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!

Tripel - Southern Tier Brewing Company

Not Rated.
TripelTripel

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
78
okay

198 Ratings
THE BROS
77
okay

(view ratings)
Ratings: 198
Reviews: 189
rAvg: 3.39
pDev: 14.45%
Wants: 2
Gots: 1 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Southern Tier Brewing Company visit their website
New York, United States

Style | ABV
Tripel |  9.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

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

No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: John on 11-14-2004)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Tripel Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 198 | Reviews: 189 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Vendetta
1.85/5  rDev -45.4%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Original Rating Date:
September 26, 2008

On the pour a great aroma flows from the bottle and floods the room. Fabulous, fruity, bready, almost hefeweizen nose. Great stuff. Pour is equally good, up there with the best tripels. Nice and light golden hue with a thick, THICK head that leaves solid lacing down the glass. Unfortunately, the flavor fails miserably in comparison to the actual beer. Tinny, metallic taste with very little of the fruity maltiness it advertises. It's shooting for a bit of hoppiness, but it blends awfully with the tripel brew and comes off as a completely failed mixture. Bad steely aftertaste much like the taste itself that stays in the mouth for a looong time. Not a good effort here for Southern Tier... steer clear of this one. Yuck.

Vendetta, Dec 14, 2008
Photo of MattBrooks
2.1/5  rDev -38.1%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I'm going through these one at a time as they were given to me in a mix pack. This is the second one I've tried, the first being IPA. I was very excited about trying this brew, as I do not know too many breweries that make a Tripel available in a six pack.

Now I know why.

It poured a golden amber color with a halfway decent head and medium level cascade. And that's where the good stuff ends. Not much in the flavor department, from the first sip all the way to the boring, bland finish. It was thin and a little watery, too. I certainly expected more from this beer, perhaps I can convince myself to try it again sometime, but I won't be in a rush to get it. Oh well.

MattBrooks, Jan 19, 2006
Photo of asabreed
2.13/5  rDev -37.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Bomber into a Corsendonk tulip.

Appearance: Oddly enough this gets a bit less volatile and dense as it warms, but it leaves decent rings around the glass, soapy and clumpy white, and billows up nicely initially and slows slowly, but like I said, as it warms it becomes less attentive in those fields, which usually is the case when it's colder. All atop a nice golden yellow body with nice streams of carbonation surging within the glass.

Smell: Too big of an alcohol burn, even in the nose, as it warms, with unbalanced out of whack sweetness and no way, in my opinion, to really tell this is a tripel. No hints of yeast or esters, maybe mild candi sugar, and that's about it. Not much fruit. Very weak and disappointing. How are the hops dominating the finish? Or is this just unbalanced and odd bitterness?

Taste: This is barely making the average rating for me, as there's not much to discern. Candi sugar and malt flavors dominate, with not much sense of yeast or esters, mild citrus from the hops, and a finish of mild herbal hops, malts, and candi sugar. A domestic to be certain, but I wish I had paid a lot less if I knew it was going to be like this.

Mouthfeel: Full-bodied, too sticky and cloying, and not enough carbonation.

Drinkability: Wow. A huge, beyond huge disappointment. I don't even think I'd have been able to tell this was the style if I was blindfolded, and that's a bad thing. Beyond a poor domestic rendition, and this should be a beer that they nix for the future. I still want to try more Southern Tier brews, but man, this one's just plain not worth it by all accounts, and it's not getting me psyched to fork over the cash for more, no matter how high the rating might be, and no matter how much I like the style. I want my money back.

asabreed, Jul 02, 2008
Photo of MmmIPA
2.15/5  rDev -36.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Very hazy peachy golden head with a ring around the top of the glass.Little bit of bubbles coming from the bottem of the glass.

Fruity nose

Taste isnt what I expected.I thought I would taste belgian yeast flavor but its not there.The taste to me is blah! Its a bit harsh.

Mouthful is good and is easy going down.

I was really excited to try this beer but it falls flat on its face.Im putting 1 away in my celler and we will see what happens.I dont think I will be trying this stuff again for a while.

02/18/07 as the beer warms up the flavors really start to shine and it becomes very tasty more then when it was colder.

03/30/07 I didnt pour the yeast into the glass this time and it really taste alot different then with the yeast.It has a fruity taste with no head what so ever and the body is very clear.I must say that it taste better without the yeast in it,there is even a hop taste in it.I will make sure to decant my tripels and bottle conditioned beers from now on.

07/19/07 Burnt orange,clear body with a small rim of head around the glass.The smell is very fresh with some fresh fruit in the nose.It could be the hops.I didnt drink this too cold,maybe around 60 degrees,it doesnt taste as good as the last time I sampled it.There is a certain taste to it now that leads me to believe that the beer is starting to go downhill.It is still tasty none the less.I can smell the booze in it and it sorda burns my throat.I know the temp. I had this at was too warm but I rushed it and wanted to try it.I think I also smell some bubble gum and taste a bit of tabacco.There was a "Psit" sound when I cracked the bottle but the mouthful seems kinda flat.I had the last glass with the yeast in it and it taste better now,what gives... the last time i had this it was better without the yeast.I would say drink them up now.I have 2 bottles left.

10-9-07

My last bottle of this stuff and im sad to see it go.

Pours a small white head that fell fast and a orange/gold body that is very clear.

Booze,bubble gum and fruit in the nose.

The booze is pretty well hidden in this bottle and there isnt much of a taste now.Its a very sweet taste.

The mouthfeel is very pleasent.This is a pleasent beer in general.I wish I had more of this batch.

Drink em up.

MmmIPA, Feb 11, 2007
Photo of BeerImmediately
2.17/5  rDev -36%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

22oz bomber into Duvel tulip glass.

Copper orange color with virtually no head, and no retention. Obvious carbonation present.

The aroma knocked me sideways. Some orange peel and coriander layered on a king-size bed of barley and strong alcohol. Reminded me a LOT of a barleywine style ale, not a tripel.

Some ripe citrus finally comes through in the flavor. Candied sugar is heavy, but doesn't quite do the trick in balancing the bitter qualities.

Thick on the mouthfeel, with lingering barley bitterness on sides of tongue for a long while afterwards.

I've had a few of these in recent weeks, and the drinkability - IMO - is simply not there ... Since I really like Southern Tier's other offerings, I was hoping I might get used to it over time, but unfortunately I have not.

BeerImmediately, Feb 23, 2008
Photo of Gmann
2.23/5  rDev -34.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Pours a bright hazy pale golden orange color with a small dense head that dissipated fairly quickly and left a ring around the glass. The smell is of candied apricots and curacao. The candied apricot is quite overpowering. The taste is extremely sweet and cloying. The candied fruit, curacao, and slight orange peel dominate the flavor profile, perhaps a very light hint of hops thrown in somewhere in the middle. Weak Belgian yeast flavor and little hop/malt presense can't bring this tripel down to earth. The feel is light and moderately carbonated and finishes sweet and slick. Talk about one sided sugar bombs and it has some odd flavors to boot. I'm having a difficult time finishing this one. Southern Tier's Heavy Weizen reminds me more of a tripel than this does.

Gmann, Nov 18, 2007
Photo of dmamiano
2.25/5  rDev -33.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Pours a nice, clear gold...almost orangish in color.
Good creamy head and lacing as well.
Smelled of mild, sweet fruity malts. A bit candy like.
Taste was very mild for its style. Weak in both taste and mouthfeel.
One of the poorest examples of a tripel I have sampled to date.

dmamiano, Nov 04, 2007
Photo of aforbes10
2.28/5  rDev -32.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Orange colored and strawlike with a short white head. nice lacing. looks more like a wit than a tripel. Orange and alcohol filled noce. In fact, VERY orangey, surprizingly so. Not what i was expecting. Taste is tart, tangy orange, and mildly spiced. A little haphazard in its presentation...more like an imperial wit than a tripel, imo, and not a particularly good one either. Thin. Reasonably strange for a tripel, or for anything actually. Not a winner for ST.

aforbes10, Dec 30, 2007
Photo of dwilkins
2.33/5  rDev -31.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

A - Color is right on for the style (orangish gold)

S - Very little aroma and not quite the right notes for a Tripel. Maybe faint citrus.

T - Sweet, Malty. No hint of sour or bitterness. Other than the malt, it didn't have much flavor at all.

M - Thick, syrupy feel.

D - Actually, it's pretty drinkable, but it's more like a double except in color. If you're looking for a good American triple, this isn't it, but if you like doubles, you'll probably be happy. This beer would get a better rating as a "pale double"

dwilkins, Oct 06, 2007
Photo of beerneeder
2.4/5  rDev -29.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

I must say I do love Belgian style triples. La Fin du Monde, Chimay Cinq Cents, Westmalle, Corsendonk Pale, etc. However I did not feel as thought this beer delivered as a triple. For me, initially the aromatics and flavor profile I picked up was that of the astringency of Tea, better yet green tea. I know that may be absurd to some, but that is what I got up front. I did not even drink the entire contents of the bottle. The overall flavor caught me off guard. No sweetness, not much in the way of citrus, overall very flat and tea like. I may try another to see if it was just me, but we'll see. Not very effervescent, a well. Not impressed. As a side not I do love Southern Tier Imperial Oatmeal Stout. This is not a slam to the company, just to this interpretive style.

beerneeder, Nov 10, 2008
Photo of krberg
2.42/5  rDev -28.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Orange with a very thin, rapidly disappearing white head. Crystal clear. I like my tripels yeasty with huge heads. I'm worried.

Citrusy and bready. No hops. Not much aroma. I'm very worried.

Nice maltiness with a slighty sweet twinge. Pretty boring really, but not offensive. Its the damn filtering! Give me yeast character! There is a solid backbone for it. Why must ST filter every beer? Alcohol is well hidden though.

The mouthfeel is OK, but it needs more CO2.

Goes down well. Not a great beer, but its clean and refreshing. If it wasn't for the alcohol this would be a decent, boring lawnmower beer.

I have two words for Southern Tier: bottle-conditioning! It would take this blah beer and really transform it into a solid American tripel. Would probably do great things for their IPA too. And their porter...

krberg, May 18, 2005
Photo of jfcaa193
2.5/5  rDev -26.3%

jfcaa193, Feb 02, 2012
Photo of Fugazme
2.58/5  rDev -23.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Quite good clarity on the pour... 1/4" bright white head... gold in color.

Aroma is strong, but not in a typical tripel style (at least to my nose). Some big caramel notes... some bourbon?!? Alcohol for sure on the whiff. Not much for fruitiness.

Mouthfeel is creamy and nice... quite nice.

Flavor is... well... is this a tripel? Some hints of bitterness and balance, but not at all what I was expecting. Sugary sweet at times... a touch bitter in the middle... confusing to say the least.
A little bit of ripe peach after a bit.

Not something I would visit again... especially not for near $7 for
22 ounces.

Fugazme, Jul 09, 2007
Photo of RedChrome
2.58/5  rDev -23.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

The lead up to this beer was a lot better then the actual flavor. It poured a fantastic dark amber color with a nice head. I was hoping that this was definitly as good as it looked.

The first aroma I picked up was a very mild white grape odor, which was followed up by a nice melody of other fruits. The most notable minor fruit was peach.

Unfortunatly, the flavor had too much of an alcohol remnent in contrast to the other flavors. I found it hard to appreciate any flavor because I was too distracted trying not to think of this as a flavored grain alcohol.

I am sure there are others who won't notice or taste the alcohol flavors I did, and they may like this beer more then I did.

RedChrome, May 07, 2006
Photo of JohnQVegas
2.58/5  rDev -23.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Draft at the Southern Tier Brewpub (The Empty Pint).

Pours a slightly hazy dark gold with a white head.

Aroma is light, a bit sweet with a faint floral hop note, not very spicy or fruity.

Taste is biscuity malt up front, hint of caramel, with a big, grassy, floral, earthy hop presence that lingers on the palate. Yeast is extremely subdued for the style, seemingly replaced by the big hop presence. Also missing is any candy sweetness or ripe fruit note. Very odd to call this a tripel.

Mouthfeel is odd too, low carbonation, but not in a satisfying way - it just isn't there. Medium-full bodied, and kind of sticky.

JohnQVegas, Jan 31, 2009
Photo of Hagbard
2.68/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pulled from Southern Tier's variety pack, which says it is the only place to find the Tripel. It pours a pale gold with thousands of tiny carbonation bubbles that are evident due to the clarity achieved with a no yeast pour. A very small white head forms and fades fast. There isn't a lot say about the aroma, it's malty with a touch of spice. The taste doesn't seem much like a Tripel. It starts with a strong malt base with just a touch of Belgian spiciness. I don't pick up any real fruitiness. It finishes with a combination of alcohol and metal. The final coup de grace is a chalkiness that coats the tongue. This beer is very dry with a bit of carbonation. I guess it's drinakble, but not interesting enough to warrant repeat looks past what's in the 12 pack. There isn't really anything bad about this beer, it's just not very interesting and doesn't stack up to other Tripels.

Hagbard, Feb 17, 2006
Photo of Slynger
2.68/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Bright clear orange-maize in color, with a fuzzy white head that does not rise to the heights of belgian standards.

Orchard fruits occupy the bulk of a nose that does not stand out. Overtones of alcohol and grainy, yeasty spice hang in the back, but make their presence felt.

Sweetness up front, but raw, bitter grains and spiciness quickly take a strong hold. Tons of sweet pale malts with alcohol laden pineapple and bananas around the edges. Earthy black pepper spice, raw grains, and not quite Belgian yeast all provide one of the worst tripel's I have every tried.

ST just hasn't been doing it for me. Call me crazy but all of their heavy hitter's that I've tried could use about a decade to mellow out. Still, sigh, more left to try and I'm thinking Chocolat will be the one to blow my wheels off.

Slynger, Mar 21, 2008
Photo of Vancer
2.68/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured this one into a snifter, clear amber with a wimpy white head - no lace to speak of.

A real bummer on the quaff - this is no more than an average American pale ale. No real fruit, Belgium yeast or candy cane. Just a floppy pale ale, has a crisp finish, but that's not really right for a tripel either. Booze is well hidden, but so what?

Really disappointed in Southern Tier with this one, this can and should do better

Vancer, Aug 15, 2008
Photo of KickInTheChalice
2.68/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Poured from a 22 oz bottle into a goblet.

Appearance: Pours a golden, copper color with a small head, most of which dissipates, leaving a small amount of lacing. There is some cloudiness from the yeast that settles toward the bottom.

Smell: There is an appealing aroma of light caramel malt, some crisp fruit and a fair amount of bready notes. As it warms, a heavy alcohol smell is more apparent.

Taste: I get a sense of a very light caramel malt at the beginning of the sip, but this is overwhelmed quickly by the strong alcohol taste, which is neither subtle nor appealing. Strong biscuity taste throughout. The somewhat citrusy hops finish out the end of the beer. Unfortunately, the hops clearly overpower the weak malt. There is a complete lack of transition and balance between the tastes, which is surprising considering it is a tripel.

Mouthfeel: There is a very coarse feel to this beer. The yeast adds a very bready feel.

Drinkability: With the noticeably strong alcohol content and lack of smoothness, this is not a beer I particularly enjoyed, nor did I find it very drinkable.

The bottle recommends serving at 42 degrees; such a cool temperature may be necessary given the lack of smoothness and high alcohol content. I did not think this was a terrible beer overall, but there is no comparison between this and some of the great tripels out there.

KickInTheChalice, Dec 17, 2008
Photo of twiggamortis420
2.73/5  rDev -19.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Pours a mostly clear dark golden color with a nice, fat cream colored head. Pretty average retention, but really nice lacing.

Smell reminds me of cola. Sweetly malty - only slightly grainy, much less so than most tripels. Not much hops either. This is not a good smelling example of the style.

Flavor is not quite right, as the malts are a bit cardboardy the hops are rough and too prevalent. Not very complex and does not show much yeasty esters, which is essential for a good tripel. Severe lack of Belgian feel to this beer. I would seriously lighten the body up on this beer, lower the hops and ferment at a higher temperature with a different yeast. I will not buy this beer again, The other two ST beers I have had were much better.

twiggamortis420, Jul 18, 2009
Photo of Rudgers73
2.73/5  rDev -19.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Bought a 22 oz bomber of this stuff. It pours a slightly cloudy pale yellowish-orange with a nice Belgian looking head. The smell is very similar to a tripel right out of Belgium. Overall this beer is pretty decent, but it just doesn't have that smoothness and complexity that a real Belgian has. The alcohol is very apparent, the bubbles make it a little rough and dry. Wonder if you could age this??

Rudgers73, Jan 01, 2007
Photo of LarryKemp
2.75/5  rDev -18.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This tripel poured a cloudy golden with an anemic head that disappeared all too quickly.

The araoma was muted. The fruity esters were present - maybe a little citrus mixed with the hint of sweetness like banana. No phenols whatsoever.

The taste is exclusively hop bitterness, but even that is not strong. After several aggressive swallows, I think I detect a little malt sweetness, but not really anything I can fully identify.

The mouthfeel is medium light with a little tingle on the roof of my mouth.

I suspect that I got a bad beer. It was not flat and it did not have off aromas or tastes. There just wasn't much of anything. If I get another chance I would try it again, but until then . . .

LarryKemp, Jan 26, 2005
Photo of Onceeven
2.8/5  rDev -17.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Bought one of their variety 12 packs so I could get my hands on this brew.

Appearance: Pours a clear copper color, with surprisingly little carbonation. No billowy white head here. Bummer. Literally one bubble rising up at a time. Wierd.

Smell: Nothing too exceptional here. Catching a faint whiff of a Belgian style yeast, but it certainly doesn't knock you over like some other beers. Little to no hop aroma, instead some pale malt finds its way to my nose. Alcohol aroma is masked quite well. Not impressed, and a little surprised. Will the mediocrity continue?

Mouthfeel: The beer dances on the tongue for a second, with a faint tingle, then fades. Beer feels light and airy, par for the course for the other tripels I've had.

Taste: Mediocrity in full force here. No wonder they only offer this in the variety pack. Generic yeast flavor, reminds me of making pizza dough from scratch. Alcohol comes out taking over the aftertaste. Nothing to write home about.

Drinkability: Well I've got two more of these to go through, luckily my buddy will want to try one of 'em.

Not what I expected from what I consider one of the best breweries in NY. On the plus side, I've got their IPA and Porter sitting in the fridge too.

Onceeven, Nov 03, 2005
Photo of deanhead
2.83/5  rDev -16.5%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Light colored, highly effervescent beer.
Aroma has a hint of flowery essence, but othr then that no nose to speak of.
Taste is dry, yet has some sweet candy-like notes. somewhat biscuity, with some solventy characteristics. Slighty DMS taste.

Very light bodied beer.
Drinkability. This tripel is'nt for me. I'm not to crazy about this beer.

deanhead, Oct 07, 2008
Photo of mmmbeer
2.88/5  rDev -15%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

12 oz. bottle with no freshness date. This is a dark gold brew, nearly clear, with lightish carbonation and a finger of white head that leaves little lace. It's decent looking, but not very inviting, especially for a tripel. Smells caramelly, with apricot, light earth and hops, honey?, and perhaps some pilsner malt, becoming nice and aromatic as it warms. It tastes of crystal malts, orange, apricot, green/spicy hops, and a mild bitterness. In addition, there are sharp, almost harsh phenolic flavors, with prevalent alcohol, and too much sweetness for a tripel. It is a bit dry, with medium carbonation, and it leaves a pretty decent finish. I had a hard time with this review - it's not that bad of a brew, and it's fairly tasty (it would go very well with food), but it is in no way a tripel. It seems more like a bière de garde, and if labeled as such I would have given it a much better score. Give it a go, but I wasn't floored by it.

mmmbeer, Mar 11, 2009
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Tripel from Southern Tier Brewing Company
78 out of 100 based on 198 ratings.