Panil Barriquée (Italy Version) - Panil

Not Rated.
Panil Barriquée  (Italy Version)Panil Barriquée  (Italy Version)

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
93
outstanding

120 Reviews
THE BROS
-
no score

(Send Samples)
Reviews: 120
Hads: 152
rAvg: 4.19
pDev: 11.46%
Wants: 41
Gots: 9 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Panil visit their website
Italy

Style | ABV
Flanders Red Ale |  8.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: stcules on 07-30-2004

This version is not exported to the US.
View: Beers (11) | Events
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
firstprev| 51-75 | 76-100 | 101-125  | next → last
Reviews: 120 | Hads: 152
Photo of WeedKing4
3.88/5  rDev -7.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4

Bottle pours a dark reddish brown clour with a decent amount of head. Tastes very sour as I am not very fimiliar with this style. Definately has a sour candy like taste. This bottle isn't that bad of a struggle to finish myself, as I was a little worried about. Decent drinkability. Its pretty refreshing too. I might consider another bottle if there is any left on the shelves here at the LCBO. (395 characters)

Photo of BGDrock
3.85/5  rDev -8.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

Appearance: brownish red of strawberry jam, slightly murky; pours good head tinged with pink, receding to a film after a few minutes

Aroma: play-doh; musty fruit and mold, or light smoke, as if peated

Taste & Mouthfeel: very intense sweet & sour flavours bursting, with sour cherry grabbing the reigns clear to the finish where the feel of must/smoke appears again; medium body with minimal carbonation and some sugary stickiness; get a big sense of cranberry juice after a while, with a nice zip of chili

Overall: Not something to drink a lot of, but sharp, interesting, and unexpected flavour make it something I could see in a food pairing, maybe with cheese (664 characters)

Photo of MuddyFeet
3.82/5  rDev -8.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

Saw this bottle and picked it up on a whim. Different label than the one pitcured. Poured a deep brown in color with nary a shade of any other color. Thin film sitting on top and no lace except for some spots around the glass. Nose was full of sweet fruit, bowls of cherries and a pleasing sourness.

Flavor is a lip puckering sourness of cherries and blackberries. Oddly though, the sourness kind of gathers toward the back of the mouth and not so much the lips. More of a pleasing sour than a painful negative one--kind of like Sourpatch Kids candies. Yeast comes out as mildyl pungent in the finish. Medium body that leans a bit thin--but appropriate for the style. Might just be me but I find it a bit granular as well. Nice dessert beer that is nice and drinkable. (771 characters)

Photo of andrenaline
3.8/5  rDev -9.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

A - Pours dark ruby red colour, finger of light bubbly head with some retention and no real lacing.

S - Sour citrus, apple cider, caramel apple, slightly musty, hints of cherries, raspberry notes, and sour mash bourbon notes on the finish.

T - Given the style, this fits the bill with a very sour fruity flavour coming off the top. A unique biscuit and bread malt lingers on the palette alongside some earthy fruit notes and wet cardboard.

M - Lighter bodied, but can come across a tad thin. Goes down smooth and finishes with a unique tartness.

O - Overall, a tasty sample of the style and worth seeking out. Definitely glad that the LCBO is broadening its selection and bringing in a greater variety of styles. (716 characters)

Photo of Beaver13
3.64/5  rDev -13.1%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5

750 ml bottle "Bottled in 2005", bought 5/25/06 and kept in the fridge since. Pours a clear reddish brown with a very wispy head (even after a hard pour) that quickly disappears completely.

The aroma is a little sweet bubblegum and quite a bit of tart fruity sourness with a little smoky oak.

The flavor is mostly tart sourness and cherries with a little bubblegum sweetness and a musty earthiness. The sourness mellows as it warms. The mouthfeel is medium bodied and watery with no carbonation. The bottle had a big pop when I uncapped it but there has been no head or carbonation.

Overall, a bit of a disappointment. Nice, but not great, aroma and flavor. The lack of carbonation was a bit disturbing though. (719 characters)

Photo of Dukeofearl
3.59/5  rDev -14.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 2 | overall: 4

$15.39 at Holiday Wine Cellar in Excondido, CA, March 2007. Tasted in late May of the same year. 750 ml bottle with label showing it as 2006 vintage.

Pours a pretty ruddy brown, completely flat. No carbonation, Flat. In fact, after having drunk most of the bottle, this one must be a bad one. Because I can sense from the flavor that this has the potential to be a good, or even a very good beer. But it's flat. And I am disappointed therein.

A very nice sweet sour dance tells me I really want to enjoy this one some day. But for now, it only gets so so scores- compared to the hype on this beer, I am quite disappointed, especially for the price. I'll re-review when I get a chance. (690 characters)

Photo of Erdinger2003
3.55/5  rDev -15.3%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

2005 Vintage

Pours a small head that's not very thick and falls fast, but also leaves a small thin head without a lacing. The color is dark and magenta when held up to the light. The smell is sour fruitiness with dark tones with a woody earthy backround. There's a small amount of horse blanket in the backround as well. Very light bodied with a slight fruitiness, not very sour, still has the woody backround. The mouthfeel is alright, a bit uncharacteristic like water. Overall this was ok, not a bad beer, but $15 worth? I don't think so. It was nice to try this time, but next time I won't purchase it for $15, but maybe $4 or $5. (637 characters)

Photo of Westsidethreat
3.53/5  rDev -15.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

A: Dark, cooked cherry color…totally unfiltered. Head is present but weak, although fitting for the style.

S: Pungent oak, tart raspberries and some barnyard funk.

T: Begins mildly sour with a lot of oak to it. Not nearly as sour or pungent as some of the other sours on the market. Minor amounts of vitamin C, strawberry, cherry and mixed berries. High amount of mineral content and earthiness. Really this beer is all about the oak and limestone with some sourness mixed in. Not a lot of lip smacking going on but I’d imagine this beer appeals to quite a few people because of that.

M: Medium body, smooth and soft.

D: I was expecting more, especially out of a fresh version. I don’t think I’d want to try an aged version of this beer, I’d imagine it would have lost almost all of its character. For me, I like my sours just a bit more sour. (861 characters)

Photo of dgallina
3.45/5  rDev -17.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

750ml dark green capped bottle marked "bottled in 2006"

Pours almost still hazy red-brown with no head and little lacing. Aroma is a little thin; wisps of oak and vanilla on balsamic vinegar. Flavor is pleasant but uncomplicated. Sweet and sour balsamic vinegar with oak notes. Body is creamy and slightly rich; far too still for the style. Not terrible, but I'd *never* pay the premium for this unusual (non-Belgian) Flemish red ale when Rodenbach is far better and half the price. (485 characters)

Photo of BlindPig
3.43/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

A- Murky red with a thin white head.
S- Wood comes through pretty big in this one. Sour light apples with a kind of musky scent make up most of this brew.
T- Light sourness with some wood, and kind of a citrus fruit flavor. Leaves your mouth pretty dry.
M- Low carbonation and medium body.
D- It is alright. Doesn't have a big sourness to it (which is a downfall in my book). I think there are some better ones than this. (426 characters)

Photo of mep3222
3.42/5  rDev -18.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

I find this flanders red to be less complex than some others. The sour is more pronounced, but there is very little sweet. Not very balanced. It is enjoyable but not nearly as enjoyable as a Duchesse or Rodenbach, both of which I find has a much better balance of flavor. For $15 a bottle I wouldn't buy it again, especially when most of the other Flanders reds are half that price. (382 characters)

Photo of Shultzerdugen
3.42/5  rDev -18.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

75 cl green bottle with 2005 sticker on it and some kind of gasket in the cap. Label is blue/purple with a barrel on it.

Opaque red/brown in color with a small light tan froth.

The oak smell is big with this beer. Tart cherries, a big funkiness like stinky cheese, and vinegar aromas.

Very low carbonation with a thin mouthfeel, almost watery. Vinegar flavors are strong at the top. A big barnyard funkiness comes into play along with a metallic twang and a bit of powdered chocolate. A long acidic sour finish.

I was pretty excited to try this beer, as two of my favorites are of this style, but was really let down by the extreme flatness and the thin mouthfeel, plus the overwhelming funkiness was distracting from rather than increasing the complexity. (768 characters)

Photo of dogfooddog
3.38/5  rDev -19.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

bottle dated 2005 from Monk's cafe 3 hours ago, from notes.

This beer pours a 15% head, odor is reminiscent of the flemish red's but much sourer and no trace of sugar. In general the nose makes me think of wood.

Taste is VERY dry. iniitially all I get is a sour and not very complex beer which has no trace of sweetness.

Further into the bottle, a bit more complexity develops for the taste, including more complex wood tones but this beer is never sweet (always very harsh) and oddly is never very complex. It warms up a bit and that seems to help some but all I feel is a very sour biting wood taste which gives no quarter.

I know other reviews have liked this beer a good bit and I am goingt try to source it locally and give it some time in bottle. Notable that it is apparently only aged 3 months in cognac casks, versus up to 2 years for conventional flemish sour ales. (887 characters)

Photo of jbonapar
3.2/5  rDev -23.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Purchased at LCBO in Ottawa, Ontario.

Poured a mahagony slightly hazey shade of brown/red. Thick and impressive head. Smeel was a bit woody with a slight pie-crust odor, mildly medicinal.

Taste: Sour cherry makes way for a barnyard funk with a slight sweetness. THe taste the developes into a hoppy bitternes mixed with a typical lambic funk. Mildly complex. A slight Chalkines.

Overall average, not the best sour I've had, not the worst! (443 characters)

Photo of decimator
3.06/5  rDev -27%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

750ml bottle poured into a goblet. ABV 9%.

A - Poured a murky reddish brown with a 1cm light beige head. The head thins out but it does stick around and there's also decent lacing.

S - First whiff was mostly vanilla. Another one and I'm picking up, caramel, candy, fruit (mostly berries), some mouldy wood, and a hint of herbs. Smelled good at first but as it warms up it smells more medicinal.

T - Mildly sweetness, lots of fruity tartness and the finish mostly being apple juice & mild hop bitterness. There's some wine like oak notes and a hint of sweet & sour sauce in there. The berry like sour aftertaste lingers to the point of being a bit unpleasant. The sour gets much more prominent as it warms up.

M - Medium body, medium-low carbonation, dry finish a bit reminiscent of sparkling wine .

O - Interesting beer. I suspect this one might be better paired with food or used for cooking. Overall it wasn't bad but it was enthralling me either. (954 characters)

Photo of Halcyondays
3.04/5  rDev -27.4%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

750 mL bottle, 2009 Vintage, batch # 1623,

A: Pours a dark burgundy, with a soft 2 finger head initially. No lace.

S: Dusty, musty attic, some sweet cherries.

T: Tart oak and cherries, with a lot of must and tobacco type flavours which weren't really to my liking. The actual malt, red wine flavours and acidity was quite enjoyable.

M: Medium-bodied, oaky, moderate acid which was enjoyable.

D: It's tough to come to a final conclusion. There are parts of this beer that I really liked, and parts that I didn't. At $18, I feel its quite overpriced, but it would be interesting to see if it is quite older. (610 characters)

Photo of TheEclecticGent
2.78/5  rDev -33.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

750 ml bottle "Bottled in 2006", bought 12/30/06. It poured an opaque reddish brown into a tulip glass with head like a flat soda (little to none).

There is very little nose. What is there is a sweet / sour oaky smell.

The mouthfeel is flat,slick and oily.

The flavor is too light as well. The sour note hits first but is so weak that it doesn’t linger, there are second notes of oak and fruit but they are fleeting. It tastes like the beer has been watered down. I can’t believe there is a mild version of this!

Overall, a disappointment. If this beer was twice as rich in flavor, it would be a good solid Flemish Red.

One up note, I tried it both cold and warm - this beer is at its best at a warmer temp. (726 characters)

Photo of merlin48
2.62/5  rDev -37.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

2006 bottling, capped not corked. Pours into a goblet a murky mahogany, very lifeless and inert. No head and no lacing.

Aroma is promising, with tannic cherry skins, wet oak logs, wool sweater, and balsamic vinegar.

Mouthfeel is insipid. Just plain flat.

Taste has a backbone of the style characteristics but just doesn't execute. Cherry, wet oak, fermented apple cider, cherry skins, vinegar, and tannins are basically overwhelmed by the vinegar aspect. Not at all enjoyable.

It seems the 2006 bottling of this isn't faring well with reviewers. This is certainly a major disappointment at $16 a bottle. This is barely drinkable. (642 characters)

Photo of stcules
2.62/5  rDev -37.5%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Very dark mahogany red. Beautiful foam, creamy, beige in colour. It left a lot of laces on the glass.
Th smell is woody, lightly sour. It can remind something like an oud bruin. Red ripe grape, but without winy notes. Wood, aging, dusty. Interesting. Lightly metallic, and sourness of black sour cherry.
The taste is definely acid, more than you can expect. Some winy notes. But overall: the sourness. It left a dry mouth.
Some plum. Astrngency and very metallic. A taste that remains on the palate, and it is not a beautiful sensation.
The sourness is not amalgamated with the rest. It is too pointed.
Medium body. But the aftertaste is excessively metallic and astringent. (674 characters)

Photo of beerdeity
1.24/5  rDev -70.4%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

This beer had a heavily clouded rusted copper colour. The aroma was musty and sour. The mouth-feel was astringent and quite unpleasant. Tastewas the worst part, being very sour, with hints of rotten apple. It was certainly yeast-saturated well beyond any other bottle fermented beer I have tried. With the other strong reviews for this beer, I have to wonder if the one I tried was spoiled? (390 characters)

firstprev| 51-75 | 76-100 | 101-125  | next → last
Panil Barriquée (Italy Version) from Panil
93 out of 100 based on 120 ratings.