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!

St. Peter's The Saints Whisky Beer - St. Peter's Brewery Co Ltd

Not Rated.
St. Peter's The Saints Whisky BeerSt. Peter's The Saints Whisky Beer

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
75
okay

36 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 36
Reviews: 23
rAvg: 3.15
pDev: 20.95%
Wants: 0
Gots: 1 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
St. Peter's Brewery Co Ltd visit their website
United Kingdom (England)

Style | ABV
English Strong Ale |  4.80% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: thepeter on 11-02-2011)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Ratings: 36 | Reviews: 23 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of ElviraS
4.25/5  rDev +34.9%

ElviraS, Sep 06, 2014
Photo of hansavijaticar
4.25/5  rDev +34.9%

hansavijaticar, Dec 11, 2013
Photo of Brewer1980
2/5  rDev -36.5%

Brewer1980, Nov 29, 2013
Photo of dcmchew
3.25/5  rDev +3.2%

dcmchew, Nov 08, 2013
Photo of joemcgrath27
3.31/5  rDev +5.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.25

A - mostly clear golden orange, one finger of head dissipated quickly to random islands with some random sticky lacing
S - BIG peaty and smoky aroma dominates everything, although there is something about it that is kind of an artificial 'liquid smoke' quality
T - funky peat and smoke but like the nose an artificial chemical smoke aspect sneaks through, and it finishes with an ashy taste
M - light and a little watery, finishes with a smoky dryness
O - not really any 'whiskey' per say to speak of but plenty of charred barrel flavour, strange brew....

joemcgrath27, May 08, 2013
Photo of Molson2000
3.25/5  rDev +3.2%

Molson2000, Feb 03, 2013
Photo of stcules
3.03/5  rDev -3.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Bright amber color, very clean. One finger of foam.
In the smell a sharp peated notes, that hides all the rest. It is a good peated note, yes, but maybe a bit too strong, it left almost no place for anything else (a bit of malt, no traces of hop).
It is a pleasant beer, after all, yes, but after a while, a bit too monotone.

stcules, Jan 30, 2013
Photo of KevinSP
2.5/5  rDev -20.6%

KevinSP, Dec 06, 2012
Photo of biegaman
3.33/5  rDev +5.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Whiskey takes its colour from the inside of the barrel; this beer likely gained its honeyed-amber tone from the inclusion of crystal malts. Clear though not exactly brilliant, the beer's complexion appears slightly tarnished. Its lack of carbonation doesn't ameliorate the weak first impression. Frankly, the bottle is more interesting than the beer.

The nose focuses purely on peat - any whiskey reviewer who struggles to tell the difference between 'peat' and 'smoke' elements will find this a most useful resource. While it does offer a trace of smoke, it is predominantly earthy and damp smelling. There are also more abstract hints of burning leaves, cigar and wood. Largely, however, the burning plastic/smoked gouda nuances have nothing to wrap themselves around.

One thing becomes wholly apparent by the taste: the beer is pleasant but one-dimensional. As a lover of peaty single malts, I find it entirely agreeable. As a beer drinker who quickly bores of pedestrian, under-malted ales, this offering is really of very little interest to me. I love the peat but can find it elsewhere (notably a bottle of Talisker or Lagavulin); this is otherwise too thin to keep my attention.

Far lighter on the palate than a real scotch, it tastes more like peat-y spring water. There is little-to-no malt or hop flavour to support the added sensations of woodsmoke and bacon fat. I'll repeat myself: they have nothing to wrap themselves around. The resemblance to St Peters Golden Ale (minus the peat) is difficult to overlook, implying that this beer (gimmick aside) is every bit as plain and trite as that offering.

The Saints is an excellent way to wean someone onto scotch. With only one real feature (peatiness), however, it is hardly the long storyteller that a good single malt is. But it does offer at least a superficial taste of what distinguishes many of the finest whiskeys, albeit without any of the complexity, elegance or alcohol burn. St. Peter's is hit and miss and this offering could fall on either side depending on your tastes.

biegaman, Nov 24, 2012
Photo of cfalovo97
2/5  rDev -36.5%

cfalovo97, Nov 22, 2012
Photo of Sammy
3.13/5  rDev -0.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Deep yellow coloured, without a head. The aroma is big peat whiskey whiskey and wood, and that's what I get in the taste. Highly carbonated, not so drinkable, like a cheap watered down whiskey. Why drink it at all, I could not. At least it was not high abv.LCBO acquisition. Brewed OK for what it is. Big whiskey fans may like this, good luck.

Sammy, Nov 11, 2012
Photo of korguy123
2.48/5  rDev -21.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Clear copper pour, finger width soapy white head. Lacing is sticky in webs around the glass.

Right up front is smokey peat. There isn't much more beyond that. Cured ham maybe? This isn't going to bid well for me.

Watered down whiskey, campfire smoke, cooked ham. Hello sink drain.

Light body, decent carbonation.

korguy123, Nov 01, 2012
Photo of WeissBoy
3.5/5  rDev +11.1%

WeissBoy, Oct 23, 2012
Photo of BGDrock
3.53/5  rDev +12.1%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Appearance: mellow amber colour; chill haze; head fades swiftly to a thin layer

Aroma: rough, smoky peat, intense and burnt; hint of sweet - caramel, honey, vanilla; wasn't expecting the strong peat, but I like it

Taste & Mouthfeel: solid peat flavour, follows through on the aroma, dominating the profile through to finish; some mild citrus hops, caramel malt, raisin; medium body, carbonation medium-light; there's not much going on beyond the peat really

Overall: could do with more body, and might be great as a stout; needs something to balance the peat flavours, and this coming from someone that enjoys strong scotch

PS - if you don't like heavy peat scotch you won't like this, but there isn't anything "wrong" with the peat flavour in this beer as some reviewers have noted

BGDrock, Oct 20, 2012
Photo of TerryW
1.13/5  rDev -64.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

You're kidding me, right? I've had smoked beers before, and all kinds of whiskey based beers as well. And many of those were quite enjoyable, a few of them among my faves. This one, however, is an utter fail.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing about this one except the smell and taste of burned plastics or scorched electronics. Its the liquid embodiment of that nasty chemical stink that pervades a dollar store full of cheap Chinese merchandise.

Sorry, but what the hell were they thinking when they made this?! Looks fine, but after that its completely offensive. Wow.

TerryW, Oct 18, 2012
Photo of beerhunter13
4/5  rDev +27%

beerhunter13, Oct 15, 2012
Photo of hopsolutely
2.95/5  rDev -6.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Not a beer I'm enjoying, but I can't say it's "poorly brewed" as much as just a bit too overwhelming to be pleasant.

Pours a clear and bright orange amber with a bare minimum of head that disappeared very quickly - no retention or lacing. Aroma has more funk than I’d choose, barrel and peat are very predominant, but there is a rotten taint underlying them. No signs of grains or malted barley or anything else really at all in the aroma. The flavour has an initial sweetness that is immediately overpowered by the whisky barrel. None of the funk from the nose, so I don't think this is an infected bottle. But too much barrel and peat for my personal liking.

Not as well balanced a beer as I've enjoyed from this brewery in the past. Will certainly try the brewery again, but will not buy a second one of these.

hopsolutely, Oct 14, 2012
Photo of liamt07
2.6/5  rDev -17.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

500ml bottle from the LCBO. Bottled June 18, 2012.

Reddish orange with some forced white bubbles as a head - low carbonation it appears. Nose has some skunk/weed initially (green bottles?), with strong peat, earth and burnt firewood upon closer inspection. Taste rehashes this, a ton of peat, smoke and light malt character. Really intense and off-putting. Light breadiness in the malt. Light body, bitter and lingering peat. I can take these flavours in moderation but this is way over the top for the mood I'm in. Drainpour.

liamt07, Oct 09, 2012
Photo of RedAleMan
3/5  rDev -4.8%

RedAleMan, Oct 04, 2012
Photo of Kremlock
3.53/5  rDev +12.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

A. Poured with no head and no lacing on glace. Clear copper in colour

S: Peat and smoke dominates the nose. Hints of burned wood

T: Peat flavour dominates the flavour but is appealing. The burntness balances the sweetness of the malt.

M: Medium carbonation, a bit thin but smooth going down.

O: Good to have one in the evening and sure goes awesome with cheese and crackers. Had it with smoked gooda, blue cheese and Havarti with oysters...amazing.

Kremlock, Oct 02, 2012
Photo of andrenaline
3.33/5  rDev +5.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A - Pours a light copper colour, thin layer of head with little retention and no lacing.

S - Strong peat and smokey notes, musty malts, burnt wood and a touch of tobacco smoke.

T - The heavy peat and smoke flavours dominate, grainy biscuit malts and a hint of grassy notes come through alongside an ashy flavour. I'm a big scotch fan and appreciate the flavours, but the ash tray flavour that lingers is a bit of a turnoff.

M - A tad thin, smooth going down, a bit dry and sticky on the finish.

O - I really liked the smokey peat notes, but the ashy finish was definitely a turnoff. Worth a try and a brew that would receive a wide ranging reviews given the flavour profile. I wouldn't buy it again, but I'm glad I tried it nonetheless.

andrenaline, Sep 30, 2012
Photo of Kristin87
3.75/5  rDev +19%

Kristin87, Sep 26, 2012
Photo of peensteen
2.6/5  rDev -17.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Clear golden colour, near 2 fingers white head, sticky with lots of lace. Smell is full of smoke and peat with a little bit of biscuity malt underneath and to a lesser degree a bit of floral hop, but mostly just smoke and peat. Taste a strange mix of smoke and biscuity malts, peat is certainly there but this honestly just tastes like smokey salt water. Light carbonation, light mouthfeel, pretty average feel. Didn't get through much of this, really not my thing here, something I really should have passed on.

peensteen, Sep 25, 2012
Photo of jazzyjeff13
2.8/5  rDev -11.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A 500ml bottle with a BB of Sept 2012. Picked up ages ago from a branch of Waitrose. Described on the label as a balanced beer containing a measure of peated English whisky from St. George's Distillery.

Poured into a tulip pint glass. A clear sunset amber with medium carbonation. Forms a large head of creamy white foam that hangs around for a few minutes before subsiding. The aroma is intense and unusual - initially sharp and medicinal, not unlike TCP. Notes of smoke, tar, peat, wood, iodine and subtle malty undertones. Dry and slightly solventy.

Tastes of intense whisky flavours with a faint hint of beer. Similar to the aroma, notes of smoke, phenols, iodine, tar, sea-salt, peat, faint malt and subtle stewed leaves. Distinctly medicinal, astringent and solvent-like. A dry, rather harsh finish upon swallowing. Mouthfeel is thin and insubstantial, with tingly carbonation and a dry character. Somewhat astringent. Aftertaste of medicinal, smoky notes.

Hmmmm - I'm not loving this, though it's perhaps a matter of personal taste. It does what it says on the tin; there's plenty of whisky character in this beer. However, I find it excessive and unbalanced - you could be forgiven for not realising that this is a beer. The first impression is that someone's dumped TCP into your pint - it's a very strong aroma/flavour. After a mouthful or two you can begin to tease out the aromatic components and analyse them. Medicinal and solventy, the underlying beer never stands a chance to make an impact. This would probably benefit from having the whisky toned back somewhat, though I'm sure there are those who love it. Divisive - if you love peaty whiskies then this is the brew for you. Caveat emptor!

jazzyjeff13, Sep 25, 2012
Photo of JohnnyBarman
3.03/5  rDev -3.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Single 500mL bottle from the Conestoga LCBO, as part of the LCBO Fall Release. Poured into my oft-neglected St. Peter's branded ale glass.

Light caramel-amber in colour, with a half-inch of head that recedes into a thin ring. A few flecks of lacing.

The nose is unmistakably that of a peat and iodine heavy whisky, which according to the bottle is from the house whisky at their distillery in Norfolk. I happen to like peat whiskys, so this wasn't too bad. However, I have to mark low because not only is it extremely potent, it also happens to be the only thing on the nose I can detect, other than a sugary sweetness that makes this beer smell a bit like a rye and ginger ale.

The taste is quite similar, with the bitter peat flavor running the show. Again, if you like peat, this one might be appealing. But it is hardly something to get that excited over - quite bitter and salty. Thin bodied, a touch watery.

A miss for me. Not sure why this brew was part of the release, other than for the sheer novelty. An interesting experiment, but it just doesn't have the balance of other beers of the same style.

JohnnyBarman, Sep 22, 2012
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
St. Peter's The Saints Whisky Beer from St. Peter's Brewery Co Ltd
75 out of 100 based on 36 ratings.