Brick Waterloo Amber - Brick Brewing Co.

Not Rated.
Brick Waterloo AmberBrick Waterloo Amber

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
72
okay

53 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 53
Reviews: 24
rAvg: 3.03
pDev: 20.79%
Wants: 1
Gots: 3 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Brick Brewing Co. visit their website
Ontario, Canada

Style | ABV
American Amber / Red Lager |  6.80% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: pootz on 09-12-2011)
View: Beers (35) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 53 | Reviews: 24 | Display Reviews Only:
Reviews by cratez:
Photo of cratez
3/5  rDev -1%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

473ml can shared with MrManning. Pours amber orange in colour with a thin off-white cap and generous spotted lacing on the tulip. Bizarre nose of cooked veggies, slight caramel, creamed corn, hint of oak barrel, seaweed, smoke, and faint floral hops. Taste is malty-sweet caramel, mild woodiness, weedy hops, limp spiciness transitions to a vanishing aftertaste. No bitterness to be found here, and aside from adding some VERY subtle spicy-woody notes, the rye and whiskey malts are barely detectable. Mouthfeel is light-bodied, almost watery, quick flash of spice, long drying finish borders on chalky. Overall, Waterloo Amber is drinkable enough, but it lacks the bold flavours and character that I expect from a strong amber lager. Unfortunately this is just as undistinguished as Brick's other offerings, and I won't be purchasing again.

More User Reviews:
Photo of beerhunter13
2.5/5  rDev -17.5%

Photo of R_Kole
4.5/5  rDev +48.5%

Photo of JohnnyBarman
3.35/5  rDev +10.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

473mL can from a mixed sampler pack from the brewery's beer store. No longer called "Brick Amber", it's now labelled as "Waterloo Authentic Amber" due to the brewery's ongoing efforts to distance themselves from the "Brick" name (although the distinctive hogs head remains in the brewery's logo)

Poured into a nonic. Light caramel amber, pour yields a hefty bit of froth, which settles into a thick ring.

Nose is citrus, sweet caramel, a bit of bread perhaps. Very faint.

Very sweet, borderline cloying. This is a simple amber ale, with only the faintest hint of woodsy or pine flavor that the pack label refers to. A touch of vanilla. Malt isn't bad. Mercifully, the finish is somewhat tart, and there is a bit of booze punch there as well. Heavier than your standard amber ale, carbonation is vigorous. Slightly oily.

Not bad, certainly drinkable, but not one I'm likely to seek out again.

Photo of biboergosum
2.3/5  rDev -24.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

473ml can. The first, I believe, for this brewer in Alberta.

This beer pours a clear, pale golden amber hue (whiskey colour, eh? What the hell kind of whisk(e)y do you guys drink?), with three fat fingers of puffy, foamy off-white head, which leaves some high-flying striated lace around the glass as it slowly sinks away.

It smells fairly sour at first, hard to discern the origin, as neither the hops nor malt proffer outright culpability. Soon enough, it's made clear that the hops are more or less inert, and the malt is of the corny, grainy macro bent, and the extra booze just fuels the fire. The taste is, well the taste is a big 'ol smack to one's better senses of glycerol evil. Gah. Metallic alcohol, corn mash, overripe apple, and spineless earthy hops. Urg.

The carbonation is average, a prick here, a prick there, you get the idea, the body a seriously clammy medium weight, and too pithy to reliably discuss smoothness. It finishes sweet, but not in any good way - boozy, edgy, and tongue scraping.

Wow - the lengthy description on the can led me to briefly believe a whole shitload of fairy tales - especially the one about this being aged in oak, though they don't actually mention barrels, so, who the fuck knows. This is really quite easy to pigeonhole (it's doubtful I got an off-can) - a gussied-up malt liquor, nothing more.

Photo of heebes
3.33/5  rDev +9.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Pours a clear light golden with ample foamy light tan head. Nose is earthy, oak, candied fruit, spices, plenty of malt and whiskey auromas with a decent crystal malt amber base. Taste follows suit with lots of amber malt, spices and oak. Mouthfeel is medium bodied.
Overall, achieves what is sets out to do. High abv content limits consumption. Not overly impressed by this one, picked it up because of it's spiffy new design and can, listed as part of a seasonal collection.

Photo of Phyl21ca
1.75/5  rDev -42.2%

Can: Poured a clear light brown color ale with medium size foamy head with OK retention and minimal lacing. Aroma of unrefined grainy malt notes is not very pleasant. Taste is also dominated by unrefined granny notes with light dry hops notes barely noticeable. Body is light with OK carbonation. Quite bad with low drinkability level.

Photo of ThinkAgain
3.5/5  rDev +15.5%

Photo of smakawhat
2.84/5  rDev -6.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Poured from the can into a tulip pint glass.

A nice copper dark orange body, slightly cloudy but mostly clear, with a thick faint tan head that makes about three fingers tall presence. Kind of soapy, with some ring like lacing on the glass. Pretty decent looking.

One whiff on the nose and there is a ton of white sugar sensations. Real candy like smelling as well and syrupy, and some alcohol heat. Not much else here going on but nothing too offensive either.

Palate is just too noticeably sweet. Mouthfeel is a bit wet, but there's mostly just a flavor of sugared water. More of the candy like character comes through, with a big simple syrup light coating. Boozy. Some slight fussel like characters as well. Lots of sweet apple and sugar pie character with no depth.

Overall where's the malt? This comes off more like an amber sugary malt liquor than anything else.

Photo of WillAndSarah
3.5/5  rDev +15.5%

Photo of Mlkluther
2/5  rDev -34%

Can. Pours amber with a thick head. Fruity nose with a metallic note. Lots of carbonation. Taste follows the nose. Not a pleasant beer.

Photo of CurtisD
2.75/5  rDev -9.2%

Photo of DamageCase76
2.75/5  rDev -9.2%

Photo of spinrsx
3.45/5  rDev +13.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

473ml Can

Appearance – Clear copper colour with an average size fizzy off-white/light beige coloured head. There is an average amount of carbonation visible and there is a fairly good amount of lacing. The head lasted for around 7 minutes before it was gone.

Smell - Malts, toffee, grains

Taste & Mouth - The beer has an average amount of carbonation and I can taste malts, caramel+toffee, and some light hops. There is also a bit of an adjunct taste.. corn etc. It ends with a malty/toffee sweet aftertaste with a tiny bit of lingering hop bitterness.

Overall – An above average beer that wasn't a waste of money. There are some good flavours going on, but I was a little bit disappointed by some of it's adjunct qualities. The alcohol seemed well hidden and it has a decent appearance. Not something I'd buy again though.

Photo of RedAleMan
3.25/5  rDev +7.3%

Photo of liamt07
2.75/5  rDev -9.2%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Can from the LCBO, 473ml into a tulip. Date code is H1911, presumably August 19, 2011.

Hazy and slightly brownish orange, billowing offwhite head and a ton of carbonation. Sticky webbed lacing and decent retention. Nose is off, bready and lightly toasty. A touch of caramel but there's some prevalent mustiness, straw, dirty socks and dirty stagnant water feel to it. Off-putting. Taste is a bit of a step up, but metal, oxidized apple, caramel breadiness and an out-of-place bitterness come together to make this not the most pleasant experience. Quite sweet finish. Medium carbonation and a medium-sized body as well. Wouldn't revisit this one, couldn't make it through the can. Pass.

Photo of thehyperduck
2.6/5  rDev -14.2%
look: 4 | smell: 1.75 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3

473 mL can picked up at the LCBO. I reviewed this shortly after it came out, and gave it a grade of 3.78 at the time. I later learned that the original canned version was actually barrel-aged, which is apparently no longer the case. I've had this a few times since that original review, and was shocked at the drop in quality - so I'm just going to delete that one and re-review this.

One thing I will say - this still looks pretty damn good in the glass. It's a bright, clear orange-amber colour, with a big, creamy off-white head that wilts away over a period of minutes, coating the glass with plenty of lacing. The smell, on the other hand, is pretty terrible. Garbage water is the first thing that comes to mind - kind of rusty, with some sweet undertones of fermenting vegetable matter. I assure you I am not exaggerating for comedic effect, this is what the beer's aroma reminds me of. I can't even pick out any caramel, and from previous experience I already know that caramel makes up >75% of the flavour.

I can't even believe this is the same beer I tasted a few years ago. There's nothing offensive about the flavour, but it is utterly one-dimensional and completely uninteresting - caramel malt sweetness, toasted grains, earthy wood and more than enough booze to remind you of the relatively sturdy abv. The aftertaste isn't quite hot, but the ethanol doesn't exactly slink into the background, either - regardless, it's cloyingly sweet and a little syrupy. On the light side of medium-bodied, and slightly creamy. Not very drinkable - kind of a chore, really. If I weren't so cheap, I'd consider a drain pour.

Final Grade: 2.6, a dismal C-. Waterloo Amber is merely a shadow of its original incarnation. At the time I compared it to Innis & Gunn (which is nothing spectacular, but still a serviceable basic barrel-aged ale), but now it seems more like a shallow knock-off than a serious contender. If I get this again, it will only be because of the relatively good price-to-abv ratio - I mean, it beats the hell out of malt liquor.

Photo of 500MLperWeek
2/5  rDev -34%

Photo of carteravebrew
3/5  rDev -1%

Photo of cfalovo97
3/5  rDev -1%

Photo of Hoppy_McGee
3.25/5  rDev +7.3%

Photo of Watershed
3.81/5  rDev +25.7%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3.75

This is one misunderstood beer. Pours whisky-gold from a 473mL can, leaving a full cm of foamy off-white head. The aroma is caramel and liquor -- the latter of which might be off-putting to some, but I find it pretty appealing, especially knowing that this beer uses five malts and is aged in white oak, so the sweetness comes from carefully chosen ingredients rather than adjuncts. Still, caramel is dominant, and so the smell could be criticized as 'one-dimensional.'

The taste is where I disagree with many previous reviewers here. This tastes like a combination of a malty Märzen (which is what this beer was originally marketed as) with some of the whiskeyish aspect of the original Innis & Gunn, and it's pretty delicious: malty and creamy, with a hint of herbal hops and a not unsatisfying liquor burn. Those who enjoy a nice sipping rum or bourbon on occasion might find themselves more inclined to enjoy this.

Overall, this is an utterly unique beer in the Ontario market, and in my opinion not at all the alcoholic swill that it's often cast as. This is a good example of a beer (and, in Märzen, a style) that has really suffered from the three-track-mind, hop-or-weiss-or-stout-obsessed craft beer movement in Ontario. Try this with an open mind, thinking of it as a strong, five-malt Märzen, and you shouldn't be disappointed.

Photo of bryehn
2.03/5  rDev -33%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Pours a hazy, golden-amber colour with a large, soapy white head that burns off quickly without leaving much lace and settles as a thin collar and film.

Wet grains/grasses, booze, fruit juice, sweet malts, corn syrup. Reminds me of smelling an empty day old can.

Earthy, boozy taste. Burnt grains. Overly sweet with no real body to back it up. Finish is syrupy and dirty.

Mouthfeel is way too thin, just nothing here to contrast the cloying taste. Carbonation is moderate to high. Aftertaste is again syrupy, with an astringent, plastic-like tone.

Found it hard to even get through one, I have no reason to ever try this again.

Photo of DenisKolkin
2.63/5  rDev -13.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

473 ml can from LCBO for $2.50 CDN poured cold into a pint glass.

Appearance - Dirty copper color with some red hues. transparent except some active bubble activity. Solid 1 finger of white head that lingers for a bit and leaves some decent lacing.

Smell - Took repeated whiffs for me to get much of anything and there was still nothing here really except for a faint grassiness and a touch of lemon zest. Really bland and basic smelling. Fortunately nothing offensive.

Taste - Like the nose, there's not much, a bit of the alcohol flavor comes through but otherwise a slight caramel sweetness. Not a refreshing taste either. Again inoffensive, just nothing really good either.

Mouthfeel - High carbonation, slightly dry aftertaste and finish. Devoid of any lingering tastes.

Overall - Pretty mediocre. Decent way to get a buzz on from the higher ABV, but with virtually no flavor or smell, this wasn't a positive experience either.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Brick Waterloo Amber from Brick Brewing Co.
72 out of 100 based on 53 ratings.