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!

St. Peter's Golden Ale - St. Peter's Brewery Co Ltd

Not Rated.
St. Peter's Golden AleSt. Peter's Golden Ale

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
81
good

206 Ratings
THE BROS
96
world-class

(view ratings)
Ratings: 206
Reviews: 146
rAvg: 3.59
pDev: 15.04%
Wants: 9
Gots: 6 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
St. Peter's Brewery Co Ltd visit their website
United Kingdom (England)

Style | ABV
English Pale Ale |  4.70% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: pezoids on 02-18-2002)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of St. Peter's Golden Ale Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 206 | Reviews: 146 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Offa
1.73/5  rDev -51.8%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

This to me is not very enjoyable at all, and it seems a rather bland, overly sharp and bitter beer dominated heavily by bitter lemon rind.

It is golden with a decent white head that leaves a little lace.

The aroma is light grain and lemon.

The taste is weak toasted bread with a lot of bitter lemon rind that makes it sharp and bitter but leaves little real flavour. It almost gave me a sore throat.

Offa, May 13, 2008
Photo of bobsy
1.9/5  rDev -47.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 1.5

Pours a nice golden colour with a decent white head that laces fairly well. A lot of grain, but also a slight skunky note in the aroma, which I find really disappointing, but somehow predictable. Luckily its not too dominant in the flavour, so I'm glad I drank this on day of purchase and not later. Very grainy flavour with grass, earth and lemon (I'm guessing the last three are from the hopping). Overall too much grain for me to enjoy, and I even picked up on a slightly unpleasant corny undertone that reminded me of macro swill. The mouthfeel is smooth with medium-light body and carbonation. Drinkability, however, suffers greatly from the inbalance of flavours and the nagging hint of skunk. FFS, sort it out. I'm not the first one to have noticed this with this brewery. St. Peter's lighter beers seem to be skunk magnets due to the bottle colour, which is a terrible shame because their heavier, darker brews are fantastic. I would be interested to try this fresh or on tap.

bobsy, Jul 03, 2008
Photo of ThatWineGuy
2.23/5  rDev -37.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I recently had a positive experience with the St. Peter's Winter Ale so I went into this tasting with enthusiasm; unfortunately, my enthusiasm was short lived. On the pour, a hazy honey gold colour with no head and the thinnest of rings. No visible carbonation, almost perfectly flat but for a few suspended bubbles on top. Slightly grassy bouquet with a lemony-lime odour. Very earthy taste, heavy tasting, unpleasant. Not much by way of a hops, could be an abundance of malt but whatever it was it didn't work; with warming a distinctly sour finish. I found it hard to finish this beer, in fact, I didn't. Not recommended.

ThatWineGuy, Apr 12, 2010
Photo of Jspriest
2.25/5  rDev -37.3%

Jspriest, Mar 22, 2013
Photo of KTCamm
2.28/5  rDev -36.5%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Poured light reddish/orange with small foam that dissipated very quickly. Minimal lacing.

Aroma was bready/fruity. Very pleasant.

Maybe I got a bad bootle, but this was the bitter-est beer I have ever tasted. It opened with a fruity hop taste blended with malt, but the hop bitter stayed and never went away. The finish was very displeasing. I couldn't shake the aftertaste.

Considered dumping this one down the drain about halfway through, but managed to go the distance. Would definitely not have another one.

I've had a few others from St. Peters and really enjoyed them - not quite sure what happened here.

KTCamm, Feb 28, 2009
Photo of MeisterBurger
2.35/5  rDev -34.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Pours a clear honey color with seemingly low amounts of carbonation and a thin head that retains nicely and leaves spots of lacing.

Smells mildly of sweet caramel and something slightly funky in the background and slight skunk.

It's pretty low on flavor and unbalanced, lacking any really significant malt character. What slight caramel malt there is summarily walloped over the head by a grassy bitter slightly chalky finish that I don't love, but luckily it has a quick finish. A slight graininess pervades throughout. It tastes watery.

Mouthfeel is a notch below medium, and the carbonation is low.

Drinkability...no. Not really.

MeisterBurger, Oct 29, 2009
Photo of clvand0
2.4/5  rDev -33.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

This beer pours a light orange/yellow color with a small white head that dies off quickly. There is not really any lacing left on the glass. The aroma was a little skunky and yeasty. The flavor was not very smooth and had a "green" taste. I do not particularly like this flavor as it is a little too tart.

clvand0, Aug 15, 2003
Photo of laituegonflable
2.55/5  rDev -29%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours from the coolest shaped bottle with a golden appearance, no head of which to speak. Leaves some thin and unimpressive lacing, but enough to know it's slightly sticky. Maybe a little bit of haze. Has good elements but fails to look good.

Slightly citric hops, quite grassy as well with a nasty bread yeast lingering at the back as well. Certain quantity of malt, but not enough to get past that quite insipid and sour nose.

Quite malty on the front but weak, like you can taste the water used as a solvent. Has a fuzzy kind of mouthfeel but also relatively sticky. There is a slight hoppiness at the back but mixed with a cloying yeast character. This is again a fairly insipid drop, with standard malt, standard bitterness. Not too inspired.

It's drinkable enough, but only because it's bland.

laituegonflable, Apr 20, 2009
Photo of MoreThanWine
2.58/5  rDev -28.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Other than the unusual bottle shape I found this beer underwhelming. Poured a 2" white head which quickly vanished. Clear straw yellow in color, not really even golden. Smell is moderately skunked. It tastes like standard BMCs except for a lasting bitter finish and a moderate zing. I don't see what's the big deal.

MoreThanWine, Aug 01, 2011
Photo of ElGuapo
2.58/5  rDev -28.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

pours to a copper color with an almost non-existant head out of the odd-shaped imperial pint bottle. smells of nice sweet malts with some hops mixed in.

at first, this beer tasted like charcoal, and nothing else. it was very very strange. as i went through it, i got some nice sweet malts and hops that were balanced very well, but i could not shake that terrible charcoal taste. i don't know if something was wrong with this beer, but it was just not good at all. body was smooth with very light carbonation, which would have made it very drinkable if the taste was not so horrible.

ElGuapo, Jan 11, 2003
Photo of joshwlt
2.63/5  rDev -26.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Has an orange-hued color with a short white, slightly lacey head. Smells light-struck, grassy, grainy and maybe a bit of biscuit involved. Looks and smells more like a european lager. Tastes of minerally hard water, slightly drying grain husk, lightly smoked tea leaf, and lightly hopped. Has an earthiness to it and slightly silky lactose accompanying the other flavors. But feels rather thin. In general I feel that this beer is lacking in many aspects. Not enough malt or hop or anything to overshadow the the thin yet hard water. Seriously it's about the same quality as an imported macro lager, and has many similar qualities... sigh... sorry I can't seem to find anything exciting in this beer.

joshwlt, Aug 07, 2008
Photo of HarleyQuilter
2.63/5  rDev -26.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

On a roll here in B-town. Machell picked up this bottle purely by the attraction of the bottle, but she was VERY dissapointed in the flavor. Poured smoothly but with almost NO head. Nice color, kinda lighter than expected because the bottle is NOT clear as we first thought.

Very hoppy at first sip, a nice full bodied ale flavor midway, then more hopps. Machell gave her glass up after her first drink. The rest thought it was a good ale, but not all had a clean palet, so there weren't equal reviews. This beer would be good on an ale night, but don't mix without cleaning your palet.

We've had better ales, but please, don't [you] think this is a generic, run of the mill ale.

HarleyQuilter, Sep 04, 2006
Photo of blitheringidiot
2.7/5  rDev -24.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Label Lingo and bottle babble: 1 PINT 0.9 FL. OZ cool lookin’ flask bottle.

Golden orange hues with some tiny champagne bubbles topped off with some sudsy off white cap that leaves a good amount of lattice lace to save the day. Second pour contains more head cap.

Scents are neat English tea and bitter malty citrous notes.

First Swigs: Burnt leaves. Hops prevalence is English bitter. Smokey maybe whiskey malts which nears a Scottish Ale flavor. Buttery diacetyl feel and flavor. Smokey near bacon flavors. Lingering bar-b-que smoke. Wet cardboard all over the joint.

Last Swigs: ESB Smokey Bitter. Scottish Ale sort of. Don’t want another. A bit narrow flavored. Maybe this is more of an acquired taste.

Beer is good. Happy beering.

blitheringidiot, Dec 14, 2004
Photo of Neecee513
2.78/5  rDev -22.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured bottle into pint glass.

A: Straw colored, slight head

S: Sweet floral notes

T: Malty, biscuit backbone; minimal hop character

M: Low carbonation, light body, somewhat dry finish

D: Light session beer, easily can drink a few of these in one sitting, nothing special

Neecee513, Jan 30, 2011
Photo of DogFood11
2.8/5  rDev -22%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a pilsner glass I had to up the ante and pour this one very aggressive to get much of a head. Chill hazed, leaning towards amber in color although fairly pale.

Roasty and toasty for such a light colored brew. Hops are drying and spicy. Burnt Oak is the dominant theme here and there is some butter likeness as well. Up front there is a light fruitiness, maybe apples but it is something of the sweet variety. Quickly smashed by the toasty, burnt wood middle. A light but well placed hop drying and then finishes back to the burnt wood. Not really refreshing at all.

Notes: Overall it was below average in my book and nothing to keep on hand as a staple beer. I will definately try their other offerings though as this is a pretty complex beer for the style it just didn't come together well.

DogFood11, Aug 02, 2006
Photo of Roderick
2.85/5  rDev -20.6%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

St. Pete's makes a very visually attractive product but have yet to impress me with taste. This poured light gold with a tiny head ,
The taste was malty with a taste of honey but for some reason it just taste "messy" ....kind of like Goya starting a painting and then some 2nd grader finishing it up with crayons.
Its drinkable it chilled ICE COLD but even for the nice price of 2.99 I don't see me purchasing more.

Roderick, Aug 21, 2004
Photo of surfadelic23
2.93/5  rDev -18.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Picked this one up when I bought their english ale at world of beer/
It pours a deep golden color with creamy white head that fades quickly but manages to leave a thick film/lace.
There's a hint of hops in the nose but much more malt in there.
Tasty/toasty malt flavors abound and the hop backing doesn't really add much bitterness.
It's got a somewhat nice mouthfeel but again, kind of underwhelming.
I like sublteness in ales as much as hop bombs but this is so sublte as to be non-existant. Kind of a bummer as it was a bit expensive...

surfadelic23, Apr 06, 2006
Photo of lacqueredmouse
2.93/5  rDev -18.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Slightly hazy gold-orange, with a filmy head of coarse bubbles. A little lacing sticks around, but not much. Minimal carbonation.

Light grassy organic notes on the nose, a bit of English style hoppiness. Also a light carbonic acidity which isn't particularly welcome. Not a huge nose, and not a really classic or particularly interesting one.

More character in the mouth, with a nice sharp bitterness, very clean and tasty ripping through the palate. Nice. There's still a slightly unfortunate tartness, which I don't particularly like. Mouthfeel is a bit thin. Still, this beer suddenly raised its head a bit more once I took a sip.

It's drinkable, and the robust bitterness gives it its edge. It's just not particularly special otherwise.

lacqueredmouse, May 01, 2009
Photo of PorterLambic
2.93/5  rDev -18.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured a nice golden color with a small head that breaks down to just a ring with some spotty lacing.
smell mostly of hops with a slight citrus note that I almost had to search for.
Carbonation on the front of the tongue, hoppy with a light citrus taste. Light aftertaste, no complexity. Tasted more like a wheat than an ale.
Felt smooth and light.
This came over as nothing more than a thirst-quencher. Nothing after the color to make you want it. Add it to your list of beers tried and move on.I was quite disappointed by this brew, not up to the standards set by the others I've enjoyed from St. Peters.

PorterLambic, Jun 08, 2004
Photo of mtstatebeer
2.95/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours a hazy light golden color with a thin fizzy white head. Aroma is a bit skunky (probably green bottle syndrome), wheat malts, buttery, and some floral and citrus hops. Taste is a little bit of grass, earthy, ends with a touch of hoppy bitterness. Mouthfeel is dry and fairly active on the palate. It's a very drinkable beer, perhaps sessionable. I like this beer, but not my favorite, and not worth the 'import' price for a beer in WV.

mtstatebeer, Nov 20, 2008
Photo of WesWes
2.95/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

The beer pours a cloudy dark golden color with a lacey white head. The aroma is yeasty with a breadlike smell. There is a carapils smell here sneaking through to accompany the darker than average color. The taste is bitter and breadlike. It's watery and lacking complexity. The mouthfeel sucks. This is a light bodied ale with no carbonation; the beer is flat. The beer is a horrible drinker. This beer sucks, but I've had worse.

WesWes, Dec 07, 2003
Photo of Malt_Man
2.95/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

Served cold from 500ml green bottle into a straight pint glass.

A) Firstly, very cool Victorian medicine-type bottle. Secondly, it's green, so not that cool. Poors a golden colour, virtually no head despite sloshing out of the unusually shaped bottle.

S) Honey-like esters. Not promising.

T) First taste is mildly estery bland. Second taste is a short-lived fairly pleasant nutty flavour. Third and most distinctive taste is an unpleasant bitterness at the back of the throat.

M) Moderately carbonated and quite astringent. Unpleasant bitterness lingers for a quite a long time, as it does from their St Peter's Bitter.

O) Buy it to support the small brewery and make your own mind up. The bottle is cool. I won't buy it again.

Malt_Man, Jul 11, 2014
Photo of ruleof72
2.95/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

A- medium golden color with head that starts out medium and falls to small
S- Hoppy with stronger hints of clover and straw, not bad
T- Dissapointing compared to taste, kind of weak with overripe floral and musty
M- Medium with OK carbonation
D- Just OK, the taste affects this alot

Overall I was not thrilled with this. Sure, it was better than typical large brewery beer but the bottle looked like it would be better than it was. Definite "Pale Ale" components but the taste was off for me. I'll finish the bottle but probably won't be buying more, especially at the price.

ruleof72, Sep 21, 2006
Photo of stcules
2.98/5  rDev -17%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

The color is not so golden. It's more something like a deep orange. Half finger of foam, quickly disappearing.
English ale smell, not so golden.
In the taste, too. Quite hoppy, and quite bitter. Pleasant, after all. Not so golden, even here, but, anyway, quite good.
A good bitterness in the aftertaste, quite long.
Good drinkability.

stcules, Dec 10, 2006
Photo of Cresant
3/5  rDev -16.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Served this 1 pint .09 oz. green bottle in a Sierra Nevada Hops glass. No date. The body was a foggy apricot color and the head was soapy/foamy and off white.

The smell was simply apples and light grain.

The taste was cider-like. Tart apples and delicate sweetness. Hints of buttered crackers.

The mouthfeel was soft and under-carbonated.

Cresant, Apr 11, 2011
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
St. Peter's Golden Ale from St. Peter's Brewery Co Ltd
81 out of 100 based on 206 ratings.