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!

Flying' Monk - Adelbert's Brewery

Not Rated.
Flying' MonkFlying' Monk

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
85
very good

64 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 64
Reviews: 14
rAvg: 3.81
pDev: 13.12%
Wants: 3
Gots: 9 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Adelbert's Brewery visit their website
Texas, United States

Style | ABV
Quadrupel (Quad) |  10.90% ABV

Availability: Limited (brewed once)

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: Mora2000 on 10-18-2012)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
Ratings: 64 | Reviews: 14 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Scepter
4.5/5  rDev +18.1%

Scepter, Jan 30, 2014
Photo of greenspointexas
3.5/5  rDev -8.1%

greenspointexas, Dec 14, 2013
Photo of Labeorphile
3.75/5  rDev -1.6%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Not quite...

Poured from a bomber into a Chimay goblet.

Everything about this beer is not quite right. The color is ruby, but more like a Dubbel than a Quad. The head is thin and fizzy, more like a soft drink head and disappears almost as fast.

The nose is full of good dark fruits and the taste is the same. It is a very good beer that I enjoyed, but to style it is off a bit. The mouthfeel is a little thin, likely due to the carbonation being a miss on style.

Again, an enjoyable beer with some great flavor to it and some pepperiness I am now feeling on the finish, but this isn't a true Quad.

Labeorphile, Nov 22, 2013
Photo of Hanzo
3.75/5  rDev -1.6%

Hanzo, Nov 09, 2013
Photo of DillanWeems
4/5  rDev +5%

DillanWeems, Oct 22, 2013
Photo of kojevergas
2.68/5  rDev -29.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

The name on the label is "Flyin' Monks" (NOT "Flying' Monk" as currently listed). See also: http://adelbertsbeer.com/our-beers/ Reviewed as a quadrupel because it identifies as such on the label. "Ale fermented with oak rum chips. Bottle conditioned." 9% ABV according to my bottle. Batch No 003. Bottled on 4/9/2013. "Serve at 55-70 degrees" into a snifter.

1 pint 9.4 fl oz brown glass bottle with standard Adelbert's label and hood-and-wire cap (aka cage) over a branded cork acquired at me local HEB Grocery and served into an Independence Brewing pilsner glass in me gaff in low altitude Austin, Texas. Reviewed live. Expectations are average; their dubbel was subpar and quadrupels are one of my top 3 styles so I'm suspicious.

Served cold - straight from me fridge - and allowed to warm during the course of consumption. Side-poured with standard vigor as no carbonation issues are anticipated.

A: No bubble show forms as I pour - nor should one in a beer of this style.

Pours a 1.5 finger wide head of light khaki colour. Poor creaminess and thickness; it's disappointingly thin. Not much frothiness either. No lacing at all as the head recedes. Head retention is average - about 2 minutes - which isn't bad for 9%. Overall, it's a pretty poor head compared to those of the best beers in the style.

Body colour is a nontransparent translucent dark auburn of below average vibrance but nice rich texture. No yeast particles are visible. It's not as dark as most (and as the best) beers in the style, but I'm optimistic.

Overall, it's generally appealing but not unique or special. There are no obvious flaws.

Sm: Has a rich rum character atypical of the style, yet intriguing. Sugarcane is abundant. I also get plums, dates, raisin, and caramel. No fig or prunes. Unfortunately, the rum character also lends it an unpleasant obvious booziness; it's not a hot aroma per se but the booze is distracting and unnecessary. I look for oak but don't find it. Belgian malts: pale, amber, biscuit, maybe brown. A dash of chocolate malt, maybe. A kiss of molasses. Has a bit of a dark fruit syrup note that I'm definitely not on board with.

Boozy rum is dominant to its detriment.

No yeast character or hop character is detectable, though I assume Belgian yeast was used.

This isn't the delicate dark fruit aroma of the best beers in the style, nor does its scent suggest particular subtlety, complexity, or nuance. But I'm intrigued by the rum notes and I'm looking forward to seeing how the flavour profile is.

A largely inoffensive aroma of moderate strength. More aggressive than the best quads.

T: Sugarcane/rum and accompanying booziness overwhelm the flavour profile, ruining any balance or delicacy and reducing drinkability. I don't get any oak either, so it seems the rum oak chip gimmick was a poor play. I do get a hint of pecan, which is interesting. Body is comprised of Belgian malts, including amber, biscuit, and a bit of the pale variety. Buried raisin. Sugarplum. Dates. Caramel. As aforementioned, the balance is poor - but it does have some cohesion, though it's definitely not gestalt. Has some complexity, but no subtlety, nuance, or delicacy. On the sweeter side. Quite a mess, but not a trainwreck. If we disregard style, it's a decent little beer - sort of a misguided strong ale. I like the pecan and the rum, I just wish it didn't have to be so boozy. And where's the oak?

Depth of flavour is painfully shallow. Intensity of flavour is above average; it's overwhelming and overbearing, lacking subtlety. Duration of flavour is average.

No yeast character or hop character comes through.

Mf: Smooth and wet. It's got a full body and an obvious thickness, which isn't ideal for the style - the best quads are delicate and shockingly light. Okay presence on the palate. Boozy and unrefreshing. Texture suits the flavour profile only in a general sense; this is not custom-tailored to the taste.

Not oily, gushed, syrupy, or astringent.

Dr: The booziness does limit drinkability, and the quality isn't high enough to make me crave each sip. I applaud the experimentation with rum soaked oak chips, but this really misses the mark inasmuch as quads are concerned. Disregarding style, it's a passable but still disappointing beer. Adelbert's is not impressing me with their Belgians, especially these weak attempts at abbey beers. I wouldn't bother with it again, nor would I recommend it to friends or trade partners. Drinkability is below average, as is the beer. The booziness increases as it warms, making it more and more unpleasant.

Priced highly.

Light aging (a year or two) might benefit it slightly, but I wouldn't waste the cellar space.

C-

kojevergas, Sep 25, 2013
Photo of NiceFly
2.86/5  rDev -24.9%
look: 3.25 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3.25

Batch 003 Bottled on 4/9/2013. Poured into a quart jar 9/12/2013. Label reports a 9.0% ABV.

Thanks to the SWMBO for this one. I enjoyed this during a walk around the garden after dinner.

Pours a dark red/brown with a decent 1 inch head. More the color of a dubbel than a quad in my opinion.

Smells of sweet malt, some faint phenols. A bit of CO2 burn, so carbonation is on track. Otherwise nondescript.

Taste. If this was a performance evaluation the beer would get a satisfactory. Comes on sweet and finishes with appropriate carbonation and bitterness. The grain bill could use a bit of depth/character.

This beer is completely devoid of yeast character. The phenols may just be melding with the bitterness. However, there are no fermentation flaws that so many 'merican breweries like to call Belgian. No bandaid or nail polish and I thank them for that! I humbly suggest the brewer lower the pitching rate to squeeze a bit more from the yeast. Perhaps a shorter and wider tank, I am not sure what geometry they are using.

I read more of the label after some tasting. I do not perceive any oak or rum.

Mouthfeel is right on point. Sweet flavor but not thick, a nice medium body. Carbonation is appropriate, not to high not to low.

Overall a solid example from a brewcraft point of view. A darker candi syrup and an adjusted pitching rate and this one could take off.

NiceFly, Sep 13, 2013
Photo of lancecenter
4.08/5  rDev +7.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

750 mL bottle purchased from Specs in Austin. Unlike most corked and caged bottles, you gotta turn this thing at least 8 or 9 times to get the thing open. Bottled on 4/9/2013. Poured in a New Belgium globe.

A - deep opaque copper with three fingers of light brown head that never quite goes away. But where's the sticky lacing I'm use to?

S - you gotta let this baby warm up a little before the smell becomes present. Rum, molasses, and a lot of alcohol on the tale end.

T/M - molasses, peppers, herbal, and dark fruits with a warming alcohol finish. But at 10.9%, it hides the alcohol well. Nice chewy body, although it looses carbonation a bit quickly. This is good stuff!

O - pretty damn good brew! I definitely need to make a trip to the brewery and try some more from the local dudes.

lancecenter, Aug 26, 2013
Photo of ChanceK
3.75/5  rDev -1.6%

ChanceK, Aug 24, 2013
Photo of cdwil
3.5/5  rDev -8.1%

cdwil, Aug 12, 2013
Photo of kew
4/5  rDev +5%

kew, Aug 11, 2013
Photo of vickersspitfire
3.63/5  rDev -4.7%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

This quad pours out a dark earthy brown with hues of red and copper, it’s filled with lots of carbonation and is topped off with a nice thick bubbly head that thins out rather quickly. There’s some good lacing going on too. Banana bread, mild ethanol and dark fruits first hit your nose, figs, cherry, apple and grapes comes next, and there is a slight citrus aroma to it as well. The taste is ok, there are some spices that come through nicely , dark fruits really do hit your tongue, and the banana bread flavor is also present. It is sharp and crisp at first and then mellows out as it warms. Caramel is present throughout the tasting and it dries up just a bit- I would definitely age this ale the next I buy it. It is a bit on the light side for a quad and it seems too fresh or carbonated for a quad too. Overall not bad it goes down well and does taste pretty good-but I will age it next time.

vickersspitfire, Jul 31, 2013
Photo of ncaudle
3.5/5  rDev -8.1%

ncaudle, Jul 27, 2013
Photo of JamLand
3.5/5  rDev -8.1%

JamLand, Jul 03, 2013
Photo of GibbonsTheBeerGuy
4.5/5  rDev +18.1%

GibbonsTheBeerGuy, Jun 10, 2013
Photo of raffy313
4/5  rDev +5%

raffy313, May 28, 2013
Photo of ElizabethEleanor
5/5  rDev +31.2%

ElizabethEleanor, May 16, 2013
Photo of jheezee
3.75/5  rDev -1.6%

jheezee, May 09, 2013
Photo of traviswhillier
3.75/5  rDev -1.6%

traviswhillier, Mar 31, 2013
Photo of Danielbt
4/5  rDev +5%

Danielbt, Mar 25, 2013
Photo of SBoyar1
3.25/5  rDev -14.7%

SBoyar1, Mar 22, 2013
Photo of mikool_451
3.75/5  rDev -1.6%

mikool_451, Mar 14, 2013
Photo of Magery
3.5/5  rDev -8.1%

Magery, Mar 13, 2013
Photo of JeffSuttonTX
3.5/5  rDev -8.1%

JeffSuttonTX, Mar 10, 2013
Photo of Dope
3.33/5  rDev -12.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Bottled 02/06/12 so 13 months old. Batch 001, bottle 1903.

A: Pours a dark, murky brown with a smallish very light brown head. Head is thin and foamy and dissipates pretty quickly. Almost no lacing, just little spots here and there. Despite the quickly faded head, it does revive quite easily and heavily with a little swirl.

S: Very malty with loads of sweet caramel, brown sugar and dark fruits. Raisin is prominent with some fig. Light oak character too.

T: Big and sharp flavors. Up front there is some big oak with lots of dark fruits. Strong caramel from start to finish. Sweetness fades a bit and you get more a dried fruit flavor with some strong oak presence. Very drying in the aftertaste with lots and lots of lingering pure oak and sudden belgian yeast spiciness. Flavors overall are quite strong, sharp and boozy. Beer tastes a little "too" fresh if I'm honest. Which is a little strange since the bottle is already over a year old.

M: Heavy, thick but not syrupy. Lower carbonation.

O: Not a bad quad but I feel like it may have been on oak cubes for a little too long. Oakiness is a bit harsh and pervasive through the whole beer, but especially in the finish and lingering aftertaste. Beer is harsh in general and nothing about it really stands out in a pleasant way. It feels like it had potential but it just wasn't executed well. Rough to drink and I can barely choke it down.

Dope, Mar 09, 2013
Flying' Monk from Adelbert's Brewery
85 out of 100 based on 64 ratings.