1. Extreme Beer Fest. March 20 & 21, 2015 in Boston, Mass. Join us!
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Camo - Lucid Brewing

Not Rated.
CamoCamo

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
80
good

73 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 73
Reviews: 26
rAvg: 3.45
pDev: 21.16%
Wants: 1
Gots: 2 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Lucid Brewing visit their website
Minnesota, United States

Style | ABV
American Double / Imperial IPA |  9.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: tempest on 12-27-2011)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 73 | Reviews: 26 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Shag
1.5/5  rDev -56.5%

Shag, Apr 21, 2012
Photo of bigben94
1.5/5  rDev -56.5%

bigben94, Apr 09, 2012
Photo of TastyTaste
1.83/5  rDev -47%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

On tap at Pizza Luce Hopkins.
I am always excited to try new beers, especially ones from new local brewers, and even more so when they are one of my favorite styles, the double IPA.

That being said, this beer came off as ambitious effort to break onto the burgeoning craft beer scene, which falls short of the ultimate goal of making a well rounded beer.

Pours and looks nice. The trouble starts in the smell, and continues through the taste. Alcohol, raw alcohol - like what you would smell in malt liquor - dominates most of the experience of this beer. How did the hops taste? What direction did they take the malt? These and other questions are never answered because of the overpowering and distracting alcohol flavor.

I tried this beer a second time, several weeks after the first, and I came away with exactly the same conclusion. I hate to admit it, but this beer is hard to drink, and seems unfinished.

TastyTaste, Apr 28, 2012
Photo of GeezLynn
2/5  rDev -42%

GeezLynn, Jul 10, 2012
Photo of maximum12
2.05/5  rDev -40.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Another local brewery finds its way into bottles. Haven't quite caught this one on tap yet, so, well, $7 for a bomber? OK. I'll bite. A little steep for an upstart brewery. Make some 12 oz. bottles, will you?

Pour is clear sunshine, like you used to draw on the upper corner of a clean sheet of paper when you were seven, with carbonation that eases quickly & little in the way of bubbles. Nose is dominated by pale malts, slight sweetness, notable absence of malts. Mmmmm?

Camo is going to blend into the shelves well & isn't going to be easy for me to spot again. More malt than I like, there's big Halloween sweetness up front, shouting & waving to divert attention from the mild hops. Hops? I suppose there are some in the timid grapefruit & melon rind, & a middling, flabby bitterness. There's an unpleasant metallic twang on the finish that really sticks to the mouth cells. It grows stronger as the beer warms. Too flat. Sticky, but not in a good way, it's more sticky sweet.

Eh. This isn't very good. A big pale like this needs hops, encompassed in either bitterness or flavor, & this brew is embarassingly weak on both. Toss in too much malt, an unpleasant aftertaste, & this one's a failure. Based on this sample, I won't try anything from Lucid again anytime soon.

maximum12, Apr 28, 2012
Photo of zeledonia
2.25/5  rDev -34.8%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Just hit in bottles, so it's gotta be fresh. My first beer from this new Twin Cities brewery. Tasted 20 April 2012, reviewed from notes.

Pours a very bright orange color, with two fingers of fluffy off-white head. As clear as water, so clear I can read the label on the other side of the class, and see the bubbles slowly making their way up to the surface. Serious gobs of sticky lacing.

I smell nothing, despite burying my nose in my tulip glass. If I really dig, I get a bit of earthy hops, but that's all. Doesn't actually smell bad, but there's nothing good about it. As it warmed up, it didn't get any hoppier, but some pulpy orange came out.

Taste has some issues. Starts out bland, then shifts to a pungent rounded melony flavor. This slightly off flavor then gives way to a sharp bitterness (combination of alcohol and hop acids). I get very little malt flavor, and very little hops other than that punch of sharp bitterness late. This beer is not doing it for me. Tastes like bitter water with some other weird stuff going on.

Mouthfeel is fine. On the heavy side.

I do not like this beer. It's one part bland, and one part bad. No balance - water and bitter blast. Every time I drink it, I gag a little from the blast of alcohol combined with lack of flavor. I couldn't even come close to finishing a bomber of it.

zeledonia, Apr 27, 2012
Photo of crobinso
2.5/5  rDev -27.5%

crobinso, Apr 28, 2012
Photo of motorhed
2.5/5  rDev -27.5%

motorhed, Apr 21, 2012
Photo of Beerlover
2.5/5  rDev -27.5%

Beerlover, Apr 18, 2014
Photo of Chaz
2.65/5  rDev -23.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours a brilliant, dull golden in color topped, with a two-fingered off white head. Loping bubbles join the head languidly, and carbonation seems moderate. Lacing is good and lasts throughout the drink, and duration of the head is also fairly good. It’s a pleasing drink to look at, so far, so good.

Hops on the nose are not altogether subtle but they are not overpowering, either. A blend of Simcoe and Cascade, perhaps? Slightly herbaceous. Smells malty-sweet as well…

Aromatic hops and a candi sugar-like sweetness are quite expressive on the first sip. A nice, subtle lingering bitterness keeps the sugar levels in check at first (but only-just). The mouthfeel is full, round, malty-sweet. Strikes me as much more of an old ale/strong ale than it does a Double-Pale Ale or American-style Imperial IPA. Also --shades of "Eye of the Hawk"!-- this one is quite dangerously-drinkable.

Further into the drink it's a malt-bomb, which surely some folks enjoy more than others. I'm not feeling the booze (much less heat) in the way that others who've reviewed it already have discerned, but I've been tippling more than customary of late, so I must just be high on the ladder. Not especially bad as it warms, but the sweetness matched with the medium-full body really brings the drinkability down, especially as the hop profile really tends to fade into the background.

Not a bad beer by any sense, and probably better than average to some, but just an “okay beer” to my tired old tastebuds. It seems to try for something (?) and just doesn't quite make it. A worthy effort, but needs some tweaks. As a dessert beer or a beer to get "bombed" on, this one works just fine.

Note: This reminds me of "Double Dog" from Flying Dog another one that I didn't really enjoy. No date code on either the bottle or label that that I can see....

Chaz, Sep 06, 2012
Photo of doucmehu
2.7/5  rDev -21.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Re-reviewing on a bottle that came in a couple weeks ago. WOW, major disappointment. I gave it a 3.9 on tap at Groveland last winter (had 2x), but this bottle is not good. Bad batch? What happened?

A: Nice golden blonde, just a bit of haze. Minimal head is white, tight and just right. Minimal lacing but that is ok.

S: Some floral hops up front, fading into some sweet, fruity citrus hops. The malts present much stronger

T: Follows the nose with some of floral, earthy hops. There is a significant, albeit bland malt presence. This is not nearly as hoppy as it should be. Slightly soapy finish.

M: A bit thin for an imperial, but heaver than a standard APA. Average hop bitterness on the finish, smooth and carbonated and coats the mouth without being too dry or sweet.

O: Not really that good. Major lack of hops and the malt profile is bland.

doucmehu, May 07, 2012
Photo of MN_Beerticker
2.75/5  rDev -20.3%

MN_Beerticker, Oct 14, 2012
Photo of Hopstout
2.75/5  rDev -20.3%

Hopstout, Apr 22, 2012
Photo of Mealhouse
2.75/5  rDev -20.3%

Mealhouse, May 04, 2012
Photo of vobr0002
2.75/5  rDev -20.3%

vobr0002, Oct 01, 2012
Photo of mjryan
2.88/5  rDev -16.5%
look: 5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 5 | overall: 3

Double Pale Ale from my hometown. I love that we get to score on appearance. What exactly am I scoring? It looks like beer...okay, I give it a five. Aroma is well, lacking. For a beer that touts five hop editions and sure seems like it trying to be a double ipa, it's really disappointing. Sure, it's got some hop aroma, smells a lot like that pale ale from Chico California, but with way more malt in the nose. Shit, it doesn't smell bad, not at all. It's just that I expect huge hop aroma from an IPA. Speaking of which, this is a double version of...presumably an IPA, so it fails miserably in that regard. Tastes pretty malty as well. Again I feel the need to compare it to Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. It's got the same hop character, but the malt is dialed way up, like to eleven. Not bad, just not what I want in a, okay I'm just going to say it, a DIPA. It's like fresh bread, and a bit of toffee washed down with a swig of grapefruit juice, a small swig. As it warms it takes on a distinct toffee flavour. For a beer that is a double version of a generally hop foward beer, it slams you in the bitterness department. A grand bitter finish on this one, unfortunately, I find said bitterness a tad off putting, a bit aspirin like. It's something I experience from time to time in mine own homemade libations. Not enough to sink the ship, but not ideal. I really don't dislike this beer, I don't think it's bad, even of it may seem like I do. This is probably the tenth time I've had it and I'm sure I'll have many more times. I just feel like it really misses the mark. That being said, it won't take a heck of a lot of tweaking to make it a solid DIPA.
P.S. I really like Lucids other beer, Air. I think it's a kick ass, interesting take on the blonde ale style and a beer I have been and will continue to enjoy greatly.

mjryan, Apr 17, 2012
Photo of djschnabel
3/5  rDev -13%

djschnabel, Apr 11, 2012
Photo of Doyle
3/5  rDev -13%

Doyle, Aug 05, 2012
Photo of herman77
3.03/5  rDev -12.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: Clear honey gold with a bubbly off white head. Decent lacing.

S: Citrus, orange peel and a bit of pineapple. Some biscuit-carmely malt in the background. Alcohol is present too. As it warms up a bit, the alcohol comes out even more in the nose and takes over everything else... yikes.

T: Hmmm... an imperial pale ale... I can see why they would call it this, I guess, since it's not that hoppy and the malt is way more prevalent than it should be. Lots of candy like sweetness with a big bready/carmel malt backbone and then some mild to medium pine and citrus hops. It does finish a bit dry, but not much aftertaste at all.

M: Medium to lighter body, but it does feel a bit thin. Average carbonation that is a bit prickly.

O: I've had this on tap a few times and I remember liking it more then. This is the first and probably the only bottle I will buy which is a bummer since they are local to where I pretty much grew up. Drinkability is okay, does drink lower than 9% (not nearly in the nose though). Honestly, it doesn't seem that well crafted overall... again a shame, but its the truth in my opinion.

herman77, Jun 01, 2012
Photo of nppeders
3.03/5  rDev -12.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

appearance - amber color. Sticky lacing with a head that dissapates.

smell slight citrus and a bit floral...very underwhelmed

taste - strong malt sweetness at the begining of the sip, toffee, biscuits, finish's with sweetness and a strong pine bitterness which remind me of centennial hops.

mouthfeel - Low carbonation, mouthfeel seems smoother then expected.

overall - I like my DIPA's to be less malty and toffee flavored and more hops and yeast driven. This tastes like a british style beer to me (Summit EPA on crack). More like a Barley Wine. The hops flavor is much stronger then the hop aroma and I'm missing that aroma.

IT's good, and well executed if it turned out as intended, but, probably just not my thing. You may love it...give it a try as it's extremely fresh!

nppeders, Apr 11, 2012
Photo of womencantsail
3.08/5  rDev -10.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

The pour is nearly copper in color with a white head. Rather sweet on the nose with lots of caramel and toffee. Very little hop character, maybe just a bit of an herbal note. The flavor is similarly poor. Bread, caramel, and toffee are the primary flavors with minimal hop influence.

womencantsail, Jul 30, 2012
Photo of Ilafan
3.08/5  rDev -10.7%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Strong alcohol content (9%) permeates the taste to the point of being slightly detrimental to the overall experience of the beer. As a pale ale, it is, of course, hoppy. I like that. But the aftertaste of alcohol overwhelms any other taste. The serving container was large, and it is crisp for a hot summer. But I will only drink it again if I find it on tap (to see if there is a difference).

Ilafan, Jul 25, 2012
Photo of yamar68
3.13/5  rDev -9.3%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

I'm following up a Surly Furious with this one, so my results may be a tad skewed. It's like watching The Stones open up for some debut performance of a young indie band. Anyways...

Pours a nice clear burnt pear/gold, some pinkish hues. Thick white cap and good lacing, zero beading. Earthy hops on the nose, herbal bits. Sweet/tart, no discernible booze. The taste is not what I was anticipating - there's a standard hop canvas that is disturbed by some onion/garlic/spinach quality. Not as in, like a filtration issue, it's something else. Can't quite put my finger on it. Plenty of potential here, but the taste shows that something maybe has gone a-rye.

yamar68, Apr 17, 2012
Photo of morimech
3.15/5  rDev -8.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Clear amber color with just over one finger of head that had good retention before settling to a thick cap. Just some light spotty lacing is left down the glass.

Not a very aromatic beer, especially for a DIPA. More malt aroma than hops. Bready malt with some citrus hops.

The flavor picks up a little. Dry malt lays the background for the hops to be featured. But unfortanetly, the hops put out a poor performance. Just some citrus and herbal notes. It is bitter however, too bad the flavor does not follow up. A little warmth in the finish from the alcohol.

Solid body and nicely carbonated. Good texture for a bitter/hoppy beer.

Not a bad beer, but when the shelves are crowded with DIPAs, this beer will have a hard time competing.

morimech, Apr 21, 2012
Photo of gatornation
3.15/5  rDev -8.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

from fresh just delivered 22oz bomber

A- pours a mostly clear amber,golden color with a 1 finger off white head that dissipates to a fresh ring, some nice lacing on the side

S- was pine and citrus hops and sweet malt , nothing great

T- was sweet first with bitter pine and floral hops a touch of tropical hops but were all too light thru-out for a 2IPA, loads of sweet malts mask the 9% ABV, but for a 2ipa the hops were just lacking

M- medium carbonation with a smooth taste it did have an over sweet amount of malts with hops just a bitter reminder on the palate

O- its an allright 2ipa but its lacking in hops and was much to sweet, also @ $6.99 a bomber to pricey i wont be buying this again way to high a price , i will however try this on tap and i recommend trying this, just not one of my favorites in 2ipa's

gatornation, Apr 11, 2012
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Camo from Lucid Brewing
80 out of 100 based on 73 ratings.