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!

Mac Queen's Nessie - Brauerei Schloss Eggenberg

Not Rated.
Mac Queen's NessieMac Queen's Nessie

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
76
okay

139 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 139
Reviews: 109
rAvg: 3.29
pDev: 16.41%
Wants: 0
Gots: 3 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Brauerei Schloss Eggenberg visit their website
Austria

Style | ABV
Vienna Lager |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
Note: New recipe from 2008, gravity went down from 16° to 12°, alcohol from 7.3% to 5%

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 08-03-2002)
View: Beers (18) |  Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 139 | Reviews: 109 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of TheLongBeachBum
TheLongBeachBum

California

1.78/5  rDev -45.9%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

Presentation: 11.2 fluid ounce, usual Eggenberg bottle with the embossed logo on the shoulder of the bottle. This one has a creamy-pink label. Listed as 7.3% alc/vol. and labeled as ‘Mac Queen’s Nessie Original Red Ale’. States that this is made with whisky malts.

OK, that’s the good bit out of the way.

Appearance: Clear darkish golden body that poured with a very audible fizz as the head immediately formed and appeared, and then subsequently immediately disappeared. Finished with no head at all. It looks awful I have to say, flatter than the Netherlands and about as appetizing as a Big Mac to a Vegetarian.

Nose: Smells sweet with a light sickly feel, reminiscent of a very, very cheap Lager. I didn’t get any of the Whisky Malts at all.

Taste: Sickly and Sweet. Barely drinkable when chilled but almost poured away when it warmed up. A depressing mix of sweet malts and alcohol.

Mouthfeel: Can’t seem to get rid of the taste of this one.

Drinkability: Urrgh.

Overall: Not impressed. Looks awful, smells sickly, tastes sweet, feels flat and drinks like a cheap high strength English-brewed chemical laden Germanic sounding 24-pack super economy lager.

#1: So it’s called ‘Mac Queens Original Red Ale’ – and it's bloody golden blonde in color. WTF? Am I missing something here? How can a Red Ale be blonde?

#2: It’s crap - this soooo reminded me of Kestrel Super Strength Lager that I drank back in England down the woods with the rest of my 14 year old friends when I was too young and poor to know better.

#3: Oh I get it - the Brewers Color Blind right !?!?!

Nessie Original Red Ale; My Arse!! More like a Jessie Red Ale!

Do Eggenberg really brew this stuff? Extremely Disappointing.

Serving type: bottle

03-09-2004 06:41:12 | More by TheLongBeachBum
Photo of asabreed
asabreed

New York

1.8/5  rDev -45.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

11.2 oz. bottle into a pint glass.

Appearance: Gold straw-colored body, little to no head retention, and little carbonation overall.

Smell: Oddly enough this smell is pretty reminiscent of the Layla beer I just reviewed. I don't get any smoke or peat or whiskey, and just sugars from the malt and maybe a hint of hop sourness.

Taste: Way overdone sweetness, metallic flavors, hints of smoke, acrid sourness, medicinal unpleasant funk and earthiness. I can't drink anymore of this. Even small sips for sampling are unpleasant.

Mouthfeel: Medium-bodied with thankfully a burst of carbonation near the end, making it a little less watery than it initially presents itself to be.

Drinkability: Not sure I've had a scotch ale like this before, but this seems overly sweet, unbalanced, and fairly caustic, as I'm starting to get a headache from it. I won't be trying this again. Samichlaus and the Urbock Eisbock I'll be trying again, but this I surely won't be trying again, and I'm pouring the rest down the drain because seriously halfway through it's given me a huge headache. Yikes.

Serving type: bottle

03-25-2008 03:58:43 | More by asabreed
Photo of JBogan
JBogan

Nevada

1.88/5  rDev -42.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Poured not a red, but a light golden color with almost no head or lacing.

Smelled a wee bit metallic and buttery, not very pleasing at all to my nose.

My tastebuds didn't far any better, as the taste follwed the aroma. Nothing about the taste beckoned me for more.

Mouthfeel was mostly flat and uninspiring. Medium to thick and slippery feeling, with almost no carbonation to perk things up.

I did what I could to drink as much of this as possible to get a decent impression of this beer, but it was a chore. Knowing what I know now, I'd pass on this beer in the future, even if it was offered to me for free.

Serving type: bottle

04-26-2008 22:45:28 | More by JBogan
Photo of JGuill
JGuill

Massachusetts

2/5  rDev -39.2%

02-17-2012 02:16:02 | More by JGuill
Photo of Kahlerbock
Kahlerbock

Kansas

2/5  rDev -39.2%

01-31-2012 15:41:06 | More by Kahlerbock
Photo of Knapp85
Knapp85

Pennsylvania

2.05/5  rDev -37.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I was hoping for something more like the Samichlaus in this brew. Ended up being a little disappointed. This beer has a nice reddish color and thats about as far as it went for me on the positives of this brew. I really wanted to enjoy this but I found this beer to be on the weak side a bit. I was surprised... The aromas didn't really do too much for me it smelled a little funny not sure how to put it really. The head vanished and it was a little on the flat side. Scottish Ales are usually very good to me but this one just didn't make the cut.

Serving type: bottle

03-30-2011 22:57:15 | More by Knapp85
Photo of Bryn
Bryn

Alberta (Canada)

2.25/5  rDev -31.6%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

11.2 FLoz bottle

A - Toffee colouredand transparent. No head after a minute. A few small white bubbles along the side.

S - Cheap lager. It reminds me of warm lucky lager. It also has a slight whiff peat, but it is very slight.

T - Slightly sweet, malty very weakly flavoured.

M - refreshing, doesn't linger. Like diet coke.

O - EHHHH I wouldn't buy it again, but I will drink down this bottle. It's not a very flavourful beer. it doesn't taste offensive, it's just not that exciting.

Serving type: bottle

12-04-2012 23:31:55 | More by Bryn
Photo of Preismj
Preismj

Illinois

2.3/5  rDev -30.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 1

a: gold color with a bit of a pink tint, uneven head dissipation. A little bit of lacing, though for the most part a very watery look.

s: gotta be honest...smells EXACTLY like my dog's blue buffalo food. Very grainy, thinking a lot of barley (maybe oat?) coming out here.

t: tastes like it smells. I suppose I get a hint of the malt, but not much. It only comes out in the sweetness. for the most part, this is very very very very very grainy. I am having trouble enjoying this, though as it warms, I get a bit more of the malt. Overall, not my thing...and I tend to like red ales. I feel like I've got dog food in my mouth.

m: mouthfeel is tremendous, actually. Hard to classify this with the appalling taste I get, but the feel is good, nice and smooth with a good balance of carbonation. Cool and crisp.

d: I've had a few sips and while it is getting a bit better, my first reaction was that I didn't want to keep trying it. At about $4 a bottle, this isn't what I expected. Only 5% abv so I suppose I didn't expect that boozy quality here, though quite sad that I get no heat and a ton of grains which, honestly, I am not thinking are tasty.

Overall, very disappointed here. I like red ales and this one sounded like it had promise, though compared to some out there, this is bottom tier and a waste of a nice glass bottle. Very sad about this one.

Oh well, always next year.

as an edit to my post...always possible I got a bad batch...though I am not getting much of the malt that other people mentioned (I like to review first, and then compare to what others have said). I am very sad if this is just a bad bottle as I will likely never give it another go...again, sounded like it'd be a great one to go for, though this is just not me and I just cannot appreciate this if I have what is indeed a good batch.

Serving type: bottle

03-11-2011 03:08:21 | More by Preismj
Photo of laituegonflable
laituegonflable

Australia

2.33/5  rDev -29.2%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a very lightly burnished gold colour with large, fizzy white head that fizzles out quickly, leaving nothing behind. A huge amount of carbonation, very strong in the beer. Lacing is non-existent. Meh - was supposed to be red, isn't really. Looks very fizzy and watery.

Nose is fairly sweet with not much to it at all. Bit of a corn smell with some soft drink sugar - bit of treacle adds a touch of richness. It is very sweet, but smells so in an artificial way. Corn syrup and brown sugar, really. Not much else, pretty dull.

Tastes very watered-down. Has a sweet and light malty character with slight nuttiness, like marzipan almost, and a fair soda-jet-carbonated flavour. A hint of cola and maybe a bit of ginger, all very subdued. Basically tastes very watery and weak, almost like I'm sucking the flavours out of a moist flannel. The flavours are there but dulled and distant. Very sweet for the most part, and very simple. The label promised me a smoke aftertaste but it's not there, if anything it's a light vinegar flavour. Hugely disappointed with this, they certainly made it seem enticing, but it's a very plain drop.

Mouthfeel is thin, with a bit of tingle from the carbs - not too much though. IT's quite smooth, but for 7.3% it's very thin.

Drinkability is average. I just wanted a huge amount more from this. It's so plain, but drinkable enough.

Serving type: bottle

12-01-2009 23:36:29 | More by laituegonflable
Photo of magictrokini
magictrokini

California

2.42/5  rDev -26.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

This was advertised as a Smoked when I had it. Darker yellow pour with no head. Fruity, malty aroma with grains and sugar. Not an ounce of anything smoky in this bottle, even though that it what it was advertised as. Looking at BA's category for this, its not really that good of a Scotch Ale imitation. Butterscotch (not scotch), metallic, and medicinal flavors abound. No caramel, peat, earth, roasty malt, nothing. No cabonation gives it a syrupy feel. Not good.

Serving type: bottle

12-05-2008 19:28:26 | More by magictrokini
Photo of CrazyDavros
CrazyDavros

Australia

2.42/5  rDev -26.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Pours amber with a dismal head.
Smells like Heineken - loads of grassy Euro hops. Too grassy, almost skunky. No smoke whatsoever, although there is a woody note, almost peaty.
Same story with the taste, this could pass as a grassy, pale lager. The only interesting point is that same faint woody hint.
Very watery, too much carbonation.

Serving type: bottle

02-03-2010 01:06:50 | More by CrazyDavros
Photo of spointon
spointon

Illinois

2.5/5  rDev -24%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

I poured this one from an 11.2oz brown bottle into a tulip pint glass.

A= This ale poured a super clear and bright gold color with a slight orange tint to it. The white head rose 1/2" and then settled straightaway to a thin cap. Minor lacing. Absolultely in no way appears to be a wee heavy as this page indicates nor does it appear to be a red ale as the bottle indicates.

S= Smelled grainy, sweet, and full of adjuncts. Slight grassy hop notes. Not good.

T= As in the smell, flavor was less than stellar. Sweet grainy malts followed by grassy hops and a terrible corn adjunct note.

MF= Medium bodied with a fairly crisp carbonation.

D= Really not at all what is advertised and not a redeeming beer in any category. I won't have this ever again.

Serving type: bottle

08-04-2009 04:32:38 | More by spointon
Photo of BuckeyeNation
BuckeyeNation

Iowa

2.5/5  rDev -24%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Pale tangerine with scads of fine bubbles swarming up to a tight-bubbled, crazily pitting alabaster head that is beginning to leave sheets of BB-shot lace. It's still unclear to me if Nessie is a Scotch ale or simply a red ale that uses Scottish Highland malt. It couldn't look less like either one. If one ignores style completely (or imagines it as an APA) the beer looks better than decent.

I've now mentioned three completely different styles in this review and the beer smells like none of them. No surprise there since the other two Brewery Castle Eggenberg beers that I've had (Urbock Dunkel Eisbock, Urbock 23) smelled and tasted nothing like their stated styles either. The nose is weaker than weak and gives up nothing other than a whiff of toasted barley.

It's a bit better on the palate, but only marginally so. For a beer that's supposed to be the 'whisky of beers' due to the use of the same barley used in Scotland's finest, it isn't all that malty. Since the ingredients weren't added with a very heavy hand, alcohol is a more prominent part of the flavor profile than it should be. In that sense at least, Nessie tastes like watered down whisky (although more like a cheap blended Scotch than a high-quality single malt).

I don't know who assigns the styles on the beer from BCE, but I'm amazed at the disconnect between what is expected and what is actually tasted. The deeper I go into the bottle, the more Nessie is reminding me of a run-of-the-mill Euro strong lager. Little sweetness, little bitterness, just a firm, slightly fruity ethanol punch. I've changed my mind, the flavor isn't any better than the smell, it's just stronger.

It's hard to know how to judge the body/mouthfeel with no reliable style in my sights. In a strictly general sense, it's medium, firm and dessicatingly clean. I haven't really noticed the carbonation so I guess that means that it's somewhere within the vast range of acceptable.

Nessie (a great name for a *real* Scotch ale, by the way) is yet another strange beer from Brewery Castle Eggenberg. I didn't expect it to rival Belhaven Wee Heavy, but I also didn't expect the soulless beast that I've been struggling to finish as this review winds down. The 'real' Nessie deserves to have her name associated with a much better beer than this.

Serving type: bottle

08-06-2006 23:31:25 | More by BuckeyeNation
Photo of Frozensoul327
Frozensoul327

Michigan

2.53/5  rDev -23.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

An odd, almost misdirected beer. Pours out to a strong golden yellow color with a touch of red. Medium whie foamy head was well preserved, and hung around till the bottom of the beer. Aromas of pears, yeast, earth, eggs, some spice. Taste was a let-down... bland sweet malts and grain, a touch of hop bite, and a unappealing copper like flavor. If I wanted a penny in my mouth, i'd put a penny in my mouth. Mouthfeel was fair, but the carbonation only enhanced the unpleasantness of this beer. I won't be back for another.

THE BLOODHOUND FACTOR: The hounds like this one. Good. Let them have it, 'cause I sure as hell can't finish it.

Serving type: bottle

02-14-2006 01:37:26 | More by Frozensoul327
Photo of djura
djura

Serbia

2.63/5  rDev -20.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Found it in Romania.

A - Whiskey to red cherry color,medium carbonation lasting few minutes,tiny white foam lasting few seconds.
S - Sweet malt with some fruits aroma.
T/M - Lighter taste for Red beers, almost as scotch and soda beer. 2 much carbonated,bitter aftertaste with some sweetness and some fruitiness.

O - Not so good,not so bad. Interesting because of whiskey malt, but overall, there is lots of better Red lagers.

Serving type: bottle

03-26-2013 22:25:17 | More by djura
Photo of RenoZymurgist
RenoZymurgist

Nevada

2.63/5  rDev -20.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured a very bright copper color with almost no head.
Thin white ring clings to the glass tenativly.
Aroma is very fruity and nicely english. No smoke or what i would percieve to be anything whisky-like yet if i were to put this beer in another category it would fit quite well, say an ESB for instance.
Flavor is also very ESB like, nice caramel malt flavor and dry mineral finish with english hop flavor. This beer seems to me to be mis-categorized. i think it is an excellent ESB but a very poor scottish ale. To dry and mineraly and the finish isn't sweet enough. And the label says it is a whiskey malt beer i would expect peat smoked barley not maris otter. Word for the wise this isn;t a smoked scotch ale more of a fuller's ESB.

Serving type: bottle

03-07-2010 02:07:02 | More by RenoZymurgist
Photo of DmanGTR
DmanGTR

New York

2.68/5  rDev -18.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Review from notes on 1/30/10.

This beer, as far as I'm concerned, is simply boring. There's nothing going on here, just a standard whatever beer. Supposedly a red ale, this poured a pale golden yellow with no head. Not much in the aroma but some cereal grains, biscuit, and hint of booze. Although an ok flavor, it doesn't have anything going for it. No caramel, not much fruits except a bit of pears. Altogether very disappointing.

Serving type: bottle

06-09-2010 13:33:42 | More by DmanGTR
Photo of geexploitation
geexploitation

Indiana

2.7/5  rDev -17.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours very clear, with a dark gold color and no head. Light aromas which hold some slight clues as to this beer's category: the malt here has a whiskeyish note that reminds of Golden Promise -- a strain that is also sometimes used in Scottish ales. On the palate, sweet with alcohol first off, then some nutty-sweet malt notes that once again remind of a Highland malt. Dusky, half-bitter, half-phenolic finish. Hot mouthfeel. Overall, this is a strange but somewhat interesting beer. The whisky malts used, combined with a relatively neutral yeast strain, provide some evidence of what whisky malts do to a beer. But the "interesting" angle can only take it so far: it's just not that tasty.

Serving type: bottle

12-20-2007 02:57:59 | More by geexploitation
Photo of cbl2
cbl2

New York

2.75/5  rDev -16.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

$3.08 11.2 oz 7.30% No best by date.

Appearance:

Pours a crystal clear light brown with a quarter inch of tight white head.

Aroma:

Mildly malt sweetness is the only predominant odor, with no hop presence at all.

Taste/Mouthfeel:

Odd sweet adjunct flavor with a somewhat coarse mouthfeel. Alcohol is masked, though the other flavors that are present are rather unpleasant/lackluster. Blah, and unsettling. Not worth the cost of admission. I can find much better beers for much less. Pass on this one.

Serving type: bottle

07-30-2006 14:05:55 | More by cbl2
Photo of henrysunset
henrysunset

Washington

2.75/5  rDev -16.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

not very red for a "red ale". It's a filtered orangish hue beer with some white head of fine bubbles.

Scent is strong, I noticed it simply opening the bottle from afar... Bitter and sweet, with a sour quality as well, citrusy - orange scented.

Taste is not as strong as the scent implies... kinda sweet, bitingly tart, mellower grainy aftertaste but still decidely citrusy. Can't say i'm lovin it.

Serving type: bottle

04-13-2007 05:11:35 | More by henrysunset
Photo of KeefD
KeefD

Minnesota

2.8/5  rDev -14.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

This beer is neither a Scotch Ale nor 7.3% ABV. This is an amber lager that's 5%. Pours clear light amber color, small white head and no lacing. Smells lightly malty and sweet with light flavors of caramel and noble hops. The taste on this is basically Heineken with a very light addition of caramel malts. Pretty standard, straightforward stuff. Nothing good, nothing really offensive.

Serving type: bottle

11-23-2009 23:32:22 | More by KeefD
Photo of wl0307
wl0307

United Kingdom (England)

2.83/5  rDev -14%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

BB 09/2006, served lightly-chilled in a tall and slim, short-stem goblet.

A: amber hue; the beer head comes hissing, thin and loosely-formed, on top of constantly lively carbonation.
S: a bit like vienna lager, full of sweet lemony malts, dusty hops, caramely and malt candy-ish aroma, plus a touch of sweet preserved plums/prunes. Yet a ve...ry strange and sharp, burned plastic or chemical note of something hovers in the air... making the whole aroma quite unpleasant. I really don't know what that is...
T: spritzy, malty, sugary, sweet black tea-ish, and thin-bodied, with light hints of preserved cherries and other stone-fruits... gradually the bitter edge of sugar-cane juice emerges, along with restrained hop bitterness, leading towards a semi-dry finish. Yet in the very end a metallic and semi-sour-sweet residual taste of unfermented sugar creeps up, not the most enjoyable element to my palate.
M&D: overly thin-bodied, although the mouthfeel is spritzy w/o being intrusive, like a healthy, real lager; for a 7.3%abv. beer I'd expect more structure and body, yet this beer--definitely NOT a SCOTTISH ALE--comes so dull and shows very little characters of whisky malts that it says it's based on. Only the finish touch of hop bitterness saves the day. Rather it's like a strong Vienna Lager lacking in caramely contents. Not impressive.

Serving type: bottle

10-04-2006 03:06:04 | More by wl0307
Photo of homebrewhawk
homebrewhawk

Kansas

2.83/5  rDev -14%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

11.2oz brown bottle, 7.3%abv.
Poured a clear gold with a hint of amber. Low white head that dissapated quickly. Slightly fruity nose with some malt. Some malt sweetness upfront. A little bit of noble hop flavor. Dry malty finish.

For a beer that claims to be brewed with Scotch Whiskey malt, I got no smokey, peaty flavors from it. A decent strong beer, but nothing remarkable. I was a little disappointed with this. I wouldn't call it a Scotch Ale.

Serving type: bottle

01-15-2007 00:18:27 | More by homebrewhawk
Photo of Globetrotter
Globetrotter

Virginia

2.9/5  rDev -11.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This 33cl brown bottle appeared recently on a Moscow supermarket shelf. Pale orange label with gold lettering and a coat of arms that includes a snake head coming out of the water. They make a big deal about using "whiskey malt" here. The significance is lost on me. Ingredients conform to the purity law. Best before July 2006, I opened it on 5/22/05.

Pours a pretty non-descript clear gold under a thin and pretty short-lived white head. No lace, no collar, no evidence of a head after just a minute or two. The nose is mild, with a touch of malt, but this doesn't strike me as any different than any other beer malt. The mouth is pretty light and a bit on the prickly side. Initial taste impression is sweet, more sugary than fruity. There is a slight whiskey-type edge here, and a slight hoppy bitterness comes out towards the finish. OK, I can note the fermented grain impression here. Still, not a great beer in my book.

Serving type: bottle

05-22-2005 18:38:36 | More by Globetrotter
Photo of yemenmocha
yemenmocha

Arizona

2.9/5  rDev -11.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Kept an open mind, but just can't see the love in this beer from some. Pours hazy pale amber to golden hue, with tan head that recedes to almost nothing quickly. Nose isn't very assertive with a hint of toffee. Palate offers a weird fruity/sweet malt focus that I haven't seen in many beers. Soft medium body. Soft on the finish too, with more malty sweetness and minimal hop influence overall. Meh.

Serving type: bottle

10-13-2011 02:19:58 | More by yemenmocha
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Mac Queen's Nessie from Brauerei Schloss Eggenberg
76 out of 100 based on 139 ratings.