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!

V-Ten - Victory Brewing Company

Not Rated.
V-TenV-Ten

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
85
very good

72 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 72
Reviews: 63
rAvg: 3.75
pDev: 23.2%
Wants: 1
Gots: 0 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Victory Brewing Company visit their website
Pennsylvania, United States

Style | ABV
Belgian Strong Dark Ale |  10.00% ABV

Availability: Limited (brewed once)

Notes/Commercial Description:
This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: NeroFiddled on 09-27-2002)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 72 | Reviews: 63 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of francisweizen
1/5  rDev -73.3%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Notes: 750ml, corked and caged bottle. bottled on september 11th of 2002. This beer was just plain nasty. It poured with a nice enough dark ruby colour and an ample head. The aromas were nice and were of various dark and light fruits, candy sugar, alcohol and yeast. The taste...was horrible. Very tart and lemony up front with no other discernable flavors. Down the drain it went. I'd love to try a good bottle of V-10 and would gladly trade for one if someone can help me out. The mouthfeel on this was astringent due to the sourness/tartness of this beer and the drinkability is non-existant.

Thanks to NeroFiddled for the free sample!
-F

Photo of OldFrothingSlosh
1.13/5  rDev -69.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Presentation: 750ml big-assed bottle. No bottlecap...it's got a cork with the fancy-shmancy wire holding it in. A whopping $8.69 at Carytown Wine & Beer. Alas, it is also from the 9/12/02 batch.

Appearance: Unfortunately, the color is the best thing about this particular batch of the V-10. It did pour a nice copper hue. Zero head despite a pretty aggressive pour.

Important note: I will skip Smell, Taste, Mouthfeel, and Drinkability with this review as this bottle was extremely nasty from the first whiff to the end of the repeated rinsing of the mouth to clear the horrid taste from my mouth. A skunked beer to rival any other.

Very frustrating for me in that it was pretty expensive and I was looking forward to trying it. Thus far, my experiences with Victory beer have been very favorable (with the exception of the All Malt, but that's just my opinion). I will still drink the others I've had that I liked (Hop Devil and Old Horizontal), but rest assured that each opening will take a cautious whiff to make sure I'm not drinking vinegar.

Photo of cbl2
1.3/5  rDev -65.3%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Appearance:

Opaque brown with a hint of orange; 1" head that is an off white which laces the glass nicely.

Smell:

Rotten fruit comes to mind.

Taste/Mouthfeel:

Funky. I had heard that the Sept 2002 bunch of 10 was messed up, and they weren't kidding. Flavors of an off fruit that is mouth puckeringly bitter. This is undrinkable.

Photo of Rastacouere
1.78/5  rDev -52.5%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

Famous November 2003 750mL: Nice orange-brown color. Thin off-white head. Off balsamic sour nose, slightly woody, not quite Flemish sour like since you can really feel that this sour yeast punch is off and that’s the annoying thing here, you can smell the acidity comes from the yeast. Straightforwardly sour, dry, vinegary and yeast infection flavours. Rather thick, moderate carbonation (you can feel this must have been pretty good). I heard they won’t brew this again? Too bad really.

Photo of kunzbrew
1.78/5  rDev -52.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1

Well I have been waiting to try this beer for about 2 months, I was waiting for the perfect time, and I figured the Daytona 500 would be perfect. This is a September 12, 2002 batch, so I am a little scared because of what everyone is saying about this batch. The beer poursed a dark amber color with a sizable head that doesn't last long at all. A lace is left behind after the head subsides. Sweet fruits pour out the top of the glass along with a hops that is hard to sense as I waft the beer to my nose. This first almost made me spit across the room with disguss. The vinegar taste along with the tartness makes me sick to my stomach. If I wanted cider vinegar I would have went to the cupboard for some. I am not impressed with this beer, my nightmares came true about getting the bad batch. I am sad that such a quality brewy put this out to the market. Maybe I will try another one in the future.

Cheers

Photo of comat0se
2.05/5  rDev -45.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

The infamous Sept 12th batch.

Appearance: copper orange, decent quarter inch head that leaves good lacing on the glass, held up to the light you can see quite a bit of yeast in suspension.

Aroma: Strong sour notes, higher alcohols, and hints of sweetness.

Taste: Initial sweetness followed by a maltiness, then overwhelming tartness, sourness, and alcohol harshness. The sourness is almost as if you're eating some sour apple or sour cherries candy. Is this a lambic or something? Makes my mouth water after swallowing it, also makes the inside of my upper lip feel "funny". Spicy alcohol notes combine with the intense sour notes, this is "Xtreme Beer." It's not entirely horrible, but very sour.

Mouthfeel: Fairly creamy at first, but sourness and alcohol attack the tongue in a one-two punch rendering the mouthfeel not so great.

Drinkability: Yeah, right. I'm taking one for the team in just finishing my glass. Not entirely a loss, but still, fairly difficult to drink.

Apparently, this beer is known to be sour, and something went wrong at the bottling stage, thus, infecting the beer.

Photo of RBorsato
2.4/5  rDev -36%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Clear ruby red color with almost no head but decent carbonation up the middle. Strong sweet candy-like malt aroma and flavor; lacking dark fruit character normally present in the style. Some Belgian yeastiness and alcohol shine thru but not nearly enough. Light-medium bodied, flat, and sickly sweet finish. A bit tart, a bit sour, a bit nasty...

Drank within 5 years as noted on label but can't imagine it any better in prior years. Drink it now or dump it !

Per Label" "Enjoy within 5 years of Bottle Date"

Per Cork: 2002 Vintage

Bottled: 09/12/02
Tasted: 06/13/07

($7.99 / 25.4 oz / 750 ml tall straight brown wine-like bottle, corked, and caged)

Photo of jophish17
2.5/5  rDev -33.3%

Photo of Darkale
2.58/5  rDev -31.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Ruby red body, as billed on the label, with a reluctant head that, surprisingly, sticks around for a while.

Spicy and yeasty aroma, not very sweet at all. Pungent and sharp.

Gritty, sour, and puckering mouthfeel. Taste is very carbonated and raspy, like harsh ginger ale. Sour fruit predominates.

This is not one of my favorites, which is too bad because Victory is one of my top 5 brewers. Too sharp and sour.

Photo of BeerBuilder
2.9/5  rDev -22.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

This brew pours to a ruby-orange color with an off-white head. The aroma is grainyand fruity. The flavor is fruity, tart, sweet and a bit astringent. It is a medium-full bodied brew, very sweet and tart. Not an easy drinking beer due to its tartness. It is a different beer; although I would not seek this one out again.

Photo of PSUDREW
2.95/5  rDev -21.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

It pours a nice deep ruby-amber color. Some head, little retention
Smells sweet and nutty at the same time. I really can't describe this in words the way I describe it in my head. The maltty sweetness in over-run by the candi-sugar sweetness (see what I mean now?). I like it, but I really can't recomend this on a daily basis. It is nice, but I could use more balance. I do recomend this, but not on a regular basis. Good try by victory, but not a home run

Photo of gloveman
3/5  rDev -20%

Photo of ZAP
3/5  rDev -20%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Nice dark amber..frothy white head...bubble gum on the nose along with tropical fruity...yeasty....the taste has a twitch of sweetness at the start but then the yeasty sourness overwhelmes...mouthfeel is tart....this is an interesting beer but I've had many better belgian style beers...at $9 a bottle I'll pass next time...after doing my rating my brother Big Hugey (who has had this before) and is sharing this bottle with me tells me this bottle is 'off"...Bottled Sept 11, 02..drank on July 30, 03

Photo of marc77
3.05/5  rDev -18.7%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Hazy deep burgundy hue covered by a thick butter white creamy head. Nutty yeast and caramelized sugar upfront in aroma, followed by pronounced unripe prune like, borderline acetic tartness. As the beer warms, vinous sweet sherry and dark raisiny caramel sweetness surface but remain secondary to tartness. Trace banana esters. Tartness continues into the flavor profile, albeit in a diminished fashion. Lightly acidic, quasi balsamic tartness is partially offset by dark caramel malt and lightly bready sweetness. Contrary to what the label suggests, fruitiness is of an unripe nature. Lightly bodied, and somewhat thin in mouthfeel. Hopped meagerly, but the inherent acidity balances residual sweetness. Finishes with an abrupt tartness. Although the tartness grew on me, overall I'm disappointed. Either this was a off bottle, or at this young stage it requires cellaring to mellow that pervasive tartness. Lacks the complexity of other dark strongs, but remains quite drinkable. Bottled 9/12/2002.

Photo of FoolCircle
3.23/5  rDev -13.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

V-10 on tap, now we're talkin'!

The V-10 arrives in a brandy-snifter style glass full to the brim. Not much head retention, but the vibrant ruby-mocha coloring is very enticing. Upon first impressions the smell was warm and alcoholic with some scotch-like undertones which were quite appealing. The taste was soothing. Very mellow yet bold at the same time. There was nothing too overwelming yet there was a harmonious elixir dancing with my tastebuds. The mouthfeel had obviously low carbonation, which for me, excentuated the scotch-like appeal of the beverage. Very smooth and warming in the mouth and all the way down. The drinkability was dangerous. Normally for a beer of this strength I would like to slow it down and enjoy it a bit, instead I was finished and wanting more within minutes! Maybe next time I should nightcap with one of these instead of begin my night with one.

Photo of RonfromJersey
3.25/5  rDev -13.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

A warm-up for tomorrow's BA gathering art Victory.

Bottled 09-12-02

Hazy orange body, with some very fine carbonation and a little sediment bobbing around. Loose off-white bubbly head settles quickly, but leaves a little nice lacing behind. Nose is fruity, with some lemons noticeable, but overall not as strong a aroma as I would have expected. Taste is a little tart, particularly in the aftertaste, but also notes of plums, raisins, and especially apples.

While this bottle is not the vinegary disaster others have noted, I think it may not have reached its maturity. Unfortunately, from what we know of the early bottles of V-10, maturity is definitely a two-edge sword. Either the beer developes deeper richer character, or it becomes undrinkable. I chose not to wonder any longer. Because of the documented flaws with the 2002 batch, I would recommend waiting for the next release of V-10, and giving it another try.

Photo of HogHill
3.4/5  rDev -9.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Bought as a single 750 for $7 bucks, this one was bottled in March '04. It was surprising to me to see such ugly packaging from Victory on this offering (purple, orange, violet and yellow ?).

Poured this one into a large chalice, deep brown body with some lighter brown highlights. A one inch head is light and slowly retreats to the walls of the glass.

The smell is very sweet, like dark candi sugar combined with a rich fruitiness.

Taste follows the aroma: sweet malts blend into some bittnerness followed by a warm alcholol finish. I'd like this better if it was V-8 instead of V-10, a little too high in ABV, or I wish it was hidden better. A medium bodied brew with an average carbonation level. One of these is enough for me, maybe I'll give it a chance down the line, as it was interesting reading the reviews on this brew from year to year.

Overall, it was okay, but not one of Victory's better offerings.

Photo of jfcaa193
3.5/5  rDev -6.7%

Photo of beernut7
3.58/5  rDev -4.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Pours a fruity light aroma hinting at Belgian yeast on top of a ruby-amber body. The first taste brings forth a very malty flavor with a tangy ester of the yeast and a bold floral spice and significant bitterness. The finish is quite drawn out and really supports the bitterness of the brew. Quite complex.

Photo of goz
3.63/5  rDev -3.2%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours ruby red, with a good layer of off-white foam that leaves a nice lacing. Large carb bubbles stick to the glass, while tiny bubbles race to join the head at the top of the glass. Aroma is sweet and fruity (ripe apples, grapes). Flavor comes in with the ripe fruitiness at the start, followed by a spicy hopped finish.

Photo of goodbyeohio
3.63/5  rDev -3.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

bottled 3/12/04, cork says 2003 vintage. who knows.

glorious ruby with slight haze in the glass.. lively with bubble traffic and covered by a thick, glistening collection of tiny soap bubbles. lacing moves fast but covers uniformly. looks tasty and crisp. great belgian smell.. dark fruits, sweet raisin paste and brown sugar delights waft gently into my nostrils. tastes very sweet.. VERY sweet.. fruit is there, but it's overripe and accented by a slightly metallic disintegrated hop character. finishes somewhat moldy although partly masked by the sugary nature. the body is very bubbly and with the weird flavors here, that works. sweetness+bubbly=asti spumante, and that's kind of what this reminds me of. despite its flaws, this has a true belgian flavor and is rather drinkable for 10%. wish it was alot neater.

i think age turned an average beer into a slightly above average beer with a laundry list of problems.

Photo of saltydog
3.68/5  rDev -1.9%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Cork dated 2002. Appearance: Amber-red color, very clear, big head when poured. Smell: very strong spices. Some malt, and fruitiness. Taste: Sweet/sour flavor. Tartness is nicely dry. The spices are also very strong and dominent. Mouthfeel is very full. Drinkability: Drinkable, but complex flavors seem not quite meshed.

Photo of t0rin0
3.75/5  rDev 0%

Photo of smithj4
3.75/5  rDev 0%

Photo of frank4sail
3.78/5  rDev +0.8%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

2002 Vintage
Rose' in color the brew also has a tan head with big round bubbles. The look of this beer is quite different. The head dissapated quickly to a constant pale sheen and lace in and on the goblet. The light ruby color is striking.Fresh abv nose is almost astringent with yeast working in your sinus area. Smooth delecate mouth. Sweet smooth floral taste. The brew for my taste needs more time in the bottle to mature and round the intense flavors. The hop presence along with the big sweet base almost confound the tongue. Still, the brew is quite drinkable already at 10% abv. Not overly sour as others have found...

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
V-Ten from Victory Brewing Company
85 out of 100 based on 72 ratings.