a slight peach smell starts to come through.

Taste - The taste is a little fruitier with the peach coming through. It is a little malty, but overall underwhelming. Not much complexity but a nice bitter finish.

Palate - Very clean and bright. The carbonation average, just as I would expect.

Overall - This is a solid session beer, but not much beyond that. It does not have any of the complexity that I look for in a truly special beer.

Serving type: bottle

01-31-2010 08:24:47 | More by wedgie9
Photo of utopiajane
utopiajane

New York

2.65/5  rDev -27.8%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.5

Bottled on 4/5/13 that's 112 days old. Firestone walker gives it's beer 120 days.

Poured flat and flat looking amber. No real head, thin bubbles. No nose either. I really tried. Had some grass and a touch of light malt. I thought I smelled honey but it disappeared. No hops on the nose at all. Taste was equally non descript. There wasn't much carbonation and even though the beer was thin it tasted thicker than it was. Body had no life at all. Very bland. No finish.

Serving type: bottle

07-26-2013 15:18:47 | More by utopiajane
Photo of BrewDrinkRepeat
BrewDrinkRepeat

New Jersey

2.75/5  rDev -25.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

12 oz. bottle, purchased on the East Coast. (Unfortunately I have no idea how long this bottle sat on the shelf, or how long it took to get to Maryland before that.) Consumed from a Sam Adams beer glass.

Pours a medium copper color, brilliant clarity. Thin bright head that dissipates quickly, leaving a minimum amount of lacing.

Some caramel notes on the nose, also some stale wet-paper oxidized aromas. Zero hop aroma. I'm not put off by this, especially knowing that this might be an old bottle, but at the same time there is little here to entice me to drink. If I knew for certain that this was relatively fresh I would be disappointed.

Nice malty flavor, some toffee and biscuit as well. Not caramelly enough for the style, could use more crystal malt. Gentle hop bitterness, not enough for an American Amber style but not completely lacking, either. Enough to keep this from being a malty beer, but that's about it. I was expecting a bigger hop presence.

Medium mouthfeel, carbonation is nice and adds a bit of zing to make up for the missing hop bite.

A very drinkable beer, but a bit disappointing compared to what I've heard. I hope to find a known-fresh sample at some point to compare to this one.

Serving type: bottle

07-06-2007 01:21:39 | More by BrewDrinkRepeat
Photo of climax
climax

Missouri

2.75/5  rDev -25.1%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

This one poured an amber hue with a good sized head and tons of bubbles racing up from the depths of the glass.

Bright aroma, mostly made up of lemon zest, grass, a tinny twang and alcohol. Not as robust or balanced as I would have wished.

The taste has better flavor qualities than the nose, which was welcomed. Juicy orange, and a toasty backbone was really about it though. None too heavyweight.

The body is a a bit lacking. The feel was watery and there's wasn't much else in the feel to distract from that. Carbonation is low, and only a slight dryness keeps me wanting more.

Serving type: bottle

03-21-2010 01:22:31 | More by climax
Photo of Soneast
Soneast

Wisconsin

2.8/5  rDev -23.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Pours a clear, amber-orange color, grows a half-inch thick, dense, cream colored head, with mediocre retention, dissipating rather quickly to a sudsy ring. Good lacing, though.

The aroma has a fair amount of hops, a touch of citrus but also some earthiness. Some rich English malt character is also evident in the way of biscuits and caramel.

The flavor is quite unique. Hop forward, grassy and earthy like a mossy log. Not much citrus character like in the nose. This is one of the grassiest beers I've ever had. Tastes like a freshly mowed lawn smells. A mildly sweet, biscuity malt presence toward the finish that is ultimately overwhelmed by grass.

I have a hard time getting over the grass. Wow is this grassy. Not sure if it's supposed to be grassy, I guess I can officially say that I don't like grassy hops. One more time: Grassy.

Serving type: bottle

10-02-2010 21:29:29 | More by Soneast
Photo of AWolfAtTheDoor
AWolfAtTheDoor

California

2.8/5  rDev -23.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours a light copper color into my pint glass. 1 finger head that slowly recedes. So far decent lacing.

Having a REAL hard time detecting ANYTHING on the nose.

Interesting taste. Biscuity malts, with a hint of hops at the end. A lot of yeast too. The beer is crystal clear and I didn't see any sediment in the bottle. I'm not sure why the yeast is so hugely present.

Slightly crist mouthfeel, but I feel it's over carbonated.

Eh fairly drinkable. I bought a 6 pack (on sale) so I'll finish it, but truly a poor representation of the style. England is much more fond of her Bitters than Pales, so you'd be hard pressed to find a proper English Pale in the first place whilst over there, but this tastes nothing like what I remember drinking while in the UK. I guess it's worth a shot.

Serving type: bottle

11-29-2010 02:59:49 | More by AWolfAtTheDoor
Photo of tlazaroff
tlazaroff

Virginia

2.8/5  rDev -23.7%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Slight vanilla on the nose and not a whole lot else. Somewhat disappointing actually.

Beautiful dark copper color on this beer with a slightly off-white head that just creates the most sticky lacing. Its really something to behold.

Vanilla upfront, it has this kind of bourbonesque approach to it. The vanilla just grows and grows until it overtakes the aftertaste and that is all I can taste. Light in body and a smooth carbonation make this quite quaffable, but overall I don't really care for it.

Serving type: bottle

09-30-2012 04:48:19 | More by tlazaroff
Photo of kojevergas
kojevergas

Texas

2.81/5  rDev -23.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

650ml brown glass bottle with standard branded pressure cap acquired at a local Vons grocery store and served into a conical Samuel Smith's pint glass in me gaff in low altitude Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California. Reviewed live. Expectations are low given the brewery. Bottled 02/05/13. 5.0% ABV confirmed.

Served cold, straight from the fridge. Side-poured with standard vigor as no carbonation issues are anticipated.

A: Pours a three finger beige colour head of okay cream, okay thickness, and above average (~3 minute) retention. Body colour is a clear translucent copper. No yeast particles are visible. No bubble show. Average vibrance. Typical for the style. Nothing unique or special here. Quite average.

Sm: Biscuit malt and floral hops. Grassy character. That's about it. No yeast character or alcohol is detectable. Boring and simple. A mild strength aroma.

T: Floral hops, amber malts, and some grassy character. Pretty malty for a pale ale, but generally enjoyable. Pleasant, but simple, boring, and bland. There's nothing unique, special, or interesting here. It's balanced if only because there's so little happening.

Mf: Smooth and wet. Adequate carbonation. Decent thickness. Okay presence on the palate. Average execution.

Dr: Meh. A pedestrian pale ale from Firestone Walker. I definitely wouldn't get it again. The price point needs work as well. Mundane and underwhelming. I'll easily finish this bomber, but it's just lacking in quality. Drinkable but forgettable.

C

Serving type: bottle

04-15-2013 00:04:37 | More by kojevergas
Photo of jfmorey
jfmorey

Virginia

2.85/5  rDev -22.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

What can be said about a beer that is average in every sense of the word? Only disappointment when the bottle says "Passion for the Pale".

Poured into a stemware glass, the amber color was not bad. Smell was a little malty, no hops. The taste was mainly caramel malts with just enough bitterness, but no complexity. Carbonation seems low.

Was this bottle past its sell by date? Nothing to indicate that...

Just boring.

Serving type: bottle

06-21-2010 02:16:05 | More by jfmorey
Photo of hoser
hoser

Alberta (Canada)

2.88/5  rDev -21.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Suddenly I am reminded of all the boring pale ales I had while in the United Kingdom and why I am still trying to suppress that trip from my memory. I see Firestone Walker is trying to just that and make boring English pale Ale. Congratulations you did just that but a higher ABV. A solid English Ale expect for the higher ABV, sorry won't be buying this again, this might be fun to have on cask.

Serving type: bottle

09-27-2010 03:47:46 | More by hoser
Photo of ferrari29
ferrari29

Illinois

2.9/5  rDev -21%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Beer poured from bottle into a Nonic shaped glass

A - Beer poured with a white, one finger sized, white colored head; dissipates very quickly; well-carbonated; clear brown/orange colored body; thin in appearance; not much lacing formed; copper colored

S - Soapy smell; not much malt notes to this beer; little scent of alcohol; somewhat of a floral or herbal scented beer; really light smell profile, I even kept this out for a while to warm up; slight touch of caramel; hint of whiskey barrel and oak

T - Flavor profile has a few characteristics that stand out, like caramel and some fruit; not very impressed either with this beer; expected more flavor profile from a Firestone ale; bread malt flavor

M - Slightly watery; not very alive with carbonation or body; touch of bitter aftertaste, but has mostly a rinse/soap taste

D - Disappointed in this beer, I expected more out of a Firestone Brew; could have been more flavorful, but left my palate looking for even an ounce of flavor; I would pass if I had the chance to try this again

Serving type: bottle

09-04-2011 05:22:08 | More by ferrari29
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Double Barrel Ale from Firestone Walker Brewing Co.
83 out of 100 based on 1,611 ratings.