Leather Lips IPA - The Tap Brewing Company

Not Rated.
Leather Lips IPALeather Lips IPA

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
88
very good

399 Ratings
THE BROS
95
world-class

(view ratings)
Ratings: 399
Reviews: 297
rAvg: 3.92
pDev: 14.03%
Wants: 57
Gots: 11 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
The Tap Brewing Company visit their website
Massachusetts, United States

Style | ABV
American IPA |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
he brewing process by itself contains enough Nugget and Chinook to satisfy the most seasoned hop head. But we couldn’t leave it alone. Once fermentation is complete we add a massive hop bag to the bright tank that is bursting at the seams with whole cone Centennial for an aroma that you just can’t get any other way. High fives all around.

(Beer added by: Bierman9 on 04-05-2004)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Leather Lips IPA Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 399 | Reviews: 297 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of dave803
1/5  rDev -74.5%

Photo of Sailracer
1.5/5  rDev -61.7%

Photo of jdhilt
1.73/5  rDev -55.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 1 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

Pours a four finger white head that fades slowly to a thin layer, leaving a good lace lace. Almost clear pale amber color. Light carbonation and medium bodied. Hoppy nose. Flavor is hops and more hops any other flavors are buried. Lingering bitter finish that lasts forever. $1.85 for a 12oz bottle from Colonial Spirits Acton, Ma.

Photo of Beerking721
1.78/5  rDev -54.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Well... This was an interesting one to write. In advance, I have looked at some of the other reviews and my critique will be significantly lower. In fairness, the bottle I tasted had been obtained in trade. I hope freshness wasn't an object...

A: Medium amber with haziness similar to a hefe. Minor head with moderate lace.

S: An acidic hop presence on the nose followed by slight cereal aromas.

T: All bitter hops on the palate with complete lack of malt and/or grain flavors.

M: Very thin without the normal oiliness associated with an aggressive IPA. Finish is astringent left me wanting much more.

D: This was one and done. Nothing here that would have me reach for another.

There just wasn't anything here for me. Very one dimensional.

Photo of PDXHops
2.08/5  rDev -46.9%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

12 ounce bottle from Spleeb, consumed way back in September 2011. (This review notes backlog is getting outta hand...) Duvel tulip. Hazy golden amber with a massive foamy head that's in no rush to leave. Lots of soapy lace.

Citrus zest and pith aplenty in the nose, but also what appears to be newspaper? The first sip confirms the newspaper presence and also entirely too much carbonation; I reckon something went a bit wonky with this bottle. It's a shame, too, as the hop profile gives hints that it was pretty ferocious in the grapefruit department at some point. There's still plenty of astringent bitterness left behind, but that weird newspaper business seems to blunt the hop flavor. I'm inclined to give this one another shot down the road and update this review.

Photo of CheezyBlaster
2.35/5  rDev -40.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Funky. Mustard (WTF?). Citrus, like . . . a citrus banana? Pluots. Huh? This is an odd smelling IPA. I'm going to have to taste it to know.

Bitter/soap finish ruins thoughts on taste, yuck, in fact, the taste is bitter and soapy. I do not like this uber-unbalanced cringing mess. It definitely doesn't taste like any IPA I've ever had. There is no balance to this mess. Drain Pour :( For me, it's an F overall. Not impressed. However, it smelled interesting and looked okay. No thanks anyhow.

EDIT: It's entirely possible that I got a "skunked" or infected bottle/batch/dunno??

Photo of Murchmac
2.38/5  rDev -39.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

I was looking forward to trying this beer, it was not unlike a friend of mine that worked his upper body so much and didnt work his legs at all, he looked ridiculous. Imagine Lou Ferigino with chicken legs.

This beer was too big for the body it had, give it more malt and bigger body and you've got a good beer.

no head, golden color, cut grass smell, some sweetness, too bitter...

Photo of xerotime
2.48/5  rDev -36.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Opened with barely a sound and poured from a 12oz bottle into a snifter.

A - Deep golden color with a bit of a haze and no head to speak of (even with an aggressive pour) due to the lack of carbonation

S - Very faint hops and toasted malt

T - All bitter with very little hop flavor or aroma. Slight toasty malt.

M - Very thin with almost no carbonation

D - Total drain pour. I wouldn't mind trying it fresh on tap to give it another shot but I don't see myself bothering with another bottle.

Photo of troysoy2
2.5/5  rDev -36.2%

Photo of jondeelee
2.55/5  rDev -34.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Leatherlips begins with a nose that is heavy on hops, which give the beer a complex series of citrusy grapefruit and pine fragrances, touched heavily with floral perfumes. Hints of wildflower honey, yeast, and roses add to the floral notes, giving the beer a troubling resemblance to bath salts. A layer of lightly toasted grains lies below this, which does at least add to the beer.

On the tongue, the beer begins with an immediate hop kick, coming in low and strong at 50 IBUs. The hops bring light grapefruit and pine to the tongue, but also a large dose of the floral perfumes found in the nose, and the result is somewhat like eating rose petals and dandelion stems. There is a good grain base--biscuits and lightly toasted breads--but those are largely subsumed beneath the hops. The aftertaste is mainly hops, and lasts for a long time. Mouthfeel is medium-light, and carbonation is medium.

Overall, I find the hops in this IPA out-of-balance, tending far too strongly toward a single flavor profile for my liking. I would have preferred the same IBU level, but a wider variety of hops to give the bitterness more characteristics, range, and complexity.

Photo of fratmonkey
2.58/5  rDev -34.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I'll preface everything by saying:

(I'm really not into this hop-water style of beer. Maybe I'm just a fat kid in training, but I'm really looking for more malt balance. I can appreciate a big pungent load of hops, but only for about half a glass.)
The nose is beautiful with citrus, a little pine, but the onslaught of botanicals to my palate proved difficult to surmount. I would only drink it with ultra spicy foods that are going to destroy my palate anyway, ie buffalo wings, curried chicken, chili. Your palate will need time to recover from this beer, so save it for later in the night. This is NOT a session beer, at least, not for me.

Photo of woosterbill
2.68/5  rDev -31.6%
look: 1.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

12oz bottle into a Duvel tulip.

A: As I begin to pour this beer straight into the tulip, I notice that there doesn't appear to be any carbonation. I pour from higher up. Nothing. Higher still. Nada. I dumb the last ounce of beer in with some force behind it, and finally get about half an inch of huge white bubbles to show up, but they don't stay long. This one looks to be completely uncarbonated, and to make matters worse the medium-amber body is absolutely awash with huge chunks of swirling particulate. I'm sure I dislodged some with my rough pour, but this amount is seriously unnerving. This makes even the most unfiltered of IPAs look crystal clear. Definitely one of the least appealing brews I've ever seen, but I'll bump it up a half-point for being a nice color for the style.

S: The smell is more what I'd expect, being a fairly nondescript mixture of piney hops and caramel malt. Not bad at all, actually.

T: Follows the nose, with extremely bitter piney hops far outweighing the moderately sweet malt backbone. This one doesn't seem to have the strength or body to stand up to the alphas, and the result is just an overwhelmingly bitter beer. I'd be loving the hop dominance if the hop varieties used showed a bit more complexity, but all I'm getting is pine and bitterness. Disappointing.

M: Flat, sticky, and medium bodied, with the occasional chunky floaty that gets caught between my teeth. Pretty terrible, I'm sorry to say.

D: This is about as close to a drainpour as I've ever had from a non-infected beer. I'll finish it since it really doesn't taste too offensive, but I'm not really enjoying it.

Notes: Wow, what a letdown. I had really high hopes for this one, but it really didn't deliver. It's been in my fridge since I bought it at Julio's a couple weeks ago, so I don't think anything terrible has happened to the bottle. I'll be happy to rereview if it ever crosses my path again, but this is most definitely a beer that I won't be seeking out in the future.

Cheers!

Photo of rudzud
2.88/5  rDev -26.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Picked up a bottle of this on a whim from Julio's. Kinda shocked at this review.

A - Poured into my duvel tulip a rich golden hue full of suspended particles. There is almost no head, just a super thin white halo.

S - Definately malt heavy. Some very light citrus hop notes but mostly malt sweetness.

T - Much like the nose, this is a malt heavy IPA, or atleast this bottle is. Sweet malts and very light bitter citrus encompasses the flavour.

M - Not a bad mouthfeel. Some light carbonation here. Still, cant help but feel this is a bit thin or watery.

O - Eh, just not impressed by this one. There are much, much MUCH better IPA's out there that wont break the bank. Not sure if this was just old or what.

Photo of beerbutcher
2.93/5  rDev -25.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

there may be something wrong with this beer (first try)
pours orange/gold with creamy tall head.

s- this ipa has the most unusual bouquet i've ever witnessed.. they say it's centennial and chinook hopped and i get the citrusy cent. stuff.. it's really pungent. but beside that or perhaps ahead of it, is an obnoxious rubbery, medicinal aroma, and not like scotch medicinal... think pills dissolved in very little water. difficult nose.

taste- incredibly biting bitterness, lays thickly across palate for being only five percent beer. very pronounced grapefruit and there it is again.. a very difficult, chemmy, rubber tube flavor... am i the only one?

mouthfeel- the beer drinks nicely. light on the palate, with a suckerpunch hop wallop. the bitterness stays on the tongue for quite a while, and lingers, and lingers.. little to no discernible malt richness.

overall- aside from the previously mentioned distractant, this beer was working hard for it's money. i'd love to try it again... just, a different batch. hard to drink this one though.

Photo of Plissken
3/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of Monkeyknife
3/5  rDev -23.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured from the bottle looking like a cloudy apple juice with a bubbly white head.

Aroma of malt and fruit with a bit of grapefruit and apples.

The taste hit me with a combination of bitterness and salt. Not good, somewhat bile-like in flavor. The bitterness hangs around between sips. Totally unexpected.

Lighter bodied and lightly carbonated.

Well, that was a shock. I love ipas and had high hopes for this one. Hopefully, I'll get a second chance someday to try it again. I finished this beer 15 minutes ago and still have the bitter bile taste in my mouth. Ugh.

Photo of BostonPhilly
3/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of JRod1969
3/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of DelicateDelirium
3/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of JKV96
3/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of GJ40
3/5  rDev -23.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Sampled from a 12oz bottle purchased at Yankee Spirits in Swansea, MA.

A - Deep golden with a haze of fine suspended particles. Almost no head. The bottle didn't have a clear best by stamp but it did have a stamp that started with 311008. I'm thinking that might be 10/31/08. I really wish everyone would include a clear date.

S - Faint floral hops and toasted malt. Not much to it.

T - Starts with toasted malt then goes bitter. I found it pretty bland and uninteresting.

M - Very low carbonation (too low) but a good consistency.

D - Not bad but not very interesting.

Photo of ahbaggins
3/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of EkimGram
3/5  rDev -23.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Appearance: 12oz bottle poured into standard pint glass. Colour is a cloudy, pale golden-wheat. Barely any head whatsoever, just some little traces on the top. No visible carbonation.

Smell: Aromas are not very strong at all. Faint amounts of sweetness and hops, a little bit of citrus.

Taste: Malty, a little too malty for an IPA. A little bit of hops, somewhat fruity and some floral notes. As the smell, the taste is inappropriate and weak.

Mouthfeel: Light-bodied, little, very little amounts of carbonation, it's actually kind of watery. Barely any bite.

Overall / Drinkability: This is my fourth review of this brewery, I must say I'm very disappointed. This isn't the worst one I've had but I can't praise this brew much in terms of an IPA.

Photo of Resuin
3/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of dubdrop
3/5  rDev -23.5%

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Leather Lips IPA from The Tap Brewing Company
88 out of 100 based on 399 ratings.