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!

Abbaye De Saint Bon-Chien - BFM (Brasserie des Franches-Montagnes)

Not Rated.
Abbaye De Saint Bon-ChienAbbaye De Saint Bon-Chien

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
96
world-class

736 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 736
Reviews: 245
rAvg: 4.32
pDev: 10.65%
Wants: 98
Gots: 144 | FT: 8
Brewed by:
BFM (Brasserie des Franches-Montagnes) visit their website
Switzerland

Style | ABV
Bière de Garde |  11.00% ABV

Availability: Rotating

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: ggaughan on 06-07-2006)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 736 | Reviews: 245 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of YoBananaBoy
1/5  rDev -76.9%

YoBananaBoy, Jul 27, 2012
Photo of AndrewEmanuel
1/5  rDev -76.9%

AndrewEmanuel, Jan 01, 2012
Photo of TectonicFun
1/5  rDev -76.9%

TectonicFun, Nov 10, 2012
Photo of heysuz
2.5/5  rDev -42.1%

Intro: Spilt a 750ml in a tulip glass with a friend.

Appearance: Ample head that recedes to cap but stays, deep rosewood coloring.

Smell: Strong aromas of fruit and spices with a touch of vanilla.

Taste: Tastes like spoiled cider with vinegar in it, may have been a bad bottle. Very sour like sweet tarts.

Mouthfeel: Can feel the alcohol in the chest other than that it does not have a bad feel in the mouth.

Overall: Had to drain pour it in the end, the sour and vinegar was too strong. Doubts about the beer started with the green bottle.

heysuz, Oct 20, 2011
Photo of LilBeerDoctor
2.63/5  rDev -39.1%

2005:
Reviewed on 5/16/08. 2005 bottle. Pours a cloudy brown with no head. Aroma of sour fruits. Flavor is fruity with alcohol and oak and an apple cider-like finish. This beer is very heavy and a little too sweet. Quite powerful. It was good for the first 2 oz, but after that I didn't care for it anymore as the sweetness and heavyness started to overwhelm the beer.
7/4/5/2/12 (3.0/5)

2006:
Extreme Beer Fest 2/15/08: Yum! Very sweet and fruity. Tasted of apples, tangerines, pears. It had a lambic-like quality to it. I thought it would be classified as a Belgian ale and was surprised to find out that it actually is a sour ale. An enjoyable beer.

Rating: 8/4/8/4/15 = 3.9

Update 5/12/08: 2006 Bottle. Pours a dark, cloudy brown with a white head (I remembered it being a light color, but apparently not...). Aroma of sour fruits and sweetness. Flavor is super sweet with some oak/wood notes. I don't get any alcohol per se but this is sweet sweet sweet and has a very heavy mouthfeel. It is ok for the first few sips, but then it gets too sweet and it took me forever to finish.

New rating: 8/4/6/3/13= 3.4

LilBeerDoctor, Dec 03, 2008
Photo of shleepy
2.73/5  rDev -36.8%

Poured from 750mL bottle into tulip glass.

A: Hazy, dark amber, with some sediment visible throughout. Mostly flat.

S: Sourness and mild funk, cherries, oak. It's a strong smell, but not altogether good. The combination of everything is not well-balanced.

T: Like a much less refined Red Poppy Ale. Nothing too overwhelming, but there's some bitterness, maybe even hot alcohols, followed by hardly noticeable sourness, oak, and fruitiness (cherries). A bit watery, honestly.

M: Flat, medium-bodied, acidic.

O: Well, it's somewhat sour... But it's not very good.

shleepy, Apr 06, 2012
Photo of badbeer
2.95/5  rDev -31.7%

2006 Version.

Murky red/amber color with a beige head, left a ring around the glass. I get some sour and oak notes, but not too much else, maybe some dark fruits. Lightly acidic, metallic, oak, and a touch of some sour cherry or other fruits in the taste; wasn't impressed. Lighter than medium body with a dry finish, light carbonation. Don't know that I'd have this one again, it didn't seem like an off bottle, just not very good.

badbeer, Jan 24, 2008
Photo of gillagorilla
3/5  rDev -30.6%

gillagorilla, Apr 21, 2014
Photo of Blanco
3/5  rDev -30.6%

Blanco, Dec 03, 2011
Photo of cestlavie
3/5  rDev -30.6%

cestlavie, Dec 31, 2011
Photo of Sspeer1
3/5  rDev -30.6%

Sspeer1, Feb 23, 2014
Photo of jaidenjb
3/5  rDev -30.6%

jaidenjb, Mar 25, 2012
Photo of marine1975
3/5  rDev -30.6%

marine1975, Jul 17, 2013
Photo of Georgiabeer
3.03/5  rDev -29.9%

Pours an orange chestnut with almost no head. Somewhat light smell, very tannic with oak, some acetic notes, some bitter non-hoppy notes and a touch of band-aid. Strange flavor. Very tannic, rubber bands, band-aids and much bitterness along with quite an acetic quality. Not great. Mouthfeel is thin and slick. Not very enjoyable. On top of everything else, it tastes quite hot.

Georgiabeer, May 17, 2008
Photo of lacqueredmouse
3.05/5  rDev -29.4%

Uncaps without any kind of carbonation hiss at all. In fact, I was almost shocked when it uncapped like it wasn't at all sealed.

Pours a completely flat, uncarbonated, but a pleasant deep ruby-brown colour. No head to speak of, and even the body itself looks disturbingly thin, and not at all a match for its purported 11% alcohol. I'm dubious and a little hesitant.

Nose is slightly acidic and surprisingly sprightly for its flatness. Some hints of oak and aromatic grains give it a lift that also hints at baseness. Booze is noticeable, but not overpowering, and most of it is attributable to the oak flavours in any case. Not bad.

Taste is also a little flat, but depressingly, not obviously oxidised—if it were, I would be happy believing that the bottle I got was improperly sealed and write it off thusly. It just has a faint, bland oaky nothingness to it, that relies much on the conditioning of the beer and very little on its innate quality. Some acidity, especially on the front, which gives it a vinous quality, and a hint of spice on the back that gives it a tonic quinine bite. Feel is quite smooth, but flat, and the booze is actually remarkably well hidden.

It's a confusing beer this one. I'm certainly not wowed by it, nor particularly enamoured of it at all, but it has enough interest to keep you hoping. That's worth something at least, even if for me, my hopes ended up in disappointment.

lacqueredmouse, Mar 02, 2012
Photo of VeganUndead
3.25/5  rDev -24.8%

VeganUndead, Apr 05, 2014
Photo of Mikeluzzjr
3.25/5  rDev -24.8%

Mikeluzzjr, May 20, 2014
Photo of nas5755
3.25/5  rDev -24.8%

2005, 15.5% abv consumed 12/18/2010

A very aggressive pour revealed a dark reddish brown beer with a very thin head with large bubbles that dissipated very quickly into a thin white lacing of the outed edge of the glass. The nose has acetic notes laced with lactic notes, the cherries have a very minimal appearance. The taste is very similar to the 11% abv with some very distinct differences are apparent. The sour aspect of this beer is more focused towards the acetic side with some sour lactic notes, the malts are much more pronounced, with a big kick of malty goodies that slightly reminds me of a smooth sweet caramelized barley-wine; some of the other subtleties layered into the malts are dark fruits, and brown sugar. The cherries play a little part as age has subdued their presence. The mouth-feel is very smooth with a very low carbonation level that is best described as mirco-bubbles, which work very well with this beer. Overall, I was very disappointed with this beer as it was one of my personal whales. Although I enjoyed this beer, I believe the amount of malt was too much(I believe the new recipe yields a better beer) and it was nice to experience the age and a different take on my favorite beers.

When I review the current version the score will be somewhere bewteen an A- and an A as this beer is awesome

nas5755, Dec 19, 2010
Photo of AleWatcher
3.28/5  rDev -24.1%

This was a 2007 vintage courtesy of JohnQVegas. I shared this one at a recent tasting and it really didn't impress anyone a whole lot...

Reviewed from notes dictated into voice notes on my iphone.

Rusty murky color with a minimal head and very low carbonation.
Smells a bit like a Flander's red. An acetone note is pretty prominent. Cherries, oak, vinous winey quality, some malts, little sweetness, and some generic non-desripct spices.
The flavor runs the same course-- starts off with some malt notes, followed by a spicy and tart note with a relatively dry finish.
Not exactly sour, but not unpleasant. The body is very wine-like... Low carbonation, almost to the point of being flat.

Overall-- this isn't my top choice. It just doesn't work for me. There's too much going on. It's as though they brewed a really complex and interesting base beer and said, "Hey, let's sour this thing and age it in some barrels!" when they didn't really need to do that.
Sometimes less is more.

AleWatcher, Aug 18, 2011
Photo of Damian
3.33/5  rDev -22.9%

Drank from a 1 pint 9.4 fl.oz bottle purchased at Liquor World, Cambridge, MA
2006 vintage
Blended October 07
Bottle 00276
Served in a tulip

The liquid poured a murky, crimson-mahogany color. An aggressively fizzy, caramel colored, two-plus finger tall head topped the liquid, but it disappeared almost immediately.

Tart, fruity notes came through in the nose. Funky, but not quite "lambic funky." There was an odd, plastic-like smell that reminded me of Band-Aids. Fusel alcohol notes were also detectible. Somewhat vinous. Moderately malty and sweet. I might compare this to a fruit wine. As the liquid warmed, the "off" aromas thankfully seemed to dissipate and the nose turned much more pleasant. Tart berries (strawberries and raspberries) dominated. The beer also turned funkier (almost lambic-like) but still maintained a bit of sweetness. Much smoother overall.

The flavor profile was tart and fruity up front with notes of biscuity malts and balsamic vinegar. Somewhat spicy in the center. Medicinal on the back end. Cherry cough syrup came to mind. Some strong metallic notes were also present, but they subsided as the beer warmed. The beer finished crisp, dry, oaky and tart. Overall, a bit thin and weak, except for the "off" notes. As the beer opened up, the sourness initially intensified, but it later mellowed out. The overall flavor profile eventually turned smoother and more enjoyable, with the exception of the finish, which became bitter and somehow lost its oaky dryness. The beer continued to get better with time. Tart berry notes were apparent. Good dose of lactic acid. From start to finish, the alcohol remained remarkably well hidden.

The mouthfeel was very surprisingly light, frothy and airy. Far too thin for the style, especially for a "bigger" version such as this one. The liquid initially contained a fine, aggressive effervescence that lent the beer a distinct fizziness. The carbonation eventually settled down to a more appropriate level.

At $27 a bottle, I found this beer to be hugely disappointing. Bottling beers in green glass is always risky. I would love to try a more recent vintage to see if the "off" notes are less apparent.

Damian, May 05, 2012
Photo of donkeyrunner
3.45/5  rDev -20.1%

Muddy, light apple cider color. Bubbly head is quick to fade to a thin crescent half ring then vanish completely. I guess I wouldn't be too pretty if I was sitting in a barrel since '08 either.

Smells extremely wood with hay and plenty of sourness. Tastes equally woody and equally tart. Mild copper taste. Low to non-existant carbonation. A hard to describe beer.

This one ranks high on the umami meter.

donkeyrunner, Jan 28, 2012
Photo of kojevergas
3.45/5  rDev -20.1%

**11/24/13: I intend to re-review this beer as this review isn't up to par.

75cl green glass (ugh!) bottle with standard pressure cap served into a Westvleteren goblet in Belfort, France. Served at a cold temperature straight from the refrigerator. Reviewed live. My expectations are high for this one.

A: There's no head whatsoever. This is a disappointment. Nontransparent solid amber-copper colour. Generally appealing.

Sm: Wine-esque. Grape, dark fruit, and caramelized malt. Some alcohol. Mild strength aroma.

T: Sourness aplenty, grape, caramelized malt, and fringe esters. It's nicely complex, though the sourness may turn many away. Well balanced in spite of the sourness dominating. Well built for the style (a style which seems to have a very loose definition anyway - I've had five in a row here in France and none are even remotely the same).

Mf: Smooth and wet. Suits the flavours on the body pretty generally. It's certainly not tailored to them.

Dr: High ABV is incredibly well concealed. It's well built for the style, but suffers from an unfairly high price. Very drinkable, especially considering the ABV. The sourness may be off-putting to some, but fans of the style will be pleased.

kojevergas, Jul 24, 2011
Photo of Janeinma
3.5/5  rDev -19%

Janeinma, Feb 02, 2014
Photo of JasonSiedman
3.5/5  rDev -19%

JasonSiedman, Sep 17, 2012
Photo of sachie23
3.5/5  rDev -19%

sachie23, Jun 28, 2013
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Abbaye De Saint Bon-Chien from BFM (Brasserie des Franches-Montagnes)
96 out of 100 based on 736 ratings.