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!

Panil Barriquée (Sour Version) - Panil

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

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
89
very good

339 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 339
Reviews: 182
rAvg: 3.97
pDev: 13.1%
Wants: 23
Gots: 62 | FT: 2
Brewed by:
Panil visit their website
Italy

Style | ABV
Flanders Red Ale |  8.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
This is the version imported to the US.

(Beer added by: Phyl21ca on 10-23-2006)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 339 | Reviews: 182 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of JLapadura
1/5  rDev -74.8%

JLapadura, Apr 20, 2012
Photo of TectonicFun
1/5  rDev -74.8%

TectonicFun, Sep 24, 2012
Photo of bowersdm
1.98/5  rDev -50.1%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 3

'05 vintage picked up today. this is not my first Flanders Red, but I do believe that since my first was Duchesse de Bourgogne, I'm going to be let down by many FRAs. 750mL bottle, 10 or so ounces of which was poured into a snifter. The remaining 15 ounces went down the drain after not enjoying this beer. Served at cellar temperature

A - ruby, almost red-brown color. no head, but given that it's 3 years old, I didn't expect much.

S - lactic acid, oak, a touch (less than a touch, a micro-touch? a nano-touch?) of cherries. nothing else.

T - lactic acid, musty attic, hint of cherry in the end. very dry overall and definitely not good. If FRAs are supposed to get more sour with age, then this beer must have been bottled in '05 as water, because it's weak for the style.

M - worst. mouthfeel. ever. it was like water.

D - I'm not going to entirely rule out drinking this beer again, but I'd only consider a fresh one.

bowersdm, Mar 05, 2009
Photo of jophish17
2/5  rDev -49.6%

jophish17, Dec 24, 2011
Photo of doubleipa
2.45/5  rDev -38.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

'06 Vintage. I was so loking forward to drinking this beer, however I was underimpressed. I was ready for a big sour aroma. It didn't happen. Not much sour and not much oak. Virtually zero head. Really kind of a bland beer. I don't think I even finished the bottle. I have a feeling that I didn't get a representative bottle. I bought this at Green's on Buford this past spring. I'd like to try a fresh bottle as I love this style of beer.

doubleipa, Oct 11, 2007
Photo of Richardberg
2.5/5  rDev -37%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 3

2006 vintage. Fair warning: I may have gotten a bad batch, or bad seal on the bottle.

A - hazy burnt orange / brown, admits a little light but quite opaque. Bit of sediment. Attractive enough, except...absolutely NO carbonation apparent in the pour. I've had 20% ABV stouts show more signs of life.

S - mild funk, red wine vinegar, caramel malt, brandy, sour cherries

T - watery vinegar with a touch of woody age on it. That's about it. I happen to really like sour beers; if not, this could've easily been a 1/5. Even so, there's little resemblance to a high quality Flemish Red or lambic.

M - roughly equivalent to drinking a glass of tap water with a splash of vodka in it

D - the smells are headed in the right general ballpark, and even the flavor isn't terrible per se. Also quite drinkable in a literal sense; the 8% booze is well hidden. But still a big disappointment.

Richardberg, Feb 25, 2010
Photo of shleepy
2.53/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Served from 750 bottle into snifters. Batch #14, 2011. Writing from ~3-week-old notes.

A: Dark amber, small head.

S: Roasted caramels. Meh.

T: Some sourness, but lots of roastiness, and not much else.

M: Medium body (on the lighter side of medium). Not much carbonation.

O: Not a fan... Too much roastiness. Not completely awful, but far too expensive to be on the low side of mediocre.

shleepy, Apr 29, 2012
Photo of Meg
2.73/5  rDev -31.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

It smelled like it would have a bit of sweetness. Lemon, Vinegar, Red berries
The taste was (of course) sour but lacked any real body or depth of flavor. I didn't detect any of the berry that I thought I smelled, and the taste ended up being pretty metallic.
The aftertaste lingered in an unpleasant way.
I absolutely love sours, so I drank this anyway, and if it were any cheaper I'd drink it again.
However, I think the body is too weak and watery, and the taste lacking complexity, the aftertaste of metal got me wondering about the brewing process.
It is pretty expensive, but I don't think it is worth it. The Duchesse is way better, so is La Folie.

Meg, Apr 25, 2012
Photo of TeachChefs
2.75/5  rDev -30.7%

TeachChefs, Nov 09, 2013
Photo of Vaultdweller
2.8/5  rDev -29.5%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Bottle says brewed in 2006.

A - Opaque dark reddish brown with light creamy head dissolving in the center.

S - Funky horse blanket, phenol alcohols, tart fruits, and candi sugar.

T - Light malt sweetness with slight tart up front gives way to moderate sourness, reminiscent of a wine with out a lot of fruitiness or acidity.

M - Medium carbonation with smooth creamy mouthfeel, leaves mouth and taste buds somewhat dried out from the sourness.

D - Good presentation of balance, if that can be said of Flanders Red.

Vaultdweller, Jul 20, 2009
Photo of Mugsbat
3/5  rDev -24.4%

Mugsbat, Apr 06, 2014
Photo of funkyaudio
3/5  rDev -24.4%

funkyaudio, May 19, 2014
Photo of WynnO
3/5  rDev -24.4%

WynnO, May 19, 2013
Photo of polishkaz
3/5  rDev -24.4%

polishkaz, Mar 16, 2014
Photo of LilBeerDoctor
3/5  rDev -24.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

2006 bottle sampled on 09/26/08 at Night of the Funk. Pours a clear brown with no head. Aroma of bourbon. Flavor of light tartness and lots of hard alcohol. Hmm, this one just wasn't that good and the alcohol was too strong.
Aroma: 6/10
Appearance: 3/5
Flavor: 6/10
Palate: 3/5
Overall: 14/20
(3.2/5)

LilBeerDoctor, Dec 27, 2008
Photo of Proteus93
3.03/5  rDev -23.7%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This is the 2007 vintage, Batch #9, Bottle #825, picked up at Beer Run in Charlottesville, VA

A: Rather hazy deep reddish brown. Head forms a little bit soapy, but it does retain quite nicely, and when it slips back to a collar, the appearance is a little more creamy.

S: Wet wood, a little musty, some funkiness that I wasn't quite expecting. A little malty, but I don't pick up on a whole lot of the aromas that might suggest this is going to be a sour. Nonetheless, I do find it to be a rather pleasant scent.

T: Unfortunately, as far as the style goes, I feel it suffers a little in flavour. The tartness is very mild, and the overall flavour of the beer seems rather muted. With the typical 'sour cherry' taking a back burner, the woodiness of the oak aging stands out as one of the predominant flavours, and it doesn't really seem to have much to complement. I don't really detect any off-flavours, aside from a touch of papery oxidation, it's just a little lacking.

M: Medium bodied, actually even a little weighty. Carbonation is a bit low, which doesn't help the flavour profile a great deal. The dryness associated with the style is there, but it can't carry the beer attributes alone.

D: A bit disappointed... I had hoped for a nice, complex brew - tart, crisp, dry, with the added oak notes to kick it up a notch. Price was a little high considering the product (~$17). Perhaps a newer vintage would be more to my liking, and if I see one, I'd be willing to give it another shot. Until then, though, I'm not too convinced.

Proteus93, Mar 19, 2010
Photo of kingcrowing
3.13/5  rDev -21.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

750ml bottle poured intonanDuvel tulip, Batch #13, 2011, bottle 1552.

Pours a dark reddish brown with a big yellow/brown head with generous lacing. Nose is malty, a bit tart, earthy and oaky.

Taste is a bit odd, sour and a bit vinegary, but also earthy. Mouthfeel is big and very carbonated. Finish is sour and tart. Overall it's decent but not too special.

kingcrowing, Feb 11, 2012
Photo of techdiver
3.15/5  rDev -20.7%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a hazy chestnut with no visible carbonation and a few bubbles for a head.

Sour fruit to the nose.

Taste is fairly unexciting. Sourness is present, but after any Rodenbach this is lacking.

Mouthfeel is thin and could benefit from more carbonation.

Drinkable, but this will be my last Barriquee unless I can find the other version.

techdiver, Jun 16, 2007
Photo of Treebs
3.15/5  rDev -20.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Bottled in 2005, carbon copy of the beer's picture on this site. Served in Founders snifter.

A: Pours a hazy brown with a nice off-white head. Sticks around for a little while.

S: Tart smelling with a definite must. Some grape skins and some oakiness.

T: Woody and a little pucker from the sour. Some tartness too. Some fruit skins and unripe berries are present as well. Has a slight wine taste with a little acetone/nail polish finish.

M: Dry finish, some fruity berries left on the palate and a nice prickly carbonation.

O: I can appreciate the style, but flanders red ales are definitely not my favorite.

Treebs, Oct 30, 2011
Photo of dnichols
3.15/5  rDev -20.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I shared a 750 ml capped bottle with a wax cover with a couple of beer buddies during a pre-holiday home sampling event. We poured the brew into chilled tulips.

A: It poured a reddish brown body that when back lit looked more of a semi-clear ruddy red. There was hardly any head despite a somewhat aggressive pour. The lack of a head limited the lacing to an occasional spot of thin legs that quickly disappeared.

S: It had the aroma of over-ripe sour fruits (e.g., white grapes, green apples). There was a herbal earthy accent that came in and out.

T: It bit the tongue with a bitter sour taste that reminded me of a dry white wine. The taste followed the nose resulting in an abundance of ripe sour fruits with green apples dominating. There were also hints of earthy spices but they were quickly overcome by the sour dry flavors.

M: It was thin bodied with no carbonation. It started and finished dry and sour.

D: This is not my style so I found it hard to enjoy and doubt I will indulge again. It was too reminicent of dry white wine for my taste.

dnichols, Dec 30, 2007
Photo of Ek0nomik
3.23/5  rDev -18.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Poured In: Wine Glass
Purchased At: Steve's (Madison, WI)

Batch 11, 2009.
Bottle #2323

Appearance: The pour was a red bistre color just reaching a fingers worth of head, though it disappears within seconds. It's very murky; I was expecting it to be a bit more clear than this. The bottle was well rested too, so it wasn't at the fault of yeast. Nonetheless, I'm fine with a beer not being clear. No lace on the side of the glass.

Smell: I've sampled this beer before at a Belgian style tasting, and I have to say it was quite different then. This bottle has a whole lot of funk going on. It's like I'm sticking my nose into a bacteria cesspool. I was hoping it would grow on me, but unfortunately the funk was a bit too much. It wasn't a barnyard funk like a Brettanomyces would contribute, it was hard to point it to something specific. There was a nice subtle tart cherry and plum aroma, but it was pretty well overpowered.

Taste: The tasting started out with a nice sour cherry, vanilla and oak flavor resting on top of some brown malt, but, again, it quickly turned into an overwhelming amount of funky and musty flavors. I still can't be certain that this bottle was completely okay, as I don't remember it tasting like this at the Belgian tasting I was at.

Mouthfeel: The mouthfeel of the beer was spot on. Lightly carbonated and a thin body.

Drinkability: I split the bottle with two other people, though they weren't enormous fans of this beer either. I don't know that I'd pick it up again, though I would love to try this again if someone else was cracking it open.

Ek0nomik, Sep 26, 2010
Photo of heddar33
3.25/5  rDev -18.1%

heddar33, Sep 06, 2012
Photo of HalfFull
3.25/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours a ruby red with a firm haze and half an inch of whitish cap. Offers decent retention and some artsy lace.

Aroma is well muddled with some hops, a bit of wood and a touch of caramel and a light funk. Lightly acetic in nature but quite subtle in delivery in that regard. Good but lacking as for brightness and clarity on the aroma. Warms to offer a rather solid depth nonetheless.

Flavor too is subdued and muddled; earthy and lightly fruity sweet. Much more along the lines of an Oud Bruin vs. a Flanders Red. Offers just a hint of tartness..

Offers a full feel and a pleasing level of carbonation.

Note: Batch #14, 2011

HalfFull, Jul 10, 2012
Photo of mwilbur
3.25/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Poured from 750 mL bottle into tulip. Bottle is from batch #11 in 2009, bottle #1412.
A: Pours a nice murky reddish-brown with 1/2 tan head that quickly dissipates.
S: Sweet berries, sour, oak, spicy hot cinnamon, and cherry notes. Pleasant aroma.
T: Unfortunately, does not follow aroma. The wood note is off (almost tastes rotten). Minerally. The sour is nearly completely gone here. Overly sweet fruit notes.
M: Soft feel with light body. Missing the sour bite.
D: Not a good example of the style. Would not recommend it. On the plus side, the 8% ABV is nearly imperceptible.

mwilbur, Oct 04, 2010
Photo of Thorpe429
3.25/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Batch #12. 2010. Bottle #1057. Served in a wine glass. Pours a fairly-clear reddish-mahogany color with a good white head that fades relatively quickly before falling to a thin cap. The nose brings a nice acidity and underlying red fruits plus a bit of oak and lactic acidity. Flavor pushes those components a bit further, but also has an underlying tannic graininess that detracts a bit, especially from the mouthfeel. Not a bad beer by any means, though I preferred the nose to the flavor/palate.

Thorpe429, Dec 15, 2012
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Panil Barriquée (Sour Version) from Panil
89 out of 100 based on 339 ratings.