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!

New Holland Sundog Amber Ale - New Holland Brewing Company

Not Rated.
New Holland Sundog Amber AleNew Holland Sundog Amber Ale

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
80
good

387 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 387
Reviews: 173
rAvg: 3.5
pDev: 13.71%
Wants: 3
Gots: 29 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
New Holland Brewing Company visit their website
Michigan, United States

Style | ABV
American Amber / Red Ale |  5.25% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 11-01-2002)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 387 | Reviews: 173 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of 007dash9
1.6/5  rDev -54.3%

Photo of sullysbeer
1.75/5  rDev -50%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 1 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

Aroma: Malty Sweet with a gentle piney hop aroma. Has a phenolic aroma

Appearance: Deep golden with a reddish hue-ruby like. White head retention that falls.

Flavor: Malty flavor. Has a "band-aid-like" or medicinal flavor. Just like, literally, chewing on a band aid, nasty! Piney bitterness and is hard to pick up on any other flavors because the band aid flavor is masking them.

Mouthfeel: Medium bodied Ale

Overall Impression: This beer is obviously infected some how, however, these guys are EXCELLENT BREWERS and would continue to purchase their beers.

Phenolics are more prominent as an off-aroma, but also are imparted in the flavor of beer. It is described as medicinal, band-aid-like, smoky, clove-like, and plastic-like. Except in certain styles where small amounts are appropriate, phenols are hugely unacceptable. There are many sources of contamination:

* Chlorophenols exist in municipal water supplies and residue from chlorine-based sanitizers. They can affect beer in parts-per-billion (ppb)! Avoidance of both should be given; find a substitute water supply and avoid chlorine-based sanitizers altogether.

* Phenols extracted from malt during the mash and sparge are polyphenols, also called tannins. They interact with proteins to form chill or permanent haze. If oxidized through hot-side aeration, they create oxidized fusel alcohols. Proper sparging, and avoidance of excessive sparging can reduce the phenolic production. Also, sparge water should be low in alkalinity, and not in excess of 167°F. Likewise, extract brewers should avoid boiling grains.

* Phenols are also derived from certain yeast strains that produce aromatic alcohols. Bavarian wheat beers produce acceptable levels of phenols by creating 4-vinyl guaiacol that results in a pleasing clovelike phenolic tone under the correct conditions. Careful selection of yeast can eliminate undesired affects.

* Wild yeast contamination can harbor within plastic-based equipment, such as polyethylene fermenters and plastic hoses. These materials as soft and permeable, hence difficult to clean. Wild yeasts such as S. diatatius produce minor wort phenols that impart medicinal off-flavors. Migration to glass and stainless replacements are the best solution. Also check for defective bottle caps.

* Smoky phenols are a byproduct of smoked malts, such as in Rauchbier, and Scotch ales. Low amounts are appropriate, but excess use of malt can be overbearing.

Photo of mwbrady12
2/5  rDev -42.9%

Photo of BrewtalHonesty
2/5  rDev -42.9%

Photo of wingnutz27
2/5  rDev -42.9%

Photo of HumphreyLee
2/5  rDev -42.9%

Photo of LakersGotRings
2/5  rDev -42.9%

Photo of kushlash23
2/5  rDev -42.9%

Photo of ChainGangGuy
2.08/5  rDev -40.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Appearance: Pours a clearish amber body with a foamy white head.

Smell: Light aroma of toasted malts and equally light hops.

Taste: Caramel malts and, ugh, unfortunately what I suspect to be a little DMS (and a little DMS goes a long way).

Mouthfeel: Medium-thin. Mild carbonation.

Drinkability: Its no wonder that Sundog looks so forlorn and inconsolable.

Photo of ibashmuck
2.15/5  rDev -38.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Purchased as part of "build-your-own-six-pack" at local grocer. Poured a nice amber/orange with medium head. The smell is very light, and the taste is more or less the same. Some bitterness, but otherwise, nothing really to write about. The mouth feel was the same, nothing left over in there at all. Not bad, per se, just boring.

Photo of JCav88
2.24/5  rDev -36%

Photo of Pillowburn
2.25/5  rDev -35.7%

Photo of fellowrs
2.25/5  rDev -35.7%

Photo of mhowell
2.48/5  rDev -29.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Nice amber color. Came out with a thick beige head and held it. Carbonated as hell. Decent body, but had a dry, metallic, bitter aftertaste that killed it for me. As it warms up from 55°, the aftertaste is diminishing, a little. I am having a hard time finishing this one. My first beer of '05. Hope the year gets better.

Photo of MillRat
2.5/5  rDev -28.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

This beer pours with a nice coppery color, similar to a Marzen. A thin just off-white head fades fast. The aroma is pretty powerfully hoppy, mainly citrusy american hops, and good biscuity malts, too. The flavor lives up to the aroma's promise, but then throws a lot of cloying sweetness in that the toastier malt flavors and hop bitterness fail to balance. This creates a heavy mouthfeel that loiters, rather than just lingers. I was done with this beer flavor-wise before I was done with the bottle. A significant reduction in the heavy. sweet body would go long way to making this a more enjoyable brew.

Even though the BJCP style guidlines are merely guidelines, they do manage to define some palatable beers. I have doubts that this beer comes near the 1.010 to 1.015 FG that BJCP recommends for American Amber Ale, and it is the worse off for it.

Photo of TheBigBoy
2.5/5  rDev -28.6%

Photo of Ford1873
2.5/5  rDev -28.6%

Photo of jimelee108
2.5/5  rDev -28.6%

Photo of jackndan
2.63/5  rDev -24.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Sundog Amber: Brownish colored beer with a very nice head and nice lacing. My notes indicate that this was, of all things, a tea flavored beer. Think liptons iced tea, and you’re getting warmer. This “beer” had a flat uninspiring taste, not much going on here. Not so good.

Photo of cabsandking
2.63/5  rDev -24.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Pours a nice orange color with quite a bit of floaties and a very thin white lace. Aromas are scant; bitter hops, mild fruity malt, and some florals. Flavor is on the hoppier side with notes that are bitter, dry and some lemon, grass towards the end. Roasted grains, bisquity notes for balance but really lacking in depth. Medium body, descent mouthfeel with a good creamy carbonation. Dry, sugary, light graininess, and a touch of pine in the finish.

Photo of Jpatrix
2.68/5  rDev -23.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Sampled at brewery.
A = A nice looking amber but light in color. Small head with quick disapperaing head.
S = A light smokey flavor but not overly impressive.
T = Not bad but a bit thin.
MF = Thin on flavor and a bit "bitey"
OA = Not overly impressed but not that bad.

Photo of BogAl
2.75/5  rDev -21.4%

Photo of cnbrown313
2.75/5  rDev -21.4%

Photo of leadahmer
2.75/5  rDev -21.4%

Photo of olivermonster
2.75/5  rDev -21.4%

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
New Holland Sundog Amber Ale from New Holland Brewing Company
80 out of 100 based on 387 ratings.