Baltika #5 Gold - Baltika Breweries

Not Rated.
Baltika #5 GoldBaltika #5 Gold

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.

163 Ratings

(view ratings)
Ratings: 163
Reviews: 103
rAvg: 2.77
pDev: 19.49%
Wants: 1
Gots: 7 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Baltika Breweries visit their website
Russian Federation

Style | ABV
Euro Pale Lager |  5.30% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 11-10-2002)
View: Beers (49) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Baltika #5 Gold Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 163 | Reviews: 103 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Sammy
2.2/5  rDev -20.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

LCBO same gift pack as the #7. A typical Euro pale. A little cheesy arom. A light yellow colour with a big soapy head. A bit thin mouthfeel. Malt sugary taste, drinkable but a whole beer is not pleasurable. Still better than your macro brew, but not by much.

Photo of UCLABrewN84
2.73/5  rDev -1.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Bottled 6/13/12. Best before 6/13/13.

Pours a slightly hazy yellow with a foamy white head that settles to a film on top of the beer. Tiny dots of lace form around the glass on the drink down. Smell is of malt and grain. Taste is much the same with a slight metallic flavor on the finish. There is a very mild bitterness on the palate with each sip. This beer has a lower level of carbonation with a slightly crisp mouthfeel. Overall, this is a pretty poor beer and I think it may have something to do with the clear bottle it comes in.

Photo of metter98
2.73/5  rDev -1.4%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.75

A: The beer is crystal clear yellow in color and has a moderate amount of visible carbonation. It poured with a thin bright white head that quickly died down, leaving some patches of bubbles covering the surface and a collar around the edge of the glass.
S: Light aromas of sweet malts are present in the nose.
T: The taste is a bit sweet and has flavors of malt extracts along with a very slight amount of bitterness.
M: It feels a bit more than light-bodied and rather smooth on the palate with a moderate amount of carbonation.
O: This beer is relatively easy to drink and surprisingly didn't have any skunked flavors, especially since it came from a clear glass bottle, although there was nothing interesting about the taste.

Photo of kjkinsey
2.75/5  rDev -0.7%

Photo of BuckeyeNation
3.4/5  rDev +22.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Simple amber, easily seen through the clear glass bottle prior to the pour. The beer is topped by an eggshell white head that is fairly tight-bubbled and lasts more than a few minutes as a result. Very little lace makes it way to the glass in the end.

It spite of the bottle (the only clear glass in the entire Baltika line as far as I know), there's no hint of skunkiness. The nose consists of mildy sweet, untoasted grain and light musky hops. It isn't a standout, but it'll do.

Like most beer from this brewery, #5 tastes better than average to me and is definitely ahead of the game when it comes to most other EPLs. I was a little disturbed to see maltose syrup as one of the ingredients, but I'll be hanged if I can tell that something other than malt, hops and yeast is present. The beer is a little sweeter than usual, so I suppose that could be one clue.

Like the appearance and the nose, Golden Lager delivers simple, straightforward, no-frills flavor. Sweetened grain balanced by a modicum of noble hops is pretty much the extent of things. Even though I've given them all identical taste scores, I don't know if I like #5 quite as much as I liked the other Baltika EPLs, #2 (brewed with rice) and #3 (no maltose syrup).

The body/mouthfeel favors medium over light, especially considering the style, and is a little lacking in the carbonation department. A lack of bubbles works here though because it gives the beer a slightly more full feel that distinguishes it from its brothers.

Baltika #5 Golden Lager is a worthy member of the brewery's lineup despite being less than outstanding beer. On those rare occasions (okay, nonexistent occasions) when I have a hankering for a Euro pale lager, I know that Pivzavod Baltika will deliver the goods more often than not.

Photo of ChainGangGuy
3.1/5  rDev +11.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

I have an itch that only Baltika can scratch! Now, mind you, these are in a can; the only way to enjoy a Baltika brew.

Appearance: Pours a yellow body with a small, fizzy, white head.

Smell: Sweet-smelling cereal nose with light floral hints. You know, the usual.

Taste: Pale maltiness with a unabashed sweetness throughout -- like liquid breakfast time cereal! Hint of cooked veggies when you drink deep, so you might want to avoid that. Very skimpy on the hops, with only a very minor bitterness present. A touch watery on the finish, with a tiny touch of grain.

Mouthfeel: Medium-thin body. Medium-high carbonation.

Drinkability: Good? Heavens no! But it's not altogether terrible for being just a simple pale lager.

Photo of zeff80
2.2/5  rDev -20.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

A - Poured out a clear, bubbly, pale gold color with a bubbly, white, two finger head of foam. It faded quickly and left very little lace.

S - It smelled of corn and caramel malt. Not much else.

T - It tasted of candy sweet caramel with a buttery-like flavor. No bitterness or hop presence at all.

M - It was crisp and sharp. A light bodied beer.

D - This is not very good. I can understand why they imported stouts from England.

Photo of Jason
3.03/5  rDev +9.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

16.9 oz clear glass bottle with a freshness date on the back of the label.

A- Crystal clear yellowish golden color, really thin lacing ... head retention lacks as well.

S- Cooked vegetables, bland dry malt aroma ... watered down grape cool-aid-like smell from some sort of malt husk.

T&M- Grape Nuts cereal, watery malt ... wet palate with a solid crispness. Plain hop bitterness with no real flavor to be found. Corn grits and cooked veggies ... finishes semi-dry.

D- Nothing horrible, but nothing good about it either other than it is a cheap lager with no flaws that offend my palate.

Photo of nickfl
2.73/5  rDev -1.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

A - Small, fizzy white head that disappears quickly and leaves little lace. The body is light yellow with good clarity.

S - A light, grainy smell along with some weak hops, otherwise clean

T - Very light, grainy flavor. The finish is clean with a little bit of bitterness.

M - High carbonation, light body, and a very dry finish.

D - This is a very light beer. Similar to an American lite beer with just a hint of hops. Not really worth the effort of prying the cap off the bottle.

Photo of russpowell
2.08/5  rDev -24.9%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Bottle#2 of the expirment..

Pours extremely (can you say urine?) yellow with a white head that drops immediately, zero lacing

Smell: Sweetness and graininess

Taste: Over the top sweetness, with slight bitterness ad frutiness on the tounge

MF: Thin and way undecarbonated, out of whack

Too damn sweet. Try this if you have the guts! Otherwise stear clear

Photo of WesWes
3.05/5  rDev +10.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

The beer pours a pale gold color with a thick frothy white head that slowly fades to lacing. The aroma is average. It has a weak pale malt scent along with a dry lager yeast aroma. It's a bit musty and bitter. The taste is average as well. It has the standard pale malt and lager yeast taste. It's light and clean on the finish; an easy drinker. The mouthfeel is decent. It is a low bodied beer with good carbonation. This is a typical golden lager, nothing special. I will probably save my money or buy something else next time.

Photo of jwc215
2.95/5  rDev +6.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Best before 10.04.08:

Pours golden yellow with a thin white head that soon disappears, with quick reappearances only upon hefty swirling.

The smell is of "Euro-skunk" - lime and sulfur - some traces of graininess.

The taste - after the "Euro-skunk" dissipates - some graininess with something corn/veggie-like (don't know if adjuncts are used - my guess is not - but - hard to tell) Some slickness and a vague hint of spicy hops. Ho-hum finish.

Mild carbonation with some semi-dryness lingering.

Not a wreck, but with enough minor flaws and irritants - and lack of anything notable - to put it in the "typical Euro Pale Lager" range.

Photo of Mora2000
3.68/5  rDev +32.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

The beer pours a golden yellow color with a white head. The aroma is pilsener malt with some grassy hops. The flavor is that of a basic lager. I get some pilsener malt, some wheat, lemons and grassy hops. This tastes like a very lightly hopped pilsener. Creamy mouthfeel and medium carbonation.

Photo of kojevergas
1.8/5  rDev -35%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Why the clear bottle? That's a classic hallmark of amateur brewmastery. FAIL. The bottle was poured into a Williams Bros pint glass in low altitude Galway, Ireland. Bottle acquired in an off-license in Ennis, Ireland.

A: Pours a four finger head, quite thin, with a bit of cream. Retention is actually quite nice. Colour is a clear yellow without any bubbles at all.

Sm: Slightly musty barley with assorted tones of light cream and maybe vanilla. A moderately light smell.

T: Blandish barley body with undertones of cream and malt. Very simple and not at all great. Poorly built. The bittering hops destroy the balane and feel unnatural.

Mf: Very wet and rather coarse, even for the style. Doesn't suit the flavours of the body.

Dr: A bland beer not worth trying unless you're an obsessive fanatic of the style. It's not particularly easy to down, being more thick than it ought to be, and the ABV isn't that high, so it's not really even a good option for getting bollocksed. Move along, lads. Get yourself a more worthy beer for less money (especially if you're here in Ireland).

Photo of wrightst
3/5  rDev +8.3%

Photo of Halcyondays
3.2/5  rDev +15.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

500 mL clear bottle from the Total Wine,

A: Pours a clear, pale yellow with a soapy white head, some lace.

S: Grainy, husky notes, brown sugar, maybe a bit of DMS and corn smell.

T: Solid malt, cereal grains, some caramel and sugar with very light hopping, not bad for the style.

M: Light-bodied, thin at times, smooth, off-dry.

D: A average lager altogether, drinkable, but nothing to rush out and buy again, quite inexpensive.

Photo of duceswild
2.5/5  rDev -9.7%

Photo of woodychandler
2.53/5  rDev -8.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

If you are reading this review and notice that it remains on my "Gots", please understand that I am the creator of The CANQuest (TM) and as such, I still desirous of getting this beer in a CAN.

I have been on a Russian kick for a couple of years now, starting with Kvass and expanding to the language, the history, the literature, the women ... Well, as to that last, I have known that the Russkies are generating some drop-dead knockouts for some time. Hell, I remember this one towering honey-honey from Kiev that I hung out with for several days in Haifa, Israel during an inport period that left everybody's tongues lolling. I called her "Svetlana" and she would have answered to anything as long as this AmeriCAN sailor's money held up. What a giantess! She was nearly twice as tall as me and we made a great pair strolling around town. Ah, yes.

An aggro pour generated just over a finger of fizzy, foamy bone-white head that lasted about as long as a career sailor's inport relationship. Bye! Color was a pale yellow with NE-plus quality clarity. I could see right through it, through the neighbor's walls, and into the future. Nose had a certain je ne sais quois - it did not smell like the usual adjunct suspects, but at the same time, it had an unpleasant underlying mustiness. Label check: Bottled 25 March 11 Best by 25 March 12, so I was in the window and it had probably been pasteurized, given its clear bottle, so what was the problem? Mouthfeel was on the thin side and it had a slightly minty flavor on the tongue along with a mild lager sweetness. This was quickly shaping up to be a whole buncha nothin'! Finish was relatively bland and I REALLY wished that I had scored another bottle of the #4, which actually was enjoyable. This was not unpleasant, but instead lacking anything that would make me want to open another.

Photo of tempest
2.75/5  rDev -0.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Picked up a 500ml can from Euromart in Astoria. It smells of pale malts with a hint of honey and adjunct. The flavor is similarly sweet with an odd vegetal spice to it. Honestly, this beer reminds me of malt liquor more than anything. I'd avoid this one. Stick to the Baltika porter.

Photo of jdhilt
3/5  rDev +8.3%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours a four finger white head that fades quickly leaving no lace. Chrystal clear light amber color. Light carbonation and light bodied. Sweet malty nose. Starts sweet, faint hint of blueberry?? almost like a light, clean finish. Very good lawnmower beer. $1.95 for a 500ml bottle from Colonial Spirits Acton, Ma.

Photo of chinchill
2.78/5  rDev +0.4%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Poured from a 16.9 oz clear bottle into a snifter.

A: a rather ordinary looking lager: Golden color; clear; largish, white soapy head. The head was surprisingly durable and capable of coating most of the glass with lacing on the way down.

Aroma: light malt and hops with hints of hay and white bread.

T: slightly sweet and floral, with low but balanced levels of hops and malt. Some corn and butter here too.

M: light and rather watery body; carbonation is good; smooth.

Overall: Despite clear glass, this sample showed no skunkiness or others signs of deterioration. It was quite drinkable but lacking in character, richness and complexity ... I.e., nothing to support a recommendation or lead me to buy it again.

Photo of tdm168
3/5  rDev +8.3%

Photo of biegaman
2.6/5  rDev -6.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

The bubbles and head both appear blatantly artificial; each bubble - and there are many - look like drifting mini magnifying glasses and once on the surface appear like a giant sack of marbles. There is not an ounce of creaminess to it whatsoever and the wide pockets of air between bubbles create something of a 'bucked tooth' characteristic. It's rare that I see a beer this brilliantly golden and actually find myself turned off by it.

I've never once found an instance where clear glass has made a beer better (sell better, well that's another thing all together). Baltika 5 is no exception - the clear glass, regardless of its lovely shape and etchings, has actually made this worse! It smells like someone vomited canned cream corn. Realistically, I can't be sure how much of that is the fault of clear glass and how much of that is the fault of the brewery.

The taste, however, should provide a clue. Let us inspect the ingredients list: water, light(!) barley malt, caramel malt, maltose syrups, hop extracts. Therefore, before even trying the beer, I know to expect something light that is made from syrups and extracts. Great. Because when you're hankering for a beer isn't that exactly what you want?

Actually, in fairness, the blatant artificiality aside yet again, the beer doesn't fare all that poorly. It's flavour is a little light on the barley (as advertised) and very heavy on the sweet syrup (as advertised), yet I can't say I find it as offensive as some other mass-produced lagers on the market. And it actually has a decent weight to it as well - I may not be enjoying what I'm drinking but at least I feel some satiation drinking it!

Almost literally, Baltika 5 is a gold brick: it's an impostor of a lager that doesn't disguise even an ounce of its adjuncts and imitation ingredients. It's only about as natural as a Twinkie and twice as corrupted as the Russian government. Curiously, like most anything you find at a fast food outlet, it's edible, even strangely agreeable, but knowing what's in it is a put off and, besides, it doesn't come close to comparing to the real thing.

Photo of rab53
2/5  rDev -27.8%

Photo of Latarnik
2.75/5  rDev -0.7%

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Baltika #5 Gold from Baltika Breweries
66 out of 100 based on 163 ratings.